Featured Refutation of Rick Norris "Unbound Scriptures"

Since I am likely that "someone", I could care less how many times you post links to false and erroneous teaching concerning the KJV. Your buddy Brandplucked has been proven to be as wrong as Ruckman, etal a multitude of times.

No amount of innuendo and fact-twisting can make KJVO true. Even if you believe it "by faith".

 

So you know Mex, I believe you to be among the more solid Christians on this board. As for Dr Phoney Baloney ...well he is yet to esteem himself.

 

The site is nothing more than begging the question articles filled with kjvo hocus pocus.

 

A few pages of misrepresentation and distortion does not equal to or measure up to refutation.

KJV-only advocates cannot deal with the fact of KJV-only dependence on the use of fallacies and the use of unrighteous divers measures [double standards].

KJV-only advocates avoid the KJV-only burden of proof, using the fallacy of begging the question.

KJV-only advocates sometimes create a false dilemma by claiming that there are only two possible alternatives: their opinion or the view of liberals, skeptics, or unbelievers. This fallacy of false dilemma is also called the fallacy of bifurcation. For example, KJV-only author Roy Branson claimed: "If one does not trust only the KJV 1611, he must trust liberal texts that are descended from liberal texts" (KJV 1611, p. 75). KJV-only author William Grady asserted: “If one rejects ‘King James Onlyism’ as his final authority, the only alternative is ‘Scholarship Onlyism’” (Given By Inspiration, p. 53). Thus, KJV-only advocates attempt to prejudice which alternative a believer would choose. By use of this false dilemma or either/or fallacy, KJV-only advocates attempt to push believers into agreeing with them or accepting an unwanted and unacceptable alternative. They attempt to argue for their KJV-only position by condemning what they claim is the only other alternative. In effect using an argument from lack of knowledge or ignorance, they seem to imply or suggest that their unproven, fabricated KJV-only view must be assumed to be true until a better alternative is proven. Use of this fallacy permits them to avoid or dodge their own burden of proof. They do not prove their own theory to be sound, true, and scriptural, but instead they assume that they can merely use a fallacy to advocate, justify, and defend their view.

 

"My bunch of guys say this.................your bunch of guys say that..............my guys are right...................your guys are wrong...............you're dumb.................you're ignorant.............answer me this.........answer me that..........I read this book that says................I read that book which refutes your book............your sources are unreliable.............oh, yeah??!!"





^^^^^ pretty much sums up every KJVO debate I've ever read on countless internet forums. Nobody has changed anybody's mind as far as I can tell. NOBODY has irrefutable truth on either side. So much is stated as fact, that isn't fact. No one has the original manuscripts. All I've seen are some very un-Christlike comments made from both sides. It always turns into a "one upmanship" contest, as if posting something that's more "witty" makes you more right than the other person. Sometimes I believe you guys just like to argue.

Personally, I see no harm being done by someone being KJVO. I see no one forcing anyone else to read the KJV. As far as KJVO "splitting churches", well, churches have split over ........infant baptism..........Calvinism.........how often to have communion.........Sunday School, no Sunday School..........Sunday night service, no Sunday night service..............contemporary music............don't like the carpet color......etc. Probably more churches have split over those things, than over KJVO. I know of no churches that have split over KJVO, while I've seen them split over the things I listed.

Read whatever version you want to. I read the KJV because I'm 62 years old, grew up with it, happen to think it's the best version, and will continue to use it. I'm sure the younger people in my church will feel that way about the NKJV, or NIV, or whatever version they grow up with, when they reach my age.


Sheeez!

 

The Scriptures are the specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44) and not by means of human wisdom or scholarship including that of the KJV translators.

The words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56).

The words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Exod. 9:16, Rom. 9:17). God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).


Since the entire Old Testament was designated by God with names such as "Moses and the prophets," "the law and the prophets," “all the prophets and the law,“ and “the scriptures of the prophets,“ this could be understood to indicate that all the O. T. writers were prophets (Luke 16:29, 16:31, 24:27; Matt. 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, 26:56; Luke 16:16; John 6:45, Acts 24:14, 26:22, 28:23; Rom. 1:2, 3:21, 16:26). The writer of Hebrews could be understood to describe the entire Old Testament as what God spoke by the prophets (Heb. 1:1). William Whitaker affirmed “that the whole scripture of the old Testament was written and promulgated by prophets” (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 50). At Luke 16:29, the writer (Moses) is put for his writings. Moses was a prophet (Deut. 34:16). Since the Psalms is sometimes included in the designation "the prophets," it shows that their writers could have been considered prophets. In addition, individual writers of the Psalms were referred to as prophets (Matt. 13:35, Acts 2:30). The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews (Rom. 3:2) in the Jews‘ language. The writers who received the revelation concerning Christ that would be recorded in the New Testament also seem to be regarded as being prophets or apostles or both (Eph. 3:3-5, 2:20). The N. T. prophets given to the church may refer especially to those prophets that were given revelation that would be written as part of the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, Eph. 3:3-5, Eph. 2:20). Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18). The apostle Peter asserted that the commandment of the apostles are connected with the words revealed and spoken by the prophets (2 Pet. 3:1-2). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Heb. 1:1-2). The words or word that Jesus Christ spoke were in the original language in which they were given by inspiration to the New Testament writers (John 12:48). Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses wrote them.

If some will not accept the authority of the Word of God given to Moses and the prophets and then to the apostles, how will they be persuaded by the translating work of Church of England scholars in 1611 that is in effect separated or cut off from the proper authority of the original language Scriptures according to a consistent application of KJV-only claims or reasoning?

 

Are you saying that you see no harm in advocating the opinions and traditions of men that are not stated in the Scriptures as supposedly being a doctrine of God (Mark 7:7-9)?

Are you saying that you see no harm in contradicting what the Scriptures state by binding or limiting the word of God to the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611?

The word of God is not bound.

 

..........Are you not doing exactly the same things that you're accusing KJVO's of? I'm not going to get into this discussion. My above post explains why. God bless.

 

How am I supposedly doing that?

I do not advocate the binding or limiting of God's word to any one translation.

I do not advocate the acceptance of the opinions or traditions of men instead of what the Scriptures actually state.

 

Really? You could have fooled me.



Sorry.......I said I wasn't going to get into this................I'm done. As I said, God bless.

 

In other words, you imply or in effect throw out an accusation without showing it to be true.

 

Dude............you seriously think he was talking about YOU!!!:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Ummmmmmmm...........No......
This is for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6UAYGxiRwU

 

Spoken like the No-KJVO/KJVO guy we have always loved and admired.

If you see no harm in the KJVO nonsense;then you have little to no spiritual discernment.

You don't read many threads here;do you?

 

I missed this earlier-

Ask any honest missionary if KJVO has harmed missions and hurt missionaries. It has.

 

B4L:

That's cuz you don't look very hard, maybe cuz you're too busy trying to prove GOD condones incest.

Maybe you don't consider the breaking up of a formerly-sound congregation as harmful.

Maybe it's cuz you have some KJVO skeletons in your closet.

But any time a Christian teaches a PROVEN FALSE DOCTRINE such as the KJVO myth, it's harmful.

 

Incest?
I'm glad you brought Cain's wife up, roby! I believe Cain married his sister, or a distant relative. The Bible doesn't say how much time elapsed until Cain married, and since people lived hundreds of years then, lots of other people were born. Cain's wife was one of those people. God didn't give any law regarding marriage until much later. Scripture clearly states that Eve was "the mother of ALL living." But you don't believe that, do you, roby? No, you have some really strange beliefs about that!

I've yet to see you tell everyone where you believe Cain's wife came from. Why don't you do that now? OK? Tell them how you believe she came from a whole different race of people that God created apart from Adam and Eve. Tell them the un Biblical belief you have about how God created all the different races separately. Did God create the new people with a sin nature, or did they fall like Adam and Eve? Did He create them as adults or babies? Where is your Biblical support for your belief? Are you afraid/ashamed to let everyone here know what the "real roby" believes? Go on, roby. Please. Tell them!
I'd love for them to know the weird beliefs you have that TOTALLY go against Scripture, roby. <---------THAT...............is harmful!




I'll wait for roby to answer this, but my hunch is, you won't hear him him for awhile!

 

Bunny trail...has nothing to do with Mr. Norris.

 

But it has EVERYTHING to do with you! You're AFRAID to let everyone know what the real roby believes aren't you? It's VERY relevant because if you're gonna get on here, roby, and call people out for the beliefs they have, you need to own up to your own. That way people know whether they should take you seriously or not.

 

As I figured. Roby has run away.