|
|
|
|
|
|
The Unbound
Scriptures:
For nearly a decade, I
believed that the only English Bible that accurately represented the true
Words of God was contained in the 1611 translation of the King James Bible.
It was my sincere conviction that the KJV was based upon the best Hebrew and
Greek texts that had accurately preserved every "jot and tittle" of Holy Scripture, and that it had been
translated by the godliest and most capable scholars the Christian world has
ever known. I would argue that any of the modern, English translations like
the New International Version, New American Standard Version and Revised
Standard Version, were based upon inferior Hebrew and Greek texts. I would
call them "modern perversions," because I believed heretics had
corrupted the original manuscripts that these translations are based upon by
stealthily injecting cultic doctrines by omitting a key word here, or adding
a slightly different phrase there. Additionally, those versions were
translated by men who were unbelievers; individuals who held to unorthodox
beliefs and denied essential Christian doctrine like the virgin birth and the
deity of Jesus Christ. Any Christian who read and studied these modern
versions, in my opinion, was only receiving a portion of what God really
said, and even worse, believers were being brainwashed to unwittingly accept
false doctrine. Moreover, any person who actually defended the use of modern
versions and had the audacity to challenge the pure, inerrant translation
contained in the King James Bible, was, in my mind, a Bible rejecter and
corrector, and this person was setting himself up as
the final authority, rather than submitting to God’s Word. I was, in all
sense of the term, a King James Only advocate; and I would add, I rather
obnoxious one at times. In order to defend my KJV
convictions, I appealed to an arsenal of supposed truth claims and arguments
that are promoted in the myriad of publications produced by KJV only
advocates, and I would often utilize those arguments in order to defend what
I believed to be God’s unalterable Word. It is these truth claims and
arguments that Rick Norris has dared to challenge in his book. Just offering
a challenge, in and of itself, is of utmost importance, because King James
Only advocates refuse to have the fundamental presuppositions of their
beliefs examined by any meaningful critique. <1>
(1) Rick Norris, however, has provided that meaningful examination in his 500
plus page book and it is one that is both thorough and devastating to the KJV
only system. I would further point out that his challenge is at the risk of
having his personal character viciously smeared and his research ridiculed by
the KJV only advocates in their monthly newspapers, internet bulletin boards,
and other publications. Yet, with all of the bombast that may billow forth
from the KJV only crowd, Mr. Norris’s work is sure to withstand the
ridiculous scrutiny it is going to receive. Mr. Norris has documented
his case well against the KJV only arguments by wading through literally
hundreds of KJV only books, tracts, pamphlets and other similar materials.
That alone is a daunting task (it takes steeled courage to sift through page
after page of erroneous nonsense), but his bibliography covers 48 pages, so
it is clearly obvious that he has done his homework and is informed when he
writes. He interacts with all of the regulars from the King James Only camp.
Men like Samuel Gipp, David Cloud, D.A. Waite,
Thomas Holland, Jack Moorman, and of course the grand patriarch Peter Ruckman, who is the loudest and most savage of all the
King James Only proponents; a man whose writings in defense of the KJV are
similar to those of an embittered drunk constantly firing off complaint
letters to his local congressman. Mr. Norris basically puts all of their
various arguments defending the KJV on trial and subjects them to a barrage
of questions and the proper citing of historical fact that exposes those
arguments as outright fallacious and absolutely without any merit. Let me
then begin to highlight some areas of special research Mr. Norris provides in
his book. I am particularly pleased
with the extensive research Mr. Norris provides in the area of pre-KJV
English translations. He has comb through translations like Tyndale’s Bible,
Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, and the Geneva Bible
to provide some original citations that are normally inaccessible to the
average laymen. This is a significant study for a couple of reasons: First, KJV only advocates
argue that the King James translation is the only Bible to be used by
Christians, because it is the final, purified seven times, translation in the
line of seven English translations that God blessed. That fact, argue the KJV
advocates, establishes it as the crowning authority of God’s Word. They
attempt to build their argumentation for the "line of good Bibles"
from the pages of scripture by misapplying Psalm 12:6, a verse they horribly
abuse and wrestle out of context, which states, The words of the LORD are
pure words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Mr.
Norris points out that this argumentation is seriously flawed, and he uses
his study in pre-KJV translations to demonstrate this error. He states: "If
this line of good Bibles gives any valid evidence for the KJV-only view, all
the Bibles must be inspired and inerrant like they claim the KJV is.
Otherwise, if any errors (errancy) or corruption
enters their line, how does that prove the KJV-only claim that an inerrant
KJV must result?"(2) In other words, all of
the Bibles listed in the line of seven must have God’s hand of blessing upon
them, protecting them from the encroachment of error into the translational
process. If a textual, theological, or translational error enters into the
stream at any point, then any subsequent Bible would be polluted and the KJV
advocate’s claim to a pure line of Bibles resulting in the crowning
achievement of the King James is ruined. As Mr. Norris points out, "Can
a stream rise higher that its sources?"(3) One amusing fact Mr. Norris shows us in his research is
that no two KJV advocates can agree as to which biblical translations belong
in the list leading up to the King James. For example, Peter Ruckman’s good tree chart found in his book The Bible
Babel omits the 1568 Bishop’s Bible, but it is included among the list
found in KJV only advocate J.J. Ray’s book, God Only Wrote One Bible.(4)
And KJV only advocate, William Bradley, has a list of Bibles in one of his
publications that consists of Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s,
The Great Bible, the Geneva, and then the King James, while omitting the
Bishop’s Bible, of which the KJV was officially a revision; but in a later
publication, he reinserts it his line of seven good Bibles: Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s,
Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, The Great Bible, the Geneva, the Bishops’s
and then the King James, which would then make the King James the eighth in
the line of good Bibles, not the seventh.(5) Such inconsistency illustrates
the absurdity of holding to a mystical notion of God blessing a specific
translational stream that results in the purified King James published in
1611. Mr. Norris rightly observes: "What consistent criteria was used to determine objectively which
translations to include? It seems that the KJV-only advocates cannot agree on
which Bibles to include on their lists and on which Bibles to leave off. Do
they start with the assumption that the KJV has to be the seventh one and
then subjectively pick out six others to make their count work? If believers
were to accept the erroneous claim that men can purify God’s word in a series
of translations, on whose authority do we base the claim that the KJV is the
seventh and final purification?"(6) A second area of
importance that is addressed with Mr. Norris’s study of pre-KJV English
Bibles is the rendering of specific phrases, as well as unique translations,
that are found in earlier English versions that KJV only advocates condemn
when the same renderings and translations appear in modern translations. For
example, all of the KJV only advocates I have ever read in my pro-KJV only days, would cite Luke 2:33 as proof of how modern
translations corrupt God’s Word by altering specific doctrines, like the
Virgin Birth of Christ. In the KJV, Luke 2:33 reads, And Joseph and his
mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. Take note of
the phrase "Joseph and his mother." However, the New American
Standard translates the verse as, And his father and mother…, and the
New International Version translates it as, And
the child’s father and mother…. Both of these modern translations change
the phrase "Joseph and his mother" to "his father and
mother." King James Only advocates love to point out how the Virgin
Birth of Christ is denied with these two modern translations. D.A. Waite, one
of the more "scholarly" King James Advocates and the self appointed
president of the Dean Burgon Society, writes concerning
this translational difference: "After
eliminating "Joseph," they substitute the words, "the
child’s father," thus possibly calling Joseph, Christ’s literal
"father," thereby denying His virgin birth. This is certainly a
matter of doctrine and theology. At this point, these Greek texts and
these English versions are theologically deficient, whereas the Textus Receptus
and the KING JAMES BIBLE are theologically superior"(7) His argumentation does
sound convincing, especially to anyone who is untrained in textual criticism
and translation methods, however, Mr. Waite, in his "heresy" hunt
against modern translations, failed to take notice that several pre-KJV
translations contain the words, "his father and mother." Mr. Norris
shows us that the phrase "his father" has been translated in at
least six of the pre-KJV translations that make up the supposed "good
line of Bibles:" Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, the
Great Bible, and the Bishop’s. On top of that, both the Luther’s German NT
translation and the Spanish Enzinas NT translation
have "father" translated in their respective languages at Luke 2:33.(8) The average churched Christian could be easily swayed
by KJV only arguments, but Mr. Norris’s research into the earlier English
translations does a valuable service to dispel the exaggerated examples KJV
only advocates often employ in their polemics. One can only wish KJV only
advocates would be so honest in their research. I was also encouraged by
Mr. Norris’s biographical study of the King James translators and the king,
James the 1st. King James Only advocates practically deify the men
who translated the KJV by claiming they are scholars of superior
intelligence, qualified both academically and spiritually for the task of
translating the Bible, as compared to those men who translated the modern
versions. Oddly, as Mr. Norris points out in his opening remarks in this
biographical chapter, many KJV only proponents will vilify scholarship and
knowledge, but inconsistently appeal to it to defend their beloved KJV
translators. The writings of KJV only advocates gush
with nauseating praise of how these men are the best translators the world
has ever known, the godliest men the church has ever known, and their final
translation is a work that should never be questioned. They are in essence
raised to a level of infallibility. Yet, Mr. Norris’s research into their
lives shows us that they were just ordinary men, and though they were for the
most part, good men and decent translators of the original languages, they
were not with out their foibles, nor did they rise above the fleshly sins
that plague all of God’s people here in this life. For example, the King
James translator’s were Anglicans that were doing their translational work
for the state church of Also, several of the KJV
translators were notorious for their state sponsored persecutions of those
Christians who would dissent from the Church of England. Mr. Norris points
out that both George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes,
two of the key translators of the KJV, urged the burning at the stake of
Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611. "George Abbot," writes Norris,
"even presided over the proceedings."(9) In addition to these
persecutions, the Baptist church in Then, Mr. Norris moves to
giving a well-documented biographical study of the character of King James.
The person of James the 1st is elevated to the level of being
practically a closet fundamental Baptist by the KJV only advocates. In fact,
they sanitize what history records about his character and conduct by
selectively citing the comments made about him from sychophantic
courtiers and politicians. Mr. Norris goes into great detail to reveal that
King James was not the great defender of Christ’s church that his followers
during his time, and now with the KJV only movement, make him out to be.
History records that he was a horrid, tyrannical scoundrel who connived and
lied his way through his political dealings. A sympathizer to Roman
Catholics, when James came to the throne in Unbound Scriptures is an outstanding study of the
various KJV arguments, and the hundreds of questions Mr. Norris asks of the
fundamental beliefs that make up KJV onlyism reveal
that it is a system of theology that is truly built upon the proverbial
foundation of sand. Even though this is an excellent work, I would be amiss
not to offer a couple of thoughts of constructive criticism I hope would only
help improve such a tremendous book. First, the book is
privately published (see contact information below), and because of that
fact, it runs the risk of quickly going away and not having a wide
distribution. Word of mouth and positive reviews will obviously serve Mr.
Norris’s book well, but it would be a blessing to see a known publishing
house take up the task of producing and marketing Unbound Scriptures
to a larger Christian audience. Many pastors and laymen who have to deal with
a vociferous KJV only advocate disrupting the fellowship of their
congregation or home Bible study may never be aware such a fine work exists
to counter and silence KJV only claims. The Christian Church at large would
benefit greatly from the material contained in this book. Second, the table of
contents could be better organized so as to be more useful for the reader.
Mr. Norris cleverly titles each one of his chapters with a biblical verse
taken directly from the King James translation that highlights specific
subjects of KJV only argumentation. For example, chapter two is entitled, Understandst thou what thou readest,
and is an examination of the KJV only argument that the King James is not
copyrighted. Chapter 15 is called, Give an account of thy stewardship,
and examines the KJV only claims concerning variation between the original
language manuscripts of the Bible. The chapter titles are catchy, but also
ambiguous. They do not tell the reader what is necessarily being discussed. A
helpful improvement for the table of contents would be to maintain the
chapter titles, but then provide the sub-titles that indicate the subject of
each chapter and list them under each of the chapter title headings. That
would not only help inform the reader of the subjects addressed in the book,
but would also provide a quicker reference for locating a specific subject. Thankfully, those small issues do not detract from the
over all excellence of this work and should not deter any Christian from
enjoying it. I am actually looking forward to reading various KJV only
critiques of this book. I am eager to see how they attempt to answer his
research, because the questions Mr. Norris raises against KJV only claims are
so penetrating that KJV only advocates are sure to
manufacture more conspiracy theories and re-write more Church history in order
to make excuses for what is at the foundation, an indefensible system of
belief. May Unbound Scriptures serve the people of God for years to come. To obtain a copy of Unbound
Scriptures, you can contact the author, Rick Norris, at the following
address: Rick Norris Email: rln1534@wmconnect.com
Endnotes 1) I mean
this with all honesty. When I came to a place where I began to ask critical
questions of my KJV only convictions, I would also ask my pointed questions
of other KJV only advocates. The reactions I received would be mixed.
Sometimes, the individual would turn into an ostrich of sorts, ignoring the
gravity of my questions altogether. Others would simply repeat the elaborate
conspiracy theories designed by KJV only advocates to conveniently explain
away the glaring problems my questions would raise. And the worst response,
and I have received these mainly from participants on internet discussion
boards dedicated to KJV onlyism, is to cruelly mock
me and pronounce me a Bible rejecter/corrector/denier, or any other number of
pejoratives, and accuse me of having some hidden, anti-Bible agenda. Some
have even called me a liar, telling me that I never held KJV only
convictions, or never really understood them, because if I had truly believed
the KJV was the Word of God, I would never had abandon the truth. That is
similar argumentation Muslim apologists use to explain away those folks who
abandon Islam for Christianity. At any rate, regardless of the myriad of
silly responses I have received to my questions, I am absolutely positive
that the core presuppositional beliefs that KJV onlyism is based upon cannot withstand any thoughtful and
meaningful critique. It is a belief system made of blind faith upon a method
of scriptural preservation that cannot be substantiated by scripture, nor
found practiced by any of God’s people in all of redemptive history since the
recording of Holy Writ. 2) Unbound Scriptures,
206 3) ibid 4) ibid, 207 5) ibid, 236 6) ibid, 236,237 7) D.A. Waite, Defending
the King James Bible. A Four-fold Superiority: Texts, Translators, Technique,
Theology (Collingswood: Bible for Today press, 1995), 166 [highlights and
italics his] 8) Unbound Scriptures,
246 9) ibid, 53. The majority
of well-known KJV advocates also stand against the doctrines of Grace, what
is often referred to as the five points of Calvinism. For instance, Gail Riplinger, one of the strangest of KJV advocates, calls
the five points of Calvinism, “the five pointed pentagram of Calvinism.” Even
though she is denounced as a lunatic by some fellow KJV advocates, her
sentiments against Calvinism is still shared by the bulk of them. In a
profound fit of hypocrisy, KJV only advocates will often cite John Calvin’s
participation in the arrest, trial and burning of arch-heretic, Michael
Servetus, as a reason why the system of theology that bears Calvin’s name
should be rejected as false. One wonders why they choose to ignore Andrewes and Abbot, who had a more direct involvement in several
state sanctioned executions, than Calvin had with Servetus. Does their
involvement with state sanctioned executions of religious dissenters
disqualify KJV onlyism as true? Please
let me know about new Articles & Bible Studies from Fred's Bible Talk. © Copyright 2002-2007 Fred Butler All Rights Reserved |
