FAQ |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rick Norris' new anti-KJBO booklet
Around the time I was completing the “Glistering Truths” monograph (www.bibleprotector.com/glistering_truths.pdf), I came across a booklet by Rick Norris called “KJV-only Myths about Archaic Words in the KJV”. (Norris has made some comments on “Glistering Truths”, or rather, asked some rhetorical questions. Of course, his questions are easy to disarm, but would throw the unwary off balance. I thought I would address some of his ideas and statements, and his accusations disguised as questions.)
Rick Norris’ booklet: http://www.lulu.com/content/paperbac...-words/2175450 For further reading of my view: www.bibleprotector.com/trumpet.pdf I want to take the opportunity to dissect Norris’ work, as a kind of review, and warning to the unwary. Here is Norris’ opening line: Quote:
If he said, “KJV-only advocates seek to answer and refute any evidence that they think would conflict with their reasoning Based on their professed love for the Bible and their KJV-only view’s claim that the KJV is the only valid Bible in English”, (putting the second half of the sentence first), it would be clear that he is not reporting factually, but in fact slurring KJV-only advocates for not being able to answer and refute “any evidence” (which begs the fact that such evidence exists), and that the KJV-only advocate’s final line of defence is merely a “professed love”, that is implying that it is merely a form of tradition, and actually only in words, not practice. Welcome to the world of Rick Norris, where everything is innuendo, implied, seemed, likely and probable... for example, he goes on to explain concerning KJB-onlyists: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Norris quotes numerous King James Only advocates without ever dividing them into different camps or parties. A TRO is not the same as a Ruckmanite, yet Norris does not see it in his interest to make such distinctions. He quotes a whole raft of authors, who give various numbers on how many archaic words they think might be in the King James Bible. My own opinion is that there are in practice no archaic words, but according to Norris’ definitions, that would be a “myth”, which he enthusiastically gives a whole paragraph of dictionary citations to better define that word for us. Of course, Norris favours the highest numbers possible for his real amount of archaic words in the KJB, giving citations of non-KJBO sources. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Norris goes on to rubbish the idea of the “internal dictionary”. He goes on to say Quote:
Quote:
Norris excels himself by saying, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Isa 29:11 "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed" Quote:
Norris then launches into dreary lists of comparison to the former Protestant English Bibles. He tries to argue that they have better wording than the King James Bible, an object impossible to prove. Of course, Rick Norris does not have to prove it, if he just asks the questions over and again, like, Quote:
It goes on for pages and pages. Quote:
Quote:
In this list, he points out “mart” at Isaiah 23:4. Everyone knows that a “mart” is a department or variety store, therefore another term could not be superior on any grounds. Again, he points out “church” in Acts 7:38, but this seems to be a doctrinal issue, nothing to do with so-called “archaic” language. Again, he points out “tradition” in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, but surely this is one of many examples of objections based on the author’s opinions. Quote:
Quote:
The version and translation have not been changed in the King James Bible since 1611. The editions, with all their corrections or standardising of the spelling, etc., cannot be considered in the same light. Moreover, even such editorial work is now complete. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Finally, Norris’ convolutes the case, Quote:
The emphasis on words and letters is not an emphasis on typographical errors in the 1611 Edition. Clearly, there needed to be, and has been, purification of the presentation in various editions. Updated spelling and various editing of words is quite right. But that has been finalised. Norris admits that “Some accepted changes were made as late as the 1880’s in Oxford editions of the KJV and as late as 1900 in Cambridge editions of the KJV.” Quote:
Last edited by bibleprotector; 06-14-2009 at 03:28 AM. Reason: formatting |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I've known some Jehovah's Witnesses who were stupid, I don't know if I ever met any who were that stupid. Grace and peace Tony |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
No tell Norris and his clouds of dust
Hi brother Matthew. Thank you for your examination of the endless dronings of Rick Norris. He is presently over at the FFF forum droning on with his constant doubts about everything.
I like your statement here: "Here Norris does not acknowledge the teaching that being purified seven times is limited to seven times (see Psalm 12). After that, it is final. There were seven main early modern English Protestant Bibles of the Reformation. Once finalised, there was no need to change the version or the translation. The version and translation have not been changed in the King James Bible since 1611. The editions, with all their corrections or standardising of the spelling, etc., cannot be considered in the same light. Moreover, even such editorial work is now complete." One sure way to make Norris look like the Bible Agnostic that he is, is to simply ask him if any particular whole verse is found in his "original languages" thingies he keeps talking about as his final authority. He will never come right out and tell anybody if a particular whole verse (like Luke 17:36 or 1 John 5:7, etc) is in his "original languages" version or not. I keep asking him to tell us where we can get a copy of his "original languages" Yada Yadas, or if he can post them or send them via email, and he never has any response to this direct challenge, but instead he just keeps on droning along by raising other questions and doubts about everything else he can possibly think of. As you probably already know (but some here may not) I have read his book The Unbound Scriptures, and have written a response to them. Some here may find them to be of help in recognizing where this bible agnostic is coming from and how to answer his silly claims. My response starts here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucke...criptures.html By His grace believing the Book men like No Tell Norris don't believe and can't find, Will Kinney |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Speaking of the devil
Right after I posted here, I checked on an email notice I had, and sure enough, Rick Norris was at it again. Here is my answer to him. Rick is now calling himself Coverdale. This is actually a code name meaning Coverup.
Coverup's Constant Cavilings Quote: Originally Posted by Coverdale (a.k.a. Rick Norris) Why do you skip over the fact that if "God forbid" was properly found in the Geneva and Bishops' Bible, why did the KJV translators change it to "far be it" at 2 Samuel 20:20? Since you claimed that "God forbid" was properly found in Tyndale's and Matthew's Bible, why the KJV translators change it to "Not so" at Acts 10:14? (end of Rick Norris' post that I copied. I ignored the rest.) Rick, your constant cavilings only show that you have no idea of the workings of the Sovereign God of the Universe who keeps His promises to give us "the book of the LORD". Your whole focus is on the abilities and failing of fallen man. You yourself are clearly not satisfied with any Bible out there in Biblelon today. It is blatantly obvious to all of us who actually have a Book that we believe, that your yourself have no such Book. You constantly drone on about how different people rendered various words from one version to the next, but you yourself will never come right out and tell us what your "original languages" actually say about anything. Why? Because you do not know how your "original languages" read nor what they mean. God Himself is completely out of the picture with you and how you view the preservation of His words into a perfect and 100% true Holy Bible in any language. In your view, God has dropped the ball, or didn't really mean what it appears He said, and the best He has been able to do as far as preserving His words in history is to have them "out there somewhere" among thousands of scraps of musty manuscripts (most of which no longer exist at all) and has left it up to us to squabble about what might be the best way to translate a particular word or phrase IF we can agree that it should even be in our multi-choice "bibles" or not. But you can't agree among yourselves whether the word should be in or out, and people are reading these lifeless rags you guys keep churning out less and less every day. You're an interesting guy, Rick. Sort of like watching a train wreck or a house burn down. Will K |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
brother Matthew,
Thank you for the review of Rick Norris' booklet of fallacies. Obviously, if one doesn't have the Holy Spirit working in them, they're never going to understand the KJV. That's what I believe is the REAL issue. People want to intellectualize it, when that cannot be done! I don't care how many years of schooling a person has, or what their schooling is in - NOTHING can outrank a truly Holy Spirit-inspired believer of God's Word. Sadly, people are filled with so many doubts and they're being told how impossibly challenging the KJV is to read, study, or understand - that, when they do so, they're expecting to be in fruitless frustration with it. I've experienced no such thing. From the moment I picked up a KJV and began reading, the words just seem to flow, so very beautifully and eloquently! NO OTHER version can beat the depth of understanding that can be gotten from the KJV, when a person BELIEVES. In addition to God inspiring His written Word and PRESERVING it, God also gave the Holy Spirit to all believers, for understanding. All we need to do is BELIEVE - God opens the eyes and the mind of the true believer! Jassy |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Rick Norris will have a lot to answer for. In case people are unaware (and I post this in condensed form for those who are skimming), he is the author of the new "Cambridge Paragraph KJV," in which Norris somehow determines what the "original intent" of the KJV translators were in order to form a "new and improved" edition of the KJV. In doing so, he reverts to printing and presentation errors that were purified out of the KJV text long ago, and introduces a new level of confusion in the market with regard to KJV Bibles. Last I read, a certain well-known Bible software company (not mine!) decided to make his text "the" KJV text, meaning that anyone using their software couldn't trust the KJV text within.
Update: Woops, I got my Bible correctors confused. I am confusing Rick Norris with David Norton. Mea Culpa! Last edited by Diligent; 06-16-2009 at 07:36 AM. Reason: correction |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|