A Vindication of the Unbound Scriptures - part 2

Part Two - Those Dreadful Archaic Words

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, despite the fact that he claims at his website that he has given "A Response to the book The Unbound Scriptures." Ironically, Kinney pulls the rug out from under his own feet, when he states:

I will admit there are a few words that do need to be explained and that could be modernized, such as "conversation" when it means "manner of living" and "let" when it means "to hinder", and possibly "prevent" when it means "to go before or to precede",.....

Yes dear reader, you read it right. A KJVO who admits the KJV's "dreadful archaic words" could use updating! Having made this astounding admission, the entirety of Kinney's second part can be dismissed out-of-hand. Had he stated the above before expending the time and effort necessary to compile his ridiculous NIV "vocabulary test," his readers would have been spared precious moments that are now forever lost. Of course, it's obvious why he waited until the end of this part to make that admission: He had to further build up his readers' bias against Norris.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

After providing 4 successive quotations from Norris to begin this part, Kinney says:

First of all, when Mr. Norris says "nothing dishonors God's word more than having to update or explain archaic words", I strongly disagree with his assessment. If I am to choose between an older version that occasionally uses archaic or difficult words yet is in fact the true, preserved, inerrant, and doctrinally sound words of God, and a more modern version that may be easier to understand but which omits thousands of God inspired words, waters down or perverts sound doctrine and changes the meaning of what God has said, then the choice is a clear and easy one to make.

Notice how Kinney downplays the number of archaic words found in the KJV. He says it "occasionally uses archaic or difficult words." How many archaic words amount to an "occasional" usage? Twelve, according to Sargent? Twelve to fourteen, according to Cummons? Twenty, according to Moorman? Two dozen, according to Streeter? One hundred, according to Ruckman? Six hundred and eighteen, according to Waite? Further, Norris points out the fact that KJVO advocate Laurence Vance wrote a 589-page book explaining over 700 archaic words in the KJV. In light of the fact that KJVO advocates argue that the English of the KJV is on a 5th grade reading level, the very existence of Vance's book seems amusing (Norris points this out on pg. 31, yet it went completely unnoticed by Kinney). Where is Kinney's "response" to the many inconsistent claims from KJVO authors, concerning the number of archaic words in the KJV? In Kinney's excerpt from Norris directly above, Norris - in context from pg. 32 - is referring to modern [and wrong] defintions being given to archaic words, which, in turn, lead to wrong interpretations. Where is Kinney's "response?" Rather than tackling any of Norris' points in this chapter, Kinney leads his readers deep into the weeds.

The rest of Kinney's statement is nothing more than a priori assumptions. He's quick to assume the very thing he has yet to prove, when he says the KJV is "in fact, the true, preserved, inerrant, and doctrinally sound word of God." The fact of the matter is, unless he's got the autographa, his argument isn't based on fact at all. He's even stated that his belief in the perfection and inerrancy of the KJV is based on faith. So it seems Kinney is once again at odds with himself. Regarding Kinney's use of the word "inerrant" in his above statement, Norris makes a brilliant observation.....one which Kinney completely ignores:

"When KJV-only advocates apply the words inspired and inerrant to a translation, the KJV, they are forced to change the meaning of inerrant to allow the presence of some copying or printing errors. (Unbound Scriptures, pg. 190)

Kinney next states:

Mr. Norris is being more than a little inconsistent in applying his standards. On the one hand he tells us ONLY the original Hebrew and Greek are the final authority for evaluating all translations. Yet the Hebrew and Greek languages are both far more difficult and archaic than anything you will find in the King James Bible.

After I read this statement, I had to pause for a moment. I had to make sure I was reading him correctly. Is he implying that the KJV is its own authority, because it's less archaic than the languages from which it was translated? Surely not. If that was the case, he wouldn't bring up manuscript evidence of any kind, in each of the many articles he's written in defense of KJV readings (which, again, countermands his position on the authority of the original languages altogether).

When Kinney speaks of the Hebrew and Greek being more archaic than the KJV, he is making an argument that has no bearing on the subject at hand. Norris nowhere states we are to learn Hebrew and Greek to read the scriptures. His point is that the source of a translation - no mater the language - is the only authority over the accuracy of that translation. One would expect a Spanish teacher, like Kinney, to have a firm grasp of this elementary concept. The very purpose of a translation is to accurately convey in a receptor language, the meaning of the words found in the source language. As Whitaker says, "For the scripture consists not in the bare words, but in the sense, interpretation, and meaning of the words" (Disputation on Holy Scripture, Parker Society, Cambridge University Press; 1849, pg. 402). More will be said about this in the future, particularly regarding Kinney's ignorance of the Reformers' position on what constitutes the word of God, and what constitutes the Scriptures.

Devastating to KJVOism, is the fact that many a KJVO, despite having their "perfect and inerrant" translation, do not adhere to perfect doctrine, nor do they have a perfect understanding. Kinney admitted as much recently (mid-march '08) at the Theology Online forums. I've seen him write of a so-called future apostasy several times, whereby he makes the Bible version debate a key factor, if not the result. Here, again, he reveals an ignorance of the writings of the very ones responsible for the Reformation creeds - which, as you saw in part one, worked against Kinney's position on the authority of scripture, rather than for it. Rather than looking for some future apostasy, the Protestant Reformers were of the united opinion that the Roman Catholic Church and its head, the Pope, were the fulfillment of 2 Thes. 2, Rev. 13 and 17, etc.

Kinney next remarks:

Then he recommends we use a more modern bible version, without ever identifying WHICH Bible version he personally thinks is more accurate and true to "the originals".

Kinney has stated at his yahoo discussion group that Norris really "gets [his] blood boiling." Since this is the case, one must wonder why Kinney is continually placing so much emphasis on Norris' personal thoughts and opinions? Norris' point was simply that words that need updating should be updated. The same goes for Whitaker, Webster, and even some KJVO advocates. Anyone familiar with Norris' book knows exactly what his position is. Kinney himself has stated that some words need updating; thus, his continued railing on the topic against Norris is a diversion. For some reason Kinney thinks a non-KJVO must offer up some alternative translation for scrutiny, in order for the factual data against the so-called inerrancy of the KJV to be factual! What kind of reasoning is this? Truth is constant, not relative. Error is error, despite whether or not something else is true. The statement from Kinney above contains the same fallacious reasoning as that found in his many statements from part 1. Had Norris recommended a specific translation, Kinney's hypocrisy regarding the authority of the original languages would have immediately been made manifest, as he would have ran to the Hebrew and Greek to "prove" Norris' translation full of errors. The bottom line is that Kinney isn't sincerely interested at all, when he asks non-KJVOs to identify an alternative to the KJV.

During his brief testimony about how he became a KJVO advocate, Kinney remarks:

As I studied, prayed and compared the various versions out there, it soon became obvious that they are not all the same and that I can easily find proveable [sic] errors in them all except one - the King James Bible.

Nowhere in Kinney's writings will you see him define exactly what he means by "error." If a modern translation is said to contain error because any given reading is supported by only a minority of manuscripts, the KJV is guilty of the same. If a modern translation is said to contain error because any given reading lacks any Greek manuscript support whatsoever, the KJV is guilty of the same. If a modern translation is said to contain error because a word was wrongly translated, the KJV is guilty of the same. Since Kinney certainly would never claim a modern version contains an error due to spelling (see any KJV, from 1611 to 1769), we are left with nothing but conjecture as to what his definition of the word "error" might be.

He then goes on to say:

God has clearly set His providential mark of approval on the English Bible in the way He has used it throughout history.

Norris covers this precise form of argument in chapter 7 (which is what leads this author to suspect that Kinney didn't read the book thoroughly at all). For the benefit of those who may not own Norris' book, I will provide a few excerpts that show the folly of Kinney's remarks:

"This argument from experience may appear to be a strong one. Actually, this claim is a red herring, since experience could also be used against the KJV-only view. If the 300+ years of use of the KJV proves it is infallible, does the 1,000 years of use of the Latin Vulgate prove it to be infallible as Roman Catholics claim? In the Preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testament, the first reason given for its use of the Latin Vulgate was that 'it is most ancient.' Gregory Martin, one of the Roman Catholic translators of the Rheims, asked Protestants: 'Will you be tried by the vulgar ancient Latin bible, only used in all the west church above a thousand years?' (Fulke, A Defense, pp. 77-78). Did the providence of God bring about the widespread acceptance of the Latin Vulgate?" (Norris, pg. 183)

"If results, experience, or providence were actually the Scriptural standard for determining the best translation, the KJV would have never been used in the first place." (Norris, pg. 187)

On page 187, Norris cites Francis Turretin as saying: "The church, both Greek and Latin, used it [the Septuagint] as the common version for six hundred years" (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 157). On the same page, Norris cites KJV defender Ed Hills: "In spite of its errors, it is not too much to say that the Latin Vulgate was the providentially approved Bible version for Christians of Western Europe during the medieval period" (Believing Bible Study, p. 82).

"Use of results of the greatest good for the greatest number of people is a principal for tyrants." (Norris, pg. 188)

After Kinney provides the reader with a laundry list of hard words from the NIV, he remarks: "It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry" and in the NIV it would be: "The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished." Anyone familiar with Kinney and his writings has seen him use that "gem" a million times - as if the mere repetition of it somehow proves anything. Kinney's made-up phrase is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and is, in fact, a red herring. Nowhere does Norris recommend the NIV. Even so, in my research, I, too, think "it is funny that I can put together" the following from English Bibles prior to the KJV:

Before gathering their weapons, the worthy and able farmers were tempted to hunt without a coat and breastplate. They knew it would be strange telling their cousins the truth: their calves were being haunted. After further study, a living messenger informed them it was only a virgin maid.

Observe the same from the KJV:

Ere gathering their artillery, the meet and apt husbandmen were tried to hunt without a vesture and habergeon. They wist it would be outlandish telling their kinsmen the verity: their bullocks were being tarried. After further exercise, a quick angel informed them it was only a maiden wench.

Other instances where the KJV is more archaic than its predecessors would be where it uses the words Euroclydon (northeaster, or winds out of the northeast), Nitre (soda salt), Murrain (plague), and Ague (fever).

After rambling on about the KJV being used in revivals, being read from the moon, etc. (as if the being read from outer space somehow proves the KJV's inerrancy), Kinney continues:

Many people clamor for updating the language of the King James Bible, and I will admit there are a few words that do need to be explained and that could be modernized, such as "conversation" when it means "manner of living" and "let" when it means "to hinder", and possibly "prevent" when it means "to go before or to precede", but who is going to do it and not mess with other things that make it worse? (emphasis mine)

This admission by Kinney was quoted earlier. This time, however, I wish to direct the readers' attention to the bolded clause. Here, again, Norris sufficiently deals with Kinney's argument - even before he makes it. Kinney has employed the slippery slope fallacy; that is, the idea that any revision will result in corruption (Norris, pg. 102). As Norris rightly points out on page 104, had the KJV translators adopted this view of revision, there would be no KJV!

And finally, Kinney closes this part with a lesson on YE, THEE, THOU, YOU, etc. On page 107, Norris points out the hypocrisy of KJVOs who rail against the modern versions for changing YE to YOU, when the KJV has done the very same thing from 1611 to 1769. Had Kinney read Norris' book, why would he neglect to inform his readers that the 1611 KJV had YE in several places, which, in later editions, were changed to YOU? According to Scrivener's Authorized Edition, pg. 104, later editions of the KJV went in the opposite direction, changing YOU to YE in 364 places!

In ending this part of the Vindication, I find it only fitting to let Kinney refute his own nonsense: The King James Bible is more precise and accurate with its use of "thou" and "ye", and when you update and modernize these "archaic" words to the generic "you", you do so at the expense of sacrificing an important distinction God has placed in His inspired words.

_______________________________________________