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

[logos1560]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a Bible believer.  So, obviously, "KJVO", though I don't like this designation. 

You do not demonstrate that you are a true Bible believer by advocating and following non-scriptural KJV-only opinions that are not stated in the Bible.  KJV-only advocate is clearly a more accurate description of your modern view than Bible believer is.

We have the Christian Bible--KJB.  That's it. 

The fact remain that the KJV is not only the Christian Bible.  The Christian Bible existed before 1611.  The KJV is only one imperfect English translation, and it has not been demonstrated to be a perfect, inerrant translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.  The Scriptures were translated into English before 1611, and some of those good pre-1611 English Bibles are still available today.  I have reprint editions of all the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision.  The makers of the KJV maintained that the pre-1611 English Bibles were the word of God in English, and they borrowed the majority of their renderings from them.  The makers of the KJV even borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.  The KJV is actually more of a revision than it is a new original translation.  I also have a copy of the 1842 English Bible [a revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists].  There are other English translations that are the word of God in English in the exact same sense as you would inconsistently claim for only the KJV.

 

[logos1560]

KJV-only advocates evidently need to try to attack or smear believers who disagree with KJV-only opinions of men since they cannot or will not present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural case for their unproven opinions.

Those who are anti-"KJVO" are not true believers.  Just like those who believe the Book of Mor(m)ons or the Catholic tripe aren't true believers.  That's not a smear, that's a fact, and it manifests in their actions, a.k.a. the fruit.

The fact remains that you have not demonstrated that a modern KJV-only theory so you have failed to show that KJV-only claims are stated in the Scriptures.  You make an invalid comparison. 

Your accusation against actual believers in the Scriptures who properly disagree with KJV-only opinions of men is an unproven, improper smear.  You did not prove that your accusation was a fact. 

 

[FSSL]

Well that settles it you must be KJVO to be saved.
All non-KJVOs go to hell.
Now we know.

No, all anti-KJVO are on their way to hell.  Those who are confused or ignorant need to be corrected, and if they refuse correction and continue in Bible-denying heresy, then they are not Elect, and are obviously on their way to Hell.

I checked your IP address and it is on earth. It is not located on a Great White Throne in Heaven. Perhaps you could explain how you know the mind of God, being that you are not God and that you are not even in His vicinity.

 

[T-Bone]

Well that settles it you must be KJVO to be saved.
All non-KJVOs go to hell.
Now we know.

No, all anti-KJVO are on their way to hell.  Those who are confused or ignorant need to be corrected, and if they refuse correction and continue in Bible-denying heresy, then they are not Elect, and are obviously on their way to Hell.

I checked your IP address and it is on earth. It is not located on a Great White Throne in Heaven. Perhaps you could explain how you know the mind of God, being that you are not God and that you are not even in His vicinity.

You might want to re-check that IP adress....since he is an accuser of the brethren, his address might considerably more to the South.

 

[prophet]

This thread has flushed out extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
On end constantly repeats KJBO talking points.
The other end calls everyone who suspects Darby or Wescott and Hort's motives, "KJVO".

There is a million miles of middle ground between Logos and BB, including the ground where the Truth stands.

Neither extreme can make a point without building a false premise, and insisting that others stand on it, and defend the fictitious position.



Haklo

 

[bgwilkinson]

This thread has flushed out extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
On end constantly repeats KJBO talking points.
The other end calls everyone who suspects Darby or Wescott and Hort's motives, "KJVO".

There is a million miles of middle ground between Logos and BB, including the ground where the Truth stands.

Neither extreme can make a point without building a false premise, and insisting that others stand on it, and defend the fictitious position.



Haklo

Where is the middle ground between one who says all Bibles that are not the KJV version, are Satan's Bibles, and one who maintains the position of the KJV translators that all versions are valid Bibles when done by scholarly religious professionals like the King James Translators?

Where does double inspiration fit into the making of the KJV?

 

[Ransom]

This thread has flushed out extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
On end constantly repeats KJBO talking points.
The other end calls everyone who suspects Darby or Wescott and Hort's motives, "KJVO"

Well, that's odd. Until you did, no one in this thread even mentioned Darby, Westcott,  or Hort.

 

[subllibrm]

This thread has flushed out extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
On end constantly repeats KJBO talking points.
The other end calls everyone who suspects Darby or Wescott and Hort's motives, "KJVO"

Well, that's odd. Until you did, no one in this thread even mentioned Darby, Westcott,  or Hort.

Kim Darby was terrible in the first True Grit. No one noticed because Glen Campbell was worse.

 

[logos1560]

This thread has flushed out extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
On end constantly repeats KJBO talking points.
The other end calls everyone who suspects Darby or Wescott and Hort's motives, "KJVO".

There is a million miles of middle ground between Logos and BB, including the ground where the Truth stands.

Neither extreme can make a point without building a false premise, and insisting that others stand on it, and defend the fictitious position.

You fail to back up and demonstrate that your assertions or accusations are correct. 

My scripturally-based position has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort, and you have not shown that it is extreme at all.    My view of Bible translations is the same basic view as that held by the Reformers, by the early English translators including the makers of the KJV, and by many doctrinally sound believers from the 1500's until today.  I accept and defend the KJV as what it actually is--a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva and in the same sense as later English Bibles such as the NKJV.   

 

[bgwilkinson]

This thread has flushed out extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
On end constantly repeats KJBO talking points.
The other end calls everyone who suspects Darby or Wescott and Hort's motives, "KJVO".

There is a million miles of middle ground between Logos and BB, including the ground where the Truth stands.

Neither extreme can make a point without building a false premise, and insisting that others stand on it, and defend the fictitious position.

You fail to back up and demonstrate that your assertions or accusations are correct. 

My scripturally-based position has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort, and you have not shown that it is extreme at all.    My view of Bible translations is the same basic view as that held by the Reformers, by the early English translators including the makers of the KJV, and by many doctrinally sound believers from the 1500's until today.  I accept and defend the KJV as what it actually is--a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva and in the same sense as later English Bibles such as the NKJV. 

Well said!

 

[Agent P]

Which edition of the KJV did Jesus use?

The one He had John R. Rice sign.

With a picture of a Bible published by a Mormon publisher.  Well played.

 

[prophet]

This thread has flushed out extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
On end constantly repeats KJBO talking points.
The other end calls everyone who suspects Darby or Wescott and Hort's motives, "KJVO".

There is a million miles of middle ground between Logos and BB, including the ground where the Truth stands.

Neither extreme can make a point without building a false premise, and insisting that others stand on it, and defend the fictitious position.



Haklo

Where is the middle ground between one who says all Bibles that are not the KJV version, are Satan's Bibles, and one who maintains the position of the KJV translators that all versions are valid Bibles when done by scholarly religious professionals like the King James Translators?

Where does double inspiration fit into the making of the KJV?

Where does single inspiration fit in?

Why would one have to insist that : anyone who believes that the KJV is a valid translation, believes some "double-inspiration" crap that can be attributed to Ruckman and his camp?

This is the foolishness that the extreme on the other end brings to the debate.

You believe that the KJV was the last good translation in English, so...you must defend the extremists that believe every thing in-between the Truth and the Wacky fringe.

This is so similar to politics, that it is scary.
I don't wish to associate with Homosexuals, so I must defend Westboro Baptist.
Or: I believe that that KJV is the Word of God, in English, but don't trust Farstad's motives with the NKJV, since he clearly doesn't believe that the body of documents from which the AV was translated, was God's Word.
So, I must defend Riplinger, or Gipp, because I'm obviously "KJVO" (which has no definition, and is usually a slur).

I don't mind the endless debate on mss evidence, the Truth comes out, and debate is healthy.

I can't stand getting into a conversation where the other party insists that I put on someone else's clothes, and act out their part in the play.

There is little difference in the 2 ends of the spectrum, and neither are scholarly.

Haklo

 

[prophet]

This thread has flushed out extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
On end constantly repeats KJBO talking points.
The other end calls everyone who suspects Darby or Wescott and Hort's motives, "KJVO"

Well, that's odd. Until you did, no one in this thread even mentioned Darby, Westcott,  or Hort.

The reasoned position that Darby began the process of "new English translations" and that he had a personal agenda, ie: Founding his own religion, and hence not trustworthy, should be able to be discussed apart from any discussion of the commonly accepted English Bible that has been around, and updated for more than 400 years.
But extremists can't do it.
They freak out over any mention that some versions are simply not honest translations of viable bodies of documents.
Or that some "translators" were agenda driven.

We can discuss any translation, or version.
I'm looking at who translated/edited it, and what they say, in their own words, about their own beliefs, before I even entertain the idea of giving their work validity.

Sorry, every man, myself included be a liar, and God be true.


Haklo

 

[prophet]

This thread has flushed out extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
On end constantly repeats KJBO talking points.
The other end calls everyone who suspects Darby or Wescott and Hort's motives, "KJVO".

There is a million miles of middle ground between Logos and BB, including the ground where the Truth stands.

Neither extreme can make a point without building a false premise, and insisting that others stand on it, and defend the fictitious position.

You fail to back up and demonstrate that your assertions or accusations are correct. 

My scripturally-based position has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort, and you have not shown that it is extreme at all.    My view of Bible translations is the same basic view as that held by the Reformers, by the early English translators including the makers of the KJV, and by many doctrinally sound believers from the 1500's until today.  I accept and defend the KJV as what it actually is--a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva and in the same sense as later English Bibles such as the NKJV. 

I wasn't addressing your position on anything. 
I was addressing your insistence that I stand on your false premise, and defend positions that I don't hold.

And, I was pointing out that your tactic was similar to BB's.

Again, I fail to see ,in you, the intellectual ability to carry on an honest debate.
You are either unable, or unwilling, much like political progressives, to allow honest debate to run its course.
Your repetition of the phrase "KJVO" ad nauseum, and your insistence that all who disagree with you wear that label,
make my point for me.

Haklo

 

[FSSL]

Sounds just like Mitex. Not wanting the label KJVO, thinking his middle ground was truth... but in the end, not much difference with the distinction.

Logos is hardly extremist.

Prophet... does the NIV, NASB or ESV have the quality of inspiration?

 

[RevBob]

I don't mind the endless debate on mss evidence, the Truth comes out, and debate is healthy.

Romans 1 (King Jesus Version)
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[rsc2a]

Jesus wept

 

[prophet]

Sounds just like Mitex. Not wanting the label KJVO, thinking his middle ground was truth... but in the end, not much difference with the distinction.

Logos is hardly extremist.

Prophet... does the NIV, NASB or ESV have the quality of inspiration?

Portions of each do.

Haklo

 

[FSSL]

Portions of each do.
Haklo

There we are. You are not holding to a middle position

The KJV translators fought against this extremism "...the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

 

[Ransom]

This thread has flushed out extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
On end constantly repeats KJBO talking points.
The other end calls everyone who suspects Darby or Wescott and Hort's motives, "KJVO"

Well, that's odd. Until you did, no one in this thread even mentioned Darby, Westcott,  or Hort.

The reasoned position that Darby began the process of "new English translations" and that he had a personal agenda, ie: Founding his own religion, and hence not trustworthy, should be able to be discussed apart from any discussion of the commonly accepted English Bible that has been around, and updated for more than 400 years.
But extremists can't do it.
They freak out over any mention that some versions are simply not honest translations of viable bodies of documents.
Or that some "translators" were agenda driven.

We can discuss any translation, or version.
I'm looking at who translated/edited it, and what they say, in their own words, about their own beliefs, before I even entertain the idea of giving their work validity.

Sorry, every man, myself included be a liar, and God be true.


Haklo

Well, that's odd. Until you did, no one in this thread even mentioned Darby, Westcott,  or Hort.