Steven Anderson Is NOT Leading The KJV Only Movement!!!

[Biblebeliever]

It is a fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV was not inerrant since it had errors in it.  Many later editions of the KJV, including the 1769 edition, also had errors in them.  According to what correct definition of "inerrant" and according to what sound logic, can you claim that the 1611 KJV with errors is "inerrant"?

In what year and by what publisher do you claim that the first inerrant, perfect edition of the KJV was printed?  What greater authority was used to make the corrections to the actual errors found in the earlier KJV editions so that you can suggest that your present unidentified present edition is inerrant?  Which specific one of the thirty or more present varying editions of the KJV in print today do you claim to be the inerrant one?

Even though printing errors occurred in 1611, still though, Almighty God in His providence and Sovereignty, saw that there were editors who corrected those printing errors. And by the way, in spite of the printing errors, that does not change the fact that the TEXT and Translation of the Authorized Version itself was and is perfect.

And so, to answer your question:

Any King James Bible that you can buy in the bookstores today, they have been purified, and the printing errors which occurred within the first 3 decades of the original printing in 1611 have been corrected long ago.

 

[Biblebeliever]

Wow.  You have no business speaking.

I have as much business speaking as you do.

Go get a job somewhere,

Well, I do have a job, as a matter of fact, I have two jobs.

 

[prophet]

Wow.  You have no business speaking.

I have as much business speaking as you do.

Go get a job somewhere,

Well, I do have a job, as a matter of fact, I have two jobs.

The Russians had the Bible for 600 years before the textus receptus were assembled.

Haklo

 

[Recovering IFB]

Wow.  You have no business speaking.

I have as much business speaking as you do.

Go get a job somewhere,

Well, I do have a job, as a matter of fact, I have two jobs.

The Russians had the Bible for 600 years before the textus receptus were assembled.

Haklo

So Sam Gipp was totally wrong then, huh?

 

[T-Bone]

It is a fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV was not inerrant since it had errors in it.  Many later editions of the KJV, including the 1769 edition, also had errors in them.  According to what correct definition of "inerrant" and according to what sound logic, can you claim that the 1611 KJV with errors is "inerrant"?

In what year and by what publisher do you claim that the first inerrant, perfect edition of the KJV was printed?  What greater authority was used to make the corrections to the actual errors found in the earlier KJV editions so that you can suggest that your present unidentified present edition is inerrant?  Which specific one of the thirty or more present varying editions of the KJV in print today do you claim to be the inerrant one?

Even though printing errors occurred in 1611, still though, Almighty God in His providence and Sovereignty, saw that there were editors who corrected those printing errors. And by the way, in spite of the printing errors, that does not change the fact that the TEXT and Translation of the Authorized Version itself was and is perfect.

And so, to answer your question:

Any King James Bible that you can buy in the bookstores today, they have been purified, and the printing errors which occurred within the first 3 decades of the original printing in 1611 have been corrected long ago.

Only in the KJVO nut world does errors equate to no real errors!

 

[logos1560]

[So it just makes sense that there would need to be a purification process sometime in History.  And that major purification process, I believe began with the Tyndale English Bible. And it concluded with the 1611 printing of the English Holy Bible.

You fail to demonstrate that your conclusions are correct.  Your biased KJV-only opinions or beliefs can be wrong.  The removal of errors from the English Bible did not actually end in 1611. 

 

[logos1560]

It is a fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV was not inerrant since it had errors in it.  Many later editions of the KJV, including the 1769 edition, also had errors in them.  According to what correct definition of "inerrant" and according to what sound logic, can you claim that the 1611 KJV with errors is "inerrant"?

In what year and by what publisher do you claim that the first inerrant, perfect edition of the KJV was printed?
What greater authority was used to make the corrections to the actual errors found in the earlier KJV editions so that you can suggest that your present unidentified present edition is inerrant? 

Which specific one of the thirty or more present varying editions of the KJV in print today do you claim to be the inerrant one?

Even though printing errors occurred in 1611, still though, Almighty God in His providence and Sovereignty, saw that there were editors who corrected those printing errors. And by the way, in spite of the printing errors, that does not change the fact that the TEXT and Translation of the Authorized Version itself was and is perfect.

And so, to answer your question:

Any King James Bible that you can buy in the bookstores today, they have been purified, and the printing errors which occurred within the first 3 decades of the original printing in 1611 have been corrected long ago.

You are misinformed and uninformed about KJV editions. 

You merely assume that all the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV were the fault of the printers, but you do not prove that your claim is correct.  The KJV translators can properly be considered responsible for not correcting some errors that were in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible that were kept in the 1611 edition.  It has not been demonstrated that it was the printers' fault that those 1602 errors were not corrected in 1611.  If the printers were supposedly at fault and the KJV translators were actually aware of those errors and had corrected them in their text prepared for the printers, some of the KJV translators had the authority to make sure that the printers corrected them in the very next printing.  Since the KJV translators did not have those 1602 errors corrected right away in the 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617 editions, it could suggest that they were not aware of them and had failed to correct them in their text prepared for the printers.

You seem to be unaware that later printings of the KJV often introduced new errors.  The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV is said to have over 100 errors, and at least one of those errors remained uncorrected in Oxford and Cambridge KJV editions for over 100 years [until the 1880's].

There are many actual existing differences in the thirty or so varying editions of the KJV in print today, and some of those differences are errors.  There was actually a new set of differences and errors introduced in a number of present KJV editions based on a computer-based text from around 1980.

You did not actually answer my questions, and you did not name the specific year and specific edition of the first KJV that you claim was printed without any errors introduced by fallible men.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Wow.  You have no business speaking.

I have as much business speaking as you do.

Go get a job somewhere,

Well, I do have a job, as a matter of fact, I have two jobs.

The Russians had the Bible for 600 years before the textus receptus were assembled.

Haklo

Greek speaking Christians have used the Greek OT and NT since the time of Christ.

They still use it today.

 

[subllibrm]

<snip> We landed in Michigan yesterday for a couple of weeks.

Yeah! Michigan!

 

[subllibrm]

BTW: Where are u at these days? We landed in Michigan yesterday for a couple of weeks.

Well, ain't that something. So did I {and likewise, also for a couple of weeks}. So just maybe this "coincidence" really isn't  . Since I'm going to Bakers {Grand Rapids} it might be by "Divine appointment" that I clear up some of your _ _ _ _ _ _ _  in person.  Love ya man!

I will get as far West as Lansing (Sleepy Hollow State Park), but that will probably be as far as we travel within Michigan. We are currently in Hartland (Walden woods).

Since I live in a RV, my physical book purchasing days are over. Logos 6 Platinum rocks!!

Sleepy Hollow has a sweet little set up.

 

[rsc2a]

&lt;snip&gt; We landed in Michigan yesterday for a couple of weeks.

I'm sorry.

 

[subllibrm]

&lt;snip&gt; We landed in Michigan yesterday for a couple of weeks.

I'm sorry.

Some people just aren't able to appreciate the finer things in life.

 

[prophet]

Wow.  You have no business speaking.

I have as much business speaking as you do.

Go get a job somewhere,

Well, I do have a job, as a matter of fact, I have two jobs.

The Russians had the Bible for 600 years before the textus receptus were assembled.

Haklo

So Sam Gipp was totally wrong then, huh?

Gipp lives there...

Haklo

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

As to the OP.
From what I know about the loon Anderson, he would be a perfect poster boy for KJVO extremism!

 

[IFB X-Files]

As to the OP.
From what I know about the loon Anderson, he would be a perfect poster boy for KJVO extremism!

His extremism has nothing to do with the KJV.  I'm positive he'd be a nut with an NIV.

 

[Biblebeliever]

You're right in this: he isn't KJVO, so he couldn't be leading that "movement".

Steven Andersnake is also not a King James Bible believer.

Gipp couldn't lead a bowel movement.

Ruckman can lead a lot of things, like, women, for instance...he's led a few to the altar.

I'm sure Densinger fancies himself a leader, but he obviously feels like Anderson is out in front of him, or he wouldn't spend all of his time shooting him in the back.

Brother Sam Gipp has done a lot of good for the King James Bible believing movement. Brother Gipp's book (The Answer Book), his teachings have been incredibly helpful to many of the brethren out there.

Brother Peter S. Ruckman has done a lot of good for the King James Bible believing movement. Brother Ruckman has helped strengthen the faith of many young men and women in the word of God, the Authorized King James Holy Bible. I have heard a number of testimonies of how men, once they graduated from Ruckman's Bible Institute, they have gone on to do street preaching, missionary work, and have even started their own Ministries. Glory be to God!

Brother Denlinger has also been used mightily of the Lord. If you have not watched the video documentary which he did on the Real Bible Version Issue Exposed, I strongly recommend that you take time to watch it. And many believers have been helped by his ministry. Just go to Kingjamesvideoministries.com, check out the Guestbook, and read some of the testimonies of other believers which they have posted there. There are 403 comments in total.

Also, the reason why brother Denlinger is exposing Steven Anderson is because Steven Anderson is spewing out his heretical poison against the Jewish people. Brother Denlinger is doing the right thing in exposing Steven Anderson and his heresies (especially his damnable replacement theology). 
You?  Well, you are just out there.

I think that you are sincere,  but you need to learn to stand on your own 2 feet, and think for yourself.

Anderson and I have been friends for 15 years.  I don't think for him, he doesn't think for me.  I don't post his sermons, I post my thoughts and Scripture.
He doesn't quote me, very often, he publishes what he finds on his own.

I would welcome discussion from you, in your own words and thoughts, but they rarely come.

Tell me what it is that you would like my thoughts on and I will provide you with an answer if I have one.

Yes, I believe the KJB is God's Word.
Yes, I believe that every subsequent English Version has some purposeful tampering that is clearly traceable.
Yes we need to continually update the English in our Blessed Book.
Yes, the Scriptures exist in many languages, some pure, and some with errors mixed in.

See?  These are my thoughts, in my words....

When you say that we need to continually update the English in our Blessed Book, what are you actually saying? Do you mean that we should just remove the archaic words?

 

[logos1560]

Yes, I believe the KJB is God's Word.
Yes, I believe that every subsequent English Version has some purposeful tampering that is clearly traceable.
Yes we need to continually update the English in our Blessed Book.
Yes, the Scriptures exist in many languages, some pure, and some with errors mixed in.

When you say that we need to continually update the English in our Blessed Book, what are you actually saying? Do you mean that we should just remove the archaic words?

Where is your sound evidence of this claimed purposeful tampering in present English Bibles that can be demonstrated to be clearly contrary to accurate English renderings of the preserved original language words as determined by use of consistent just measures?

There would be just as sound of evidence [if not more sound] that shows clearly traceable purposeful tampering to the pre-1611 English Bible introduced by the biased Church of England makers of the KJV.

 

[Biblebeliever]

Since we have Jesus' own KJB, why would we need "new" translations anyway?  KJV is perfectly readable and easily understandable.

Exactly. We do not need any new translations. When we have the perfect and inerrant word of God such as the King James Holy Bible, why would anyone want to settle for anything less than the Absolute Best? Why would anyone want to settle for anything less than absolute purity and perfection?

 

[Ransom]

How many dozens of times over the last couple of weeks has someone trumpeted "THIS IS A TROLL!!!"?

So, naturally, Bibleburner, who can't coherently articulate an article of the Christian faith but has no problem believing that Michelle Obama is a man, along with six million other ridiculous things someone on YouTube told him,  takes him seriously.

Good gravy, how gullible can you get? KJVidiots are truly mental protozoa, aren't they?

 

[prophet]

Yes, I believe the KJB is God's Word.
Yes, I believe that every subsequent English Version has some purposeful tampering that is clearly traceable.
Yes we need to continually update the English in our Blessed Book.
Yes, the Scriptures exist in many languages, some pure, and some with errors mixed in.

When you say that we need to continually update the English in our Blessed Book, what are you actually saying? Do you mean that we should just remove the archaic words?

Where is your sound evidence of this claimed purposeful tampering in present English Bibles that can be demonstrated to be clearly contrary to accurate English renderings of the preserved original language words as determined by use of consistent just measures?

There would be just as sound of evidence [if not more sound] that shows clearly traceable purposeful tampering to the pre-1611 English Bible introduced by the biased Church of England makers of the KJV.

Of course they tampered, which is why the AV was necessary.

The checks and balances set up in the AV translation eliminated the atmosphere for bias, since there were 3 opposing sides set to work together.

We have hundreds of threads to see your thoughts on all of this, so I won't bore us.

Haklo