• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Refutation of Rick Norris "Unbound Scriptures"

Robert Snow

New Member
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.

Posts like this make you look like an arrogent fool. If someone feels they should use a particular bible, it really isn't any of your business to interfere. Why don't you just mind your own business and butt out!

I can't imagine someone like you coming into a church and talking like this, you might find yourself out in the parking lot in one big hurry.

Oh, and this goes for Rippon too. Are you guys Siamese twins, or what?
 

Oldtimer

New Member
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].

Rick, can you provide a link, anywhere on the web, where you have countered Will's review of your book on a point by point (chapter by chapter) basis?

Have you shown in detail his "misrepresentation and distortion" anywhere on the web?

If you haven't done so, why not? If you have, I'd like to read your documentation that supports your charges against him.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Posts like this make you look like an arrogent fool.

Only to those who disagree, and who cannot prove me wrong.


If someone feels they should use a particular bible, it really isn't any of your business to interfere.

If you wish to use the King George Version, that's between you and GOD. But if you tell another that YOUR pet version is the ONLY valid one there is, then you're telling a LIE, and should be called down.


Why don't you just mind your own business and butt out!

Because I WON'T, and you can't make me. Why don't YOU?

I can't imagine someone like you coming into a church and talking like this, you might find yourself out in the parking lot in one big hurry.

I doubt it, if it's a REAL church.

Oh, and this goes for Rippon too. Are you guys Siamese twins, or what?

So, what are YOU? A self-appointed bible cop? Or, just another clueless ratchet jaw?
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

This thread aint about me...it's about Mr. Norris.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As I figured. Roby has run away.

No, I HAVEN'T. Unlike some people I DO have a life; I don't live in fronta a keyboard.

You're just upset that we exposed you as a CLOSET KJVO on another board, so you brought your rancor over here.

I'll answer you WHEN YOU'RE ON-TOPIC. Otherwise, I WILL NOT play your childish little games.
 

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, I HAVEN'T. Unlike some people I DO have a life; I don't live in fronta a keyboard.

You're just upset that we exposed you as a CLOSET KJVO on another board, so you brought your rancor over here.

I'll answer you WHEN YOU'RE ON-TOPIC. Otherwise, I WILL NOT play your childish little games.

Tell the people what you believe roby! I'm not a "closet KJVO". I've stated very clearly what I believe. I've used the KJV for my entire life, and I believe it to be the best version. I'm not ashamed of it. You may use whatever version you like.

Now, why not come clean with the people about what you believe?? Your getting on internet forums and berating people when YOU have some of the most heretical beliefs I've ever come across, is not a "childish game". People who are interacting with you, those who agree with you, along with those who oppose you, should know exactly who you are. That only seems fair, doesn't it? Your avoidance speaks volumes.

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!


Do you deny any of the above about what you believe? I can document that you do believe the above, by posts on other forums where you've stated those things!! You were shown Scripture after Scripture debunking your weird belief, yet you ignore Scripture and continue to believe God created other separate races. You have ZERO Scripture to support YOUR belief, yet you come on forums attacking others because they have no Scripture for theirs! You are the very definition of a hypocrite! You ashamed to let those on here know that? That is very much relevant if you're going to attack someone for what you consider an un-Biblical belief, shouldn't everyone know about YOUR un-Biblical beliefs also? Quit running away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mexdeaf

New Member
Tell the people what you believe roby! Your avoidance speaks volumes.




Do you deny any of the above about what you believe? I can document that you do believe the above by posts on other forums where you've stated those things!! You ashamed? That is very much relevant if you're going to attack someone for what you consider an un-Biblical belief, shouldn't everyone know about YOUR un-Biblical beliefs also? Quit running away.

If we're going to do this then we need to speak about the unscriptural beliefs and practices of KJVO champions Ruckman, Riplinger and Kinney also.

But that's not the point here. The point is that there is no Scriptural support for KJVO whatsoever, not even if you stretch scripture to do it.
 

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If we're going to do this then we need to speak about the unscriptural beliefs and practices of KJVO champions Ruckman, Riplinger and Kinney also.

But that's not the point here. The point is that there is no Scriptural support for KJVO whatsoever, not even if you stretch scripture to do it.

My point is that you have someone on here making demands (roby) for Scriptural support, when he has NO Scriptural support for his weird belief! I believe that's VERY relevant. Also very hypocritical! Mexdeaf, I'm saddened that apparently others on here think heretical beliefs should just be "overlooked" because that person is on the same side as them!!!! If you really knew what roby believes, I think you'd change your mind about my posts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This thread aint about me...it's about Mr. Norris.

Well, what did your post here:
Only to those who disagree, and who cannot prove me wrong.




If you wish to use the King George Version, that's between you and GOD. But if you tell another that YOUR pet version is the ONLY valid one there is, then you're telling a LIE, and should be called down.




Because I WON'T, and you can't make me. Why don't YOU?



I doubt it, if it's a REAL church.



So, what are YOU? A self-appointed bible cop? Or, just another clueless ratchet jaw?

..... have to do with Mr. Norris?


You're avoiding exposing yourself, and you know it.
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
robycop3 & B4L,

You all may wish to be aware that using other forum discussions here is forbidden by BB rules.

Just making you aware.

At the same time a little shocked about the 'arrogent [sic] fool' comment in this thread (not from you two I am aware). I would rather see more of an example set by one who has spoken of his being older.

- Blessings
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rick, can you provide a link, anywhere on the web, where you have countered Will's review of your book on a point by point (chapter by chapter) basis?

If you haven't done so, why not? If you have, I'd like to read your documentation that supports your charges against him.

Any objective reader that has actually read my 500+ page book can see that Will Kinney's so-called refutation of it does not answer nor deal with my actual arguments and the important documented evidence in it. My book provides the clear evidence of the fact of his misrepresentations and distortion since his strawman picture does not accurately present the actual points made in it.

The view of Bible translation presented in my book is the same one held by the early English translators including the KJV translators. I examined KJV-only claims from the standpoint of the traditional original language texts from which the KJV was translated, from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, and from the facts from varying editions of the KJV.

When Will Kinney's strawman arguments, misrepresentations, and distortion does not actually deal with what the proper points made and supported by sound evidence, there was no need to respond to them.
If some of his arguments or accusations were supposedly valid, he would undermining or refuting the actual foundation on which the KJV was made.

______________________________

One person ["Unbound68"] at another forum [BVDB] did write a four part response to Will Kinney's review entitled "a Vindication of The Unbound Scriptures." Parts one and four were found on page 18 of the threads there and part 3 was on page 20 although they may move to other pages when more topics are added.

I do not know if it is found elsewhere on the web since I have not looked for it. Perhaps a search for that title "A Vindication of The Unbound Scriptures" would show whether or not it is posted elsewhere.

Here is a brief section from Part Two of that person's comments:

Part Two - Those Dreadful Archaic Words
"In this part, Kinney further demonstrates his inability to follow Norris' simple points.

Were one to read Kinney's review of the second chapter of Norris' book, without first reading Norris' book for themselves, they would get the impression that Norris is simply complaining about archaic words in the KJV because he can't understand them. More than that, Kinney would have his readers believe that Norris is incognizant of the fact that there are difficult words found within the modern versions themselves. Such is not the case! Keep in mind the overriding premise of Norris' book: the inconsistent claims of KJV-onlyists.

In this single part, Kinney makes several assertions that are answered fully by Norris in other chapters of his book. This begs an obvious question: did Kinney actually read The Unbound Scriptures, from cover to cover? or did he simply skim through it for opportunities to provide canned responses to specific verses? When one looks at several of the latter parts of Kinney's article, he or she will see that it isn't actually a review of or a response to Norris' book at all.

Before I delve into Kinney's tirade, note his use of the word "dreadful" in the title. Why would he use that word, other than to give the reader the [false] impression that Norris is incapable of understanding the KJV? Having read much of Norris' writings - both in print and on the net - this author would assert that Norris has a better understanding of the KJV, its history, and its translators, than does Kinney.
There are several points Norris makes in the second chapter of The Unbound Scriptures. First, the inconsistent counts of archaic words in the KJV, as found in the works of KJVO advocates. Secondly, the susceptibility one has of wrongly interpreting or defining words used in scripture, due to the change in meaning of some words since the 17th century. Thirdly, the fact that the KJV translators themselves updated archaic words from earlier English Bibles (as well as sometimes using words more archaic than the already up-to-date wording of the earlier English Bibles). And lastly, the inconsistent claims made among KJVO advocates, concerning whether archaic words in the KJV should be updated, or not.

Kinney doesn't respond to a single one of those points."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrJamesAch

New Member
Any objective reader that has actually read my 500+ page book can see that Will Kinney's so-called refutation of it does not answer nor deal with my actual arguments and the important documented evidence in it. My book provides the clear evidence of the fact of his misrepresentations and distortion since his strawman picture does not accurately present the actual points made in it.

The view of Bible translation presented in my book is the same one held by the early English translators including the KJV translators. I examined KJV-only claims from the standpoint of the traditional original language texts from which the KJV was translated, from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, and from the facts from varying editions of the KJV.

When Will Kinney's strawman arguments, misrepresentations, and distortion does not actually deal with what the proper points made and supported by sound evidence, there was no need to respond to them.
If some of his arguments or accusations were supposedly valid, he would undermining or refuting the actual foundation on which the KJV was made.

______________________________

One person ["Unbound68"] at another forum [BVDB] did write a four part response to Will Kinney's review entitled "a Vindication of The Unbound Scriptures." Parts one and four were found on page 18 of the threads there and part 3 was on page 20 although they may move to other pages when one topics are added.

I do not know if it is found elsewhere on the web since I have not looked for it. Perhaps a search for that title "A Vindication of The Unbound Scriptures" would show whether or not it is posted elsewhere.

Here is a brief section from Part Two of that person's comments:

The "Unbound68" primary argument is that Kinney didn't read the book, and that assumption is based on him not agreeing with the book.

What isn't stated is who the author behind that was, Keith Dotzler, someone that USED to be KJVO, but got dissed on a position in church and decided to stick it to Baptist by becoming an extremist against the KJVO position, which included even adopting some of the Muslim and atheist views of King James IV.

This statement by Norris and the response to it got removed from the forum, but you can see where Norris stands on preservation of the Bible.

Originally Posted by Logos1560
No one claimed that the word of God was and is preserved in the original autographs on earth. You are making a bogus, false accusation. No one claimed that only the original autographs are Scripture.

What was actually properly referred to was the preserved Scriptures in the original languages which referring to the existing original language manuscripts of Scripture.
You deny the accusation and then reaffirm it only with a small semantical difference just one paragraph later.

You can't make any argument at all for preservation in original LANGUAGES because evidence of a language needs a standard of comparison which would obviously have to be IN WRITING. So when you say that preservation applies to "original languages" that is no different than claiming original autographs unless you are attempting to validate preservation on some subjective standard of evidence. That would also be akin to arguing that the word was preserved in the original dialects.

If you are arguing that preservation or inspiration is LIMITED to the "EXISTING" autographs, then not only are you denying the inspiration of the autographs written by the apostles, you are claiming that the REAL Bibles are only inspired so far back as they can be DATED. So your argument limits inspiration to DISCOVERY and EXISTENCE of autographs, while excluding any possibility of God's ability to preserve any manuscript from point A to point B.

Others have pointed out similar tactics and errors of Norris as well http://www.bibleprotector.com/norris.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11297801/NT-Greek-Exegesis-Beyond-the-Basics (scroll down to page 88).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
robycop3 & B4L,

You all may wish to be aware that using other forum discussions here is forbidden by BB rules.

Just making you aware.



- Blessings

Thank you. I am now aware.


All I'm trying to do is let you all know the truth behind the guy you seem to be supporting. I think that's fair, and relevant.
I see Ruckman, Riplinger, (no, I'm NOT in agreement with them, actually, I've never read or listened to them), and many others have their character brought up as to what they believe, whether or not they are "trustworthy" because of it. Why not roby? Seems fair to me, especially when you can see he refuses to answer my questions. What's he hiding? I know, but the rest of you need to know. I submit he doesn't want anyone here to know about what I've posted because your "backing" of him would soon disappear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This statement by Norris and the response to it got removed from the forum, but you can see where Norris stands on preservation of the Bible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos1560
No one claimed that the word of God was and is preserved in the original autographs on earth. You are making a bogus, false accusation. No one claimed that only the original autographs are Scripture.
Quote:
What was actually properly referred to was the preserved Scriptures in the original languages which referring to the existing original language manuscripts of Scripture.


You deny the accusation and then reaffirm it only with a small semantical difference just one paragraph later.

My view and stand concerning the preservation of the Scriptures is in agreement with what the Scriptures actually state and teach and is in agreement with the views of the Reformers, the early English translators including the KJV translators, and with doctrinally sound Baptists.

Your claims and reasoning about my statements are incorrect.

According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“ Earlier on the third page of this preface, Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.“ In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179).

The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith by Presbyterians, the 1658 Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order by Congregationalists, the 1677 Second London Confession by Baptists, and the 1680 Confession of Faith by Congregationalists in New England stated: "The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek . . . , being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them (Walker, Creeds, p. 369; Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 251; Woods, Report, p. 95). John Lee also asserted concerning the Church of Scotland: “The doctrine of this National Church is well known to be, ‘That the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, are authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them” (Memorial for the Bible Societies in Scotland, p. 186).

Reformer Francis Turretin (1623-1687) pointed out: "Our teaching is that only the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New have been and are authentic in the sense that all controversies concerning faith and religion, and all versions, are to be tested and examined by them" (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 126). John Diodati (1576-1649), translator of the 1607 Italian Bible, is translated as writing: “The authentic text of Scripture, and that which is truly God-breathed, consists only of the Hebrew originals in the Old Testament and Greek originals in the New Testament” (Ferrari, Diodati’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture, p. 47).

Baptist scholar John Gill (1697-1771) presented the Baptist view of Bible translation of that period that was also in agreement with the view of the early translators and the view in the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1677 Second London Confession by Baptists. John Gill wrote: “The apostle Paul speaks of himself, and other inspired apostles of the New Testament, Which things, says he, we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches [1Cor 2:13], and it is the writing, or the word of God as written, that is, by inspiration of God [2Tit 3:16]. Fourth, This is to be understood of the Scriptures in the original languages in which they were written and not of translations. Unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose.” Gill added:


To the Bible, in its original languages, is every
translation to be brought, and by it to be examined,
tried, and judged, and to be corrected and amended;
and if this was not the case, we should have no certain
and infallible rule to go by; for it must be either all
the translations together, or some one of them; not
all of them, because they agree not in all things: not
one; for then the contest would be between one nation
and another which it should be, whether English,
Dutch, French, etc. and could one be agreed upon, it
could not be read and understood by all: so the papists,
they plead for their vulgate Latin version; which has
been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though
it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes;
nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even
assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to
submit to, and be corrected by their version; which
is absurd and ridiculous (Body of Divinity, p. 18)

The Reformers, the early translators including the KJV translators and translators into other languages, Baptists, Presbyterians, and other believers clearly regarded the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the greater authority or standard for making and evaluating translations.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thank you. I am now aware.


All I'm trying to do is let you all know the truth behind the guy you seem to be supporting. I think that's fair, and relevant.
I see Ruckman, Riplinger, (no, I'm NOT in agreement with them, actually, I've never read or listened to them), and many others have their character brought up as to what they believe, whether or not they are "trustworthy" because of it. Why not roby? Seems fair to me, especially when you can see he refuses to answer my questions. What's he hiding? I know, but the rest of you need to know. I submit he doesn't want anyone here to know about what I've posted because your "backing" of him would soon disappear.

I believe every one who's been here awhile knows my beliefs. I've been on this board for 13 years now, and have remained active. If you wish to chase the bunny trail you've posed, I'll gladly remind you that you've NEVER been able to refute a word I've posted, and, as your fellow KJVOs do, you've brought only opinion, speculation, and guesswork to the KJVO realm.

And anyone who wishes to know my beliefs can PM me, and I'll answer reasonably quickly.

Now, whaddya hafta say concerning Mr. Norris' material? That IS, after all, the theme of this thread.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dr. Ach, I've corresponded many times with Mr. Kinney, and, where he posts those long lists of supposed mistranslations in MVs, I've found that the alleged booboos he cites are often BETTER translations than are found in the KJV.

An example is where he says the NKJV is wrong in Nehemiah 3:13 for reading "Refuse(trash, waste) Gate" while the KJV reads "Dung Gate". The hebrew word there, ashpoth, actually means garbage, waste, or refuse of any kind. Now, while dung is usually waste, it wasn't always waste, when used as fertilizer, etc. And garbage consists of much more than dung. So, actually, "Refuse Gate" is the BETTER translation. And I'm informed by Jewish historians that the Jews simply called it ashpoth sha'ar.
 

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Same thing I posted in #6. But I'll repeat it for you, then I'm done. All I've gotten out of this is a headache.


"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.
 

Robert Snow

New Member
I think Winman has the best idea. He doesn't continue to have the same old argument over and over. Please continue without me. I believe I'd rather listen to Ruckman and company on Youtube.
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
Thank you. I am now aware.


All I'm trying to do is let you all know the truth behind the guy you seem to be supporting. I think that's fair, and relevant.
I see Ruckman, Riplinger, (no, I'm NOT in agreement with them, actually, I've never read or listened to them), and many others have their character brought up as to what they believe, whether or not they are "trustworthy" because of it. Why not roby? Seems fair to me, especially when you can see he refuses to answer my questions. What's he hiding? I know, but the rest of you need to know. I submit he doesn't want anyone here to know about what I've posted because your "backing" of him would soon disappear.

I support him on his KJVO stance. I have no interest in the inside story you two are bringing into this thread. Keep it between you two behind the scenes?
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think Winman has the best idea. He doesn't continue to have the same old argument over and over. Please continue without me. I believe I'd rather listen to Ruckman and company on Youtube.

Be sure not to miss his 'take' on ABORTION.
 
Top