Part Three - Imperfect men, Perfect Bible
Kinney's track record, in what he dubs a "response" to Norris' book, is looking quite grim. By the conclusion of this brief part, his credibility as a serious writer will suffer yet another blow. In this part, as with all other parts, Kinney will be found hoisting himself on his own petard.
In the beginning of chapter 3, Norris cites various KJVO authors - all of whom seem to elevate the KJV translators to a pedestal of infallibility. The KJV translators and their scholarship probably wouldn't have been mentioned in Norris' book at all, were it not for KJVOists who continually mock, denigrate, and ridicule the scholarship of modern Bible editors and translators. That is the point of the beginning of the chapter - nothing more. In fact, Norris opens the chapter by mentioning a KJVO double standard; viz., KJVOs usually deplore scholarship, but inconsistently appeal to the superiority of the KJV translators and their scholarship, when trying to prove the KJV's inerrancy. Kinney, unable to distinguish an implication from an outright declaration, pretends to have caught Norris in a fallacious argument when he writes:
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.
The reader can surely detect the driving force behind Kinney's accusation. He thinks that because he isn't aware of anyone who believes x, y, or z, that there can't possibly be anyone who believes x, y, or z. Perhaps Kinney has acquired some form of omniscience? Kinney provides the reader with Norris' supposed "straw man argument:"
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? [emphasis added - KD] This dependence on the authority of the fallible KJV translators indicates a serious weakness with the KJV-only view."
Other than the fact that those four sentences from Norris are derived (without ellipses or any other indication of being snipped by Kinney) from 2 separate paragraphs, and from two separate pages, Kinney says nothing further about them. Norris finishes the paragraph excerpted by Kinney above by stating, "If the KJV-only view did not depend on the authority of men (the KJV translators), there would have been no need to stress so much the scholarship of these men." (pg. 50) Note the bolded part of Norris' quotation. Perhaps Kinney didn't read those words carefully enough. You will see below, that Kinney and others from his very own discussion group do indeed bind themselves to the opinions and interpretations of the finite and fallible KJV translators. Some examples of the stress KJVO authors place on the scholarship of the KJV translators can be found in Norris' book, pages 48 and 49. In addition, D. A. Waite, in his book The Fourfold Superiority of the King James Version, writes:
#2: THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS SUPERIOR TRANSLATORS. The second reason for defending the KJV is because it has superior translators. This correctly implies that the various versions and perversions of the Bible have inferior translators.
Let's take a brief look at the superior translators of the KJV. Why do I say that the KJV translators are superior? I say they are superior because they ARE superior! I think that there is no question about the expertise and ability of the translators who gave us our KJV. The new version people often say that the KJV translators were rather ignorant and didn't know as much about translating as the "translators/paraphrasers" of today. This is not only prideful, but completely false. Their linguistic qualifications are unequaled!
Based on Waite's statement above, as well as his parading of the academic and linguistic achievements of several specific KJV translators further down in that essay, I'd say Norris is right on the mark. Further, over the past 8 years, I've seen KJVOs make numerous appeals to the "inerrant" translational decisions of the KJV translators on various discussion boards. Ironically, KJVOs - including Kinney - sweep the opinions of the KJV translators completely under the rug when it comes to the numerous alternative renderings found within the margin of the 1611 edition. As Norris said, it does, indeed, seem that KJVOs have endowed the KJV translators with infallibility. Observe some of Kinney's past musings, found at his own discussion group:
Will Kinney: My position is that God providentially guided the KJB translators in both their selection of the correct Hebrew and Greek readings, and in the English translation so as to give us His pure words in the TEXT of the King James Bible. (message #21891 at Kinney's "Which Version" yahoo group)
Will Kinney: We believe God was behind this process to guide the KJB translators to fulfill His promise to preserve His words. (message #14095 at Kinney's "Which Version" yahoo group)
Marty Shue (co-founder of Kinney's discussion group): ...we believe God guided the KJB translators both as to the correct
texts and meaning of those texts. (message #12056 at Kinney's "Which Version" yahoo group)Will Kinney: I believe God supernaturally intervened in the translation of the KJB and this is where His words are today in
the English language. (message #6733 at Kinney's "Which Version" yahoo group)Will Kinney: Dave, let's look at your reasoning here. Did God ever tell John, or Mark, Matthew, Luke, Jude, James or Peter that what they were writing was the inspired words of God? Chapter and verse, please. (message #29746 at Kinney's "Which Version" yahoo group)
With those citations in plain sight, it seems only apropos to re-cite Norris' bolded question above: Do KJV-only advocates bind themselves to the opinions and interpretations of the finite and fallible KJV translators as their ultimate voice of authority? Does the reader need further evidence that Norris erected no straw man at all, and that Kinney seems to have a complete misunderstanding of his own position, and that of KJVOism in general?
Kinney next remarks:
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.
Since Kinney doesn't contest Norris' statement, one can only assume that he concurs with it. In fact, his appeal to God's use of imperfect men - wrong doctrine notwithstanding - seems to validate Norris' statements above, concerning KJVOs and their elevation of the KJV translators to a state of infallibility. Also, notice Kinney not once tackles the factual data provided by Norris, regarding the Roman Catholic leanings of Lancelot Andrewes and other of the KJV translators on pp. 83ff. Is it reasonable to suppose that Kinney's willingness to overlook the beliefs and doctrines of the KJV translators will carry over to the beliefs and doctrines Kinney supposes to have been held by Westcott and Hort? We will see in part 4 of this Vindication.
Kinney next broaches the subject of King James and his character:
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.
Once again, Kinney is quick to accuse Norris of wrong doing. Norris plainly states that the information provided about King James was to correct the false claims of KJVOs (pg. 56). If merely providing citations from several Baptist, Puritan, and English Bible histories amounts to the use of "smear tactics," then one would reasonably expect Kinney to provide statements from men who knew King James "personally" to refute Norris. After all, the title of Kinney's treatise is "A Response, &c," is it not? Norris' book is over 500 pages long. Approximately 27 pages are devoted to King James and his character. The fact that Kinney devotes only 3 paragraphs to counter Norris' well researched information about King James is laughable. More damaging to Kinney's credibility, is his statement that Norris "produces a series of quotes from people who never knew the man personally..." Well Mr. Spottiswod and Mr. Melville are two names that we are met with on page 57 of Norris' book, both of whom were contemporary with King James. Did they know him "personally?" Who knows. It doesn't matter. One does not have to know King James "personally" in order to be qualified to write of his actions and beliefs while he was King. If Kinney truly adheres to such a ridiculous position, then every history ever written may as well be thrown away. Notice Kinney doesn't "respond" to a single witness that Norris brings forth regarding King James' character, policies, or actions. How does one entitle such a lengthy diatribe "A Response...," when he refuses to acknowledge huge amounts of information, let alone actually respond to it? Would Kinney have us believe that every last source used by Norris is wrong when it comes to King James? Every single one?
The truth of the matter, as I see it, is that, at best, the sheer volume of source material Norris utilizes in the pages of his book simply overwhelms Kinney. He doesn't have all those sources, nor does he know where to find them. At worst, Kinney is too lazy to track the sources down and look up the citations in context, because it would lead him to a theological dilemma. Rather than face the possibility of having been completely in error, Kinney grabs a single book by Stephen Coston with which his mind is put at ease. Kinney says Coston provides testimony of men who actually "knew" King James (ironic choice of words, eh?), but doesn't provide a single quote from any of Coston's "witnesses." Strange that Kinney wouldn't have taken the opportunity here to completely refute Norris' sources.
After bypassing nearly 13 pages of authoritative citations which paint King James in a light much different from how KJVOs portray him (again, where's the so-called "Response?"), Kinney retreats to the oft-repeated KJVO slogan: "King James had NOTHING TO DO with the Bible translation that now bears his name" (caps are Kinney's). If setting up and enforcing the rules for translating, ordering the translators to be prejudiced, and commanding that the beliefs of the Church of England not be undermined in the translation constitute having NOTHING TO DO with the translation, then I would say Kinney is right. But what did the KJV translators themselves say? From the Epistle Dedicatory:
And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work...(emphasis mine)
Kinney then thinks he has made some sort of brilliant observation when he says:
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 [sic] Edwards, John Newton, who wrote Amazing Grace, and Agustus [sic] Toplady who wrote Rock of Ages.
The above is a prime example of the multitudinous times where Kinney feigns concern about something, when in reality, he's trying to manipulate his opponent. Much like when he asks Norris to provide an alternative to the KJV, when everyone familiar with Kinney knows he only seeks such an alternative so that he can compare it to the KJV and tear it down, he now suggests that Norris and other Calvinists bring up nasty things about Calvin and Luther, "and then conclude that nothing they ever taught or believed could possibly be correct." The truth is, Kinney himself is a Calvinist! So what is his point? Yes, Mr. Kinney, let's impugn the character and actions of Calvin and Luther, Spurgeon, Edwards and the rest (and by "the actions of John Calvin," I'm sure Kinney would ignorantly repeat the oft-told lie that Calvin murdered Servetus). Were we to impugn Calvin and Luther, or not, wouldn't change the facts surrounding King James. Impugning the character and actions of Calvinists would hurt Kinney as much as he assumes it would hurt Norris. So what's his end game?
Is Kinney actually being genuine when he suggests we impugn the character and actions of long dead Calvinists? or is this just one of many cases where he's chasing his own tail?
Furthermore, Norris nowhere states that "nothing [King James] ever taught or believed could possibly be correct." Kinney seems to have a problem staying focused. Norris hasn't brought up the character of King James to, say, steer people away from Anglicanism. As was said already, Norris only brought it up to refute the claims of KJVOs, who have elevated King James to God-like status.
How fitting, and at the same time ironic, that King James states that "Kings are the breathing images of God upon earth" (Political Works of James I., pg. xxxv.). And, in a 1610 speech to Parliament, James says Kings "are not only God's Lieutenants on earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God Himself they are called Gods" (Ibid., pg. 307). And "Kings are justly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Divine power upon earth. For if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King" (ibid., pg. 307). If you continue reading on page 308 of this work, you will see an eerie similarity to several of the Pope's pretensions.
Kinney next remarks:
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...
As I said previously, we shall see if Kinney really means this, when we examine the beliefs of Westcott and Hort in the next part.
