Part 3 - Imperfect men, Perfect Bible

From Textus Receptus

Revision as of 14:11, 29 September 2011 by Nick (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)

In chapter three of Rick Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures, he erects a straw man argument regarding what we believe about the men behind the King James Bible translation and attacks the character and beliefs of King James himself.

Mr. Norris asks a series of questions as though he is challenging what we believe, when in fact, no King James Bible believer that I know of believes any of these things. Mr. Norris says: "The KJV-only view seems to grant to the KJV translators an absolute, perfect, infallible knowledge which is in reality attainable only by divine revelation. When the product of the KJV translators is made the final authority, it would make these men who produced it the final authority. Do KJV-only advocates bind themselves to the opinions and interpretations of the finite and fallible KJV translators as their ultimate voice of authority? This dependence on the authority of the fallible KJV translators indicates a serious weakness with the KJV-only view."

Mr. Norris sums up his argument with: "If the Church of England translators of the KJV could be wrong in their doctrines, they could also be wrong in their interpreting and translating of God's Word."

Well, I would "logically conclude" from Mr. Norris' arguments, that if God requires perfect men who are correct in every doctrinal aspect to translate His words and give us a pure Holy Bible, then there would never be one. But that is already Mr. Norris' position, isn't it? He does not believe any Bible is the inspired word of God and his Final Authority -the originals- don't exist.

In fact, if God required perfect and infallible men to give us "the originals" in the first place, then we would never have had the Bible at all.

God used men like Noah (a drunkard Genesis 9:21), Moses (a murderer - Exodus 2:12, and who did not believe God - Numbers 20:12), David (murderer and adulterer), Solomon (murder in heart - 1 Kings 11:40, idolator and apostate 1 Kings 11:4), Peter ( denied Christ - Mark 14:71, and was an hypocrite - Galatians 2:11-13), Paul (who previously killed Christians, and later was about to offer a blood sacrifice to atone for sins after Christ had died and risen - Acts 21:26) and John (who twice worshipped an angel and was told not to, - Revelation 19:10; 22:8). These are the type of people God used to give us His words "in the originals".

Mr. Norris then launches into a series of smear tactics to defame King James himself. He produces a series of quotes from people who never knew the man personally and who refer to such things as "sexual license ruled", "tainted by sexual and financial scandal", "habit of heavy drinking", "profanity", and "all kinds of licentiousness" to describe the goings on at the king's court.

I got the impression from reading this section of Mr. Norris' book that if King James had a dog, Rick would have dug up some historian's quote that his dog was a flea-bitten, mangy bag of bones that trailed slobber down the palace halls, chewed on the furniture, messed on the rugs, and had the nasty habit of indiscriminately humping the legs of visiting dignitaries.

There are two sides to every story, and Stephen Coston Sr. has written a book called King James, Unjustly Accused?. This book gives a different view of the king with testimony from men who actually knew him. We do know that King James was married to the same wife, had 7 or 8 children with her, (most of whom died at childbirth or shortly thereafer, but three lived to adulthood), wrote love letters and poems to his wife, wrote theological discourses, made a personal translation of the Psalms and Revelation knowing Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and professed a personal faith in and a love for the Lord Jesus Christ.

In any event, the man King James had NOTHING TO DO with the Bible translation that now bears his name. The King James Bible was not even called the King James Version until many years later when other versions began to appear on the scene. It was simply called The Holy Bible. The king himself did not translate a single word of our Holy Bible.

A lot of Rick's friends and perhaps Rick himself are professing Calvinists. Could we not then follow the logic of Mr. Norris and bring up all sorts of nasty things about the character and actions of John Calvin and Martin Luther's virulent anti-Semitism, and then conclude that nothing they ever taught or believed could possibly be correct? This would also include such men who held similar views like Spurgeon, John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress), Johnathan Edwards, John Newton, who wrote Amazing Grace, and Agustus Toplady who wrote Rock of Ages.

Later on in his book, Mr. Norris seems to reverse himself and says some things that I agree with. On page 171 he states: "The facts about Erasmus, King James, the Church of England translators of the KJV, Dean Burgon, Westcott, Hort, or present day translators are not the essential factor that should determine which translation of God's Word believers should use...Since all men are sinners, it is always possible to find something negative about the person presenting the truth. The imperfections of the person presenting truth does not change the truth presented."

I generally agree with what Mr. Norris says here but I still do not share his opinion about what the Truth of God's word is and how we arrive at this conclusion.

Remember this basic distinction between his views and mine. Mr. Norris says - 1. The Bible IS the inspired word of God. 2. No translation can be inspired. 3. ONLY the originals are the inspired Final Authority.

I therefore conclude from his premise that there is no inspired word of God on this earth today nor has there ever been an inspired Holy Bible consisting of 66 books bound into one volume. By his own definitions, his "inspired Bible" does not exist.

My premise and conclusion - 1. God inspired His words. 2. God promised to preserve them on this earth. 3. God is sovereign and does not lie. 4. We have an inspired Bible today that we can hold in our hands and believe every word. 5. All Bible versions are good to varying degrees, but not all of them are equally the complete, infallible, and pure words of God.

In the remainder of chapter three Mr. Norris criticizes the words "church" saying it should be "congregation", that "baptism" should properly be "immersion" and "charity" should always be "love". Apparently the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV etc. do not meet Mr. Norris' rigorous standards either, since they also use the words "church" and "baptism".

I will close this section dealing with the word "charity" as found in the King James Bible.

1 Peter 4:8 "And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins."

Many modern versionists criticize the King James Bible for using the word charity. If they would only consult a dictionary they would see that one of the principal meanings of the word "charity" is "Christian brotherly love".

The word charity expresses Christian love for other Christians. The word charity is never used in the King James Bible to express the love relationship between God and man, a husband and wife, between parents and their children, or between the believer and the nonbeliever. It is always used in reference to the love Christians should have for fellow believers.

Not only does the King James Bible use the word Charity, but so also do Coverdale 1535 - Romans 14:15 "walkest thou not after charite"; Jude 12 "feasts of charite", the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755 "salute ye one another with a kiss of charity" 1 Peter 5:14, Webster's 1833 translation, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, the KJV 21st Century, Green's Modern KJV 1998, and the Third Millenium Bible. It is not an archaic word and it is properly used in these various versions both old and new.