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

[Biblebeliever]

I reject the so-called authority of Dunglicker and you to tell us what the word of God is, not the authority of the word of God itself.

We Bible believers understand and know what the word of God is. Unlike apostates such as yourself who have no tangible Bible which you believe to be inerrant and infallible.

If you weren't mentally challenged, you would have understood this the other dozen times I have told you, but as it is, you have no understanding and no discernment. Fool.

I have understanding and discernment.

You can't even discern the fact that the modern versions which you support are from the Vatican. When good KJB defenders like brother Will Kinney have affirmed this truth with his research and documentation.

[Do not deliberately misquote me, or anyone else, again. - Ransom]

 

[Biblebeliever]

BB, Sam Gipp was asked in the John Ankerburg show that, if a Russian wanted to read the Word of God properly, would he  have to learn English? Sam Gipp said yes. Do you hold this view?

I remember viewing that segment a while back. Concerning your question, this is the view which I hold concerning the King James Bible and the Bible Version Issue:

If a Russian wants to read the perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God, then yes he would need to learn English. Since I know that the Authorized King James Bible is the inerrant word of God.

However, a Russian that may not know or understand English, can still have access to an accurate copy of the word of God in his own language. He would just need to make sure that the Russian Bible which he purchases is one which has been translated from the accurate Hebrew (Hebrew Masoretic) and Greek texts (Traditional text). In other words, for a foreign language Bible to be accurate, it must follow closely the same Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the King James Holy Bible.

 

[Recovering IFB]

So then BB, they English speaking people had no Bible then before 1611?

 

[Biblebeliever]

The fact remains that the KJV is a version or a translation, and it is not the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

The Blessed King James Holy Bible is the preserved Scriptures. It is an inerrant translation and copy of the Scriptures originally penned by the holy apostles and prophets of Almighty God.

It is non-scriptural extreme KJV-only claims and reasoning that rejects the proper authority of the preserved original language words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles for their proper use in the making and trying of all Bible translations, including the KJV.

As a King James Bible believer, I believe that the Original Autographs were perfect and therefore Authoritative. I also believe though that the King James Holy Bible is superior to the Original Autographs.

Today, we do not have the Original Autograpahs, as penned by the holy apostles and prophets. But what we do have is an inerrant copy and translation of those autographs. Which is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.  It is the Book of Books. Or as brother Peter Ruckman puts it, it is the Monarch of all books.

 

[Biblebeliever]

So then BB, they English speaking people had no Bible then before 1611?

R-IFB, The English people did have a Bible before 1611. They had Coverdale, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishop's, and so forth. Those were pure Bibles. But the Final Stage of purification came in 1611 with the production and printing of the Authorized King James Bible.

 

[T-Bone]

There you have it...BB is proof you can't fix stupid!

 

[IFB X-Files]

So then BB, they English speaking people had no Bible then before 1611?

R-IFB, The English people did have a Bible before 1611. They had Coverdale, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishop's, and so forth. Those were pure Bibles. But the Final Stage of purification came in 1611 with the production and printing of the Authorized King James Bible.

You rock, BB!

 

[subllibrm]

As a King James Bible believer, I believe that the Original Autographs were perfect and therefore Authoritative. I also believe though that the King James Holy Bible is superior to the Original Autographs.

So the KJV is perfect-er?  ???

 

[Ransom]

R-IFB, The English people did have a Bible before 1611. They had Coverdale, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishop's, and so forth.

This is, of course, merely blindingly obvious, so it's no wonder Bibleburner took it upon himself to inform us.

Those were pure Bibles. But the Final Stage of purification came in 1611 with the production and printing of the Authorized King James Bible.

This, on the other hand, is a bare assertion unsupported by Scripture, evidence, or plain reason, and is theefore indistinguishable from a lie - Bibleburner's other specialty.

You rock, BB!

You are rather easily impressed, clearly.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So then BB, they English speaking people had no Bible then before 1611?

R-IFB, The English people did have a Bible before 1611. They had Coverdale, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishop's, and so forth. Those were pure Bibles. But the Final Stage of purification came in 1611 with the production and printing of the Authorized King James Bible.

You rock, BB!

Are you being serious?

Do you really buy the "purified 7 times" abomination coming from KJVOist?

Surely you know there were more than 7 steps in bring the KJV to the masses. The VAST majority of KJVOist have long abandoned this argument. In fact, most KJVOist that I know..... consider it a black eye on KJVOism.

 

[Ransom]

So the KJV is perfect-er?  ???

Not mereky perfect-er, but more perfect-er!

 

[logos1560]

So then BB, they English speaking people had no Bible then before 1611?

R-IFB, The English people did have a Bible before 1611. They had Coverdale, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishop's, and so forth. Those were pure Bibles. But the Final Stage of purification came in 1611 with the production and printing of the Authorized King James Bible.

If the pre-1611 English Bibles were pure Bibles, they are still pure Bibles in the reprint editions available today, and they did not need any revision and supposed purification.  The absolutely pure Scriptures did not and do not need any correction, revision, nor purification as your faulty human reasoning suggests.

The pure words of the LORD were 100% absolutely pure when given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles, and they were not partially impure so that they supposedly needed a purification process.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The purification argument does not hold.

 

[logos1560]

The fact remains that the KJV is a version or a translation, and it is not the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

The Blessed King James Holy Bible is the preserved Scriptures. It is an inerrant translation and copy of the Scriptures originally penned by the holy apostles and prophets of Almighty God.

According to what definition of preservation and according to what consistent view of Bible preservation, can different words in a different language in a 1611 translation be claimed to be the same exact specific original language words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?
You do not demonstrate that your opinions concerning preservation of the Scriptures are consistent, sound, and scriptural.  A consistent, sound scriptural view of preservation would be true both before and after 1611.

You have not backed up your subjective, human opinions with sound evidence nor Scripture.

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?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So the KJV is perfect-er?  ???

Not mereky perfect-er, but more perfect-er!

You're both wrong.  I'ts the perfect-est!

 

[T-Bone]

So the KJV is perfect-er?  ???

Not mereky perfect-er, but more perfect-er!

You're both wrong.  I'ts the perfect-est!

Nope it's ...perfectest-er!

 

[Recovering IFB]

BB, do you hold to particular Scripture that would support this claim?

 

[prophet]

1920s was more like it.  Booze was banned, churches were, by and large, true Christian churches.  No faggots, no Moohamadans, Catholics were put into their proper place and everyone was aware of their evil. No "healthcare" or government handouts, or the taxes used for these.  None of that evolutionist nonsense.  Women, and men, were dressed properly.  And the Christian Bible was taught in public schools!

Yeah, those were the days.  The roaring twenties.  Al Capone.  Rise of the speakeasy and bootleg liquor.  Flappers.  The changing role of women (given the right to vote, cosmetics become widely accepted).  Homosexuality became more visible and accepted leading to this song in 1926:

Masculine women, Feminine men
Which is the rooster, which is the hen?
It's hard to tell 'em apart today! And, say!
Sister is busy learning to shave,
Brother just loves his permanent wave,
It's hard to tell 'em apart today! Hey, hey!
Girls were girls and boys were boys when I was a tot,
Now we don't know who is who, or even what's what!
Knickers and trousers, baggy and wide,
Nobody knows who's walking inside,
Those masculine women and feminine men!

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

It seems this is more disturbing to him...

...than this.

How about....
No thanks.

Again, two guys who love each other or lynchings in the public square. Hmmm.....

It isn't possible to love someone you Sodomize.
Read I Cor 13, for a list of motivations love doesn't have.
Please don't try to slip this dung in again.

Haklo

 

[prophet]

1 Cor 11:14

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Bobby, how long is too long?

Look at pictures from the 1950s. That was God's decade.

1920s was more like it.  Booze was banned, churches were, by and large, true Christian churches.  No faggots, no Moohamadans, Catholics were put into their proper place and everyone was aware of their evil. No "healthcare" or government handouts, or the taxes used for these.  None of that evolutionist nonsense.  Women, and men, were dressed properly.  And the Christian Bible was taught in public schools!

Say not thou what is the cause that the former days were better than these. For thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.  (from that christian bible you keep claiming to obey

Xactly.

Haklo

 

[prophet]

BB, Sam Gipp was asked in the John Ankerburg show that, if a Russian wanted to read the Word of God properly, would he  have to learn English? Sam Gipp said yes. Do you hold this view?

I remember viewing that segment a while back. Concerning your question, this is the view which I hold concerning the King James Bible and the Bible Version Issue:

If a Russian wants to read the perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God, then yes he would need to learn English. Since I know that the Authorized King James Bible is the inerrant word of God.

However, a Russian that may not know or understand English, can still have access to an accurate copy of the word of God in his own language. He would just need to make sure that the Russian Bible which he purchases is one which has been translated from the accurate Hebrew (Hebrew Masoretic) and Greek texts (Traditional text). In other words, for a foreign language Bible to be accurate, it must follow closely the same Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the King James Holy Bible.

Wow.  You have no business speaking.  Go get a job somewhere, shoveling literal dung, instead of virtual dung on the web.

Haklo