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

[prophet]

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

https://youtu.be/lbOtDSRp2B4

Video Description:

http://www.phoenixmag.com/People/west-of-westboro.html

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

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.

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.

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....



Haklo

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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

"Greater love has no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Like heterosexual people, gay people can and do love.

If you won't believe that, fine.

Oh, and the "good old days" weren't so "good". THAT was my point.

 

[prophet]

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

"Greater love has no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Like heterosexual people, gay people can and do love.

If you won't believe that, fine.

Oh, and the "good old days" weren't so "good". THAT was my point.

I agree with your point on "the good old days".
My Tribe was disbanded in 1906, when my Grandfather was 7.
We weren't allowed to reband, until 1970.
The practice of our religion was banned, while every other religion I know of was allowed.

Sodomites "burn in their LUST one for another".
They don't love each other.

There was absolutely no reason to say "love" , to make your point. 

God is love, and God damns their affection.



Haklo

 

[logos1560]

Yes, I believe that every subsequent English Version has some purposeful tampering that is clearly traceable.

You do not show that it is any different than the purposeful changes, revision, and tampering that the makers of the KJV made to the pre-1611 English Bible or Bibles.  Are you willing to apply consistently the same exact just measures to determine whether any tampering can be seen in the KJV as you would use for determining claimed tampering in other English translations?

The Church of England makers of the KJV changed and thus tampered with some renderings in pre-1611 English Bibles that had been cited as supporting congregational church government or as supporting Presbyterian church government, and some of the changes were considered by believers in the 1600's as being  more favorable to Episcopal church government views.  There are documented historical sources in the 1600's that acknowledged that Episcopal bias was seen in the 1611 KJV by readers of the KJV in that day.

 

[prophet]

Yes, I believe that every subsequent English Version has some purposeful tampering that is clearly traceable.

You do not show that it is any different than the purposeful changes, revision, and tampering that the makers of the KJV made to the pre-1611 English Bible or Bibles.  Are you willing to apply consistently the same exact just measures to determine whether any tampering can be seen in the KJV as you would use for determining claimed tampering in other English translations?

The Church of England makers of the KJV changed and thus tampered with some renderings in pre-1611 English Bibles that had been cited as supporting congregational church government or as supporting Presbyterian church government, and some of the changes were considered by believers in the 1600's as being  more favorable to Episcopal church government views.  There are documented historical sources in the 1600's that acknowledged that Episcopal bias was seen in the 1611 KJV by readers of the KJV in that day.

Equating "changes" and "revisions" which can be sincere attempts to correct errors,  to "tampering" -my word, which infers negative effect, disqualifies you from the conversation.
I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but I already know that you are intellectually dishonest.

Lol @ "makers".



Haklo

 

[logos1560]

Yes, I believe that every subsequent English Version has some purposeful tampering that is clearly traceable.

You do not show that it is any different than the purposeful changes, revision, and tampering that the makers of the KJV made to the pre-1611 English Bible or Bibles.  Are you willing to apply consistently the same exact just measures to determine whether any tampering can be seen in the KJV as you would use for determining claimed tampering in other English translations?

The Church of England makers of the KJV changed and thus tampered with some renderings in pre-1611 English Bibles that had been cited as supporting congregational church government or as supporting Presbyterian church government, and some of the changes were considered by believers in the 1600's as being  more favorable to Episcopal church government views.  There are documented historical sources in the 1600's that acknowledged that Episcopal bias was seen in the 1611 KJV by readers of the KJV in that day.

Equating "changes" and "revisions" which can be sincere attempts to correct errors,  to "tampering" -my word, which infers negative effect, disqualifies you from the conversation.
I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but I already know that you are intellectually dishonest.

Evidently, you are trying to avoid serious, fair, honest discussion and are trying to smear  with your unproven, incorrect accusation or innuendo.  Do you seek to avoid providing evidence for your own earlier claim and to avoid applying your unsupported claim concerning tampering consistently using just measures?

Evidently, you consider my posting of accurate, true information, my appeal for the use of consistent, sound, just measures, and my acceptance of what the Scriptures teach concerning themselves to be "intellectually dishonest."

 

[logos1560]

Henry Dexter maintained that “its [KJV’s] translators acted under Episcopal bias, and is some passages modified earlier and more exact versions in its interest” (Hand-Book, p. 15).  William Carpenter asserted:  “In some cases, the translation has been influenced either by the desire of the translators to conform it to their royal master’s prejudices in favour of episcopacy, or, which is equally probable, to render it accordant with their own sentiments on this subject” (Guide to Practical Reading of the Bible, pp. 58-59). 

Samuel Cox acknowledged that some renderings in the KJV “have been attributed to ecclesiastical bias” (Expositor, III, p. 301).  Edward Jacob Drinkhouse referred to “the Episcopal bias” of the King James translators (History of Methodist Reform, p. 260).  Benjamin Hanbury contended that certain renderings in the KJV makes it “sectarian and the symbol of a party” (Historical Memorials, footnote pp. 1-2).  Silas Shepard maintained that the KJV “is decidedly sectarian” (British Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VIII, p. 74).  In the general preface to his New Literal Translation, James Macknight claimed that “their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect” (p. 9). 

James Edmunds and T. S. Bell asserted that “King James’s servitors warped the Word of God to suit their employer or to suit their theological notions” (Discussion on Revision, p. 113).  Edmunds and Bell refer to the KJV as “that sectarian version” (p. 119).  Derek Wilson maintained that the translation by Bancroft’s team “had to circumvent any interpretation that might tend towards separatism” (People’s Book, p. 119).  R. S. Sugirtharajah asserted that the KJV was seen as “episcopal” (Hamlin, KJB after 400, p. 160). 

John Beard contended: “Our present Bible wears a courtly dress, and utters the Church-of-Englandism of the day” (Revised English Bible, pp. 146-147).  Ross Purdy wrote:  “There is an Episcopalian bias in the King James Bible” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 46).  Purdy asserted:  “the Anglican bias is still discernible” (p. 15).  Purdy referred to “examples of obvious Anglican and authoritative bias” that promote “prelacy” (p. 57). 

In the Preface to the Reader in the 2014 Modern English Bible [a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text], it is maintained that according to the instructions given its translators the KJV “would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England” and that “the new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy” (pp. ix-x).

KJV-only author Robert Sargent even acknowledged that the Puritans considered certain words or renderings to favor “Episcopalian polity” (English Bible, p. 230). In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston wrote:  “Mention might be made of some unhandsome dealing, not in the translators, but in a great prelate of that time, the chief supervisor of the work, who, as the Reverend Doctor Hill declared in a great and honourable Assembly, would have it speak the prelatical language, and to that end altered it in 14 places” (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49). 
  .   

 

[prophet]

Yes, I believe that every subsequent English Version has some purposeful tampering that is clearly traceable.

You do not show that it is any different than the purposeful changes, revision, and tampering that the makers of the KJV made to the pre-1611 English Bible or Bibles.  Are you willing to apply consistently the same exact just measures to determine whether any tampering can be seen in the KJV as you would use for determining claimed tampering in other English translations?

The Church of England makers of the KJV changed and thus tampered with some renderings in pre-1611 English Bibles that had been cited as supporting congregational church government or as supporting Presbyterian church government, and some of the changes were considered by believers in the 1600's as being  more favorable to Episcopal church government views.  There are documented historical sources in the 1600's that acknowledged that Episcopal bias was seen in the 1611 KJV by readers of the KJV in that day.

Equating "changes" and "revisions" which can be sincere attempts to correct errors,  to "tampering" -my word, which infers negative effect, disqualifies you from the conversation.
I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but I already know that you are intellectually dishonest.

Evidently, you are trying to avoid serious, fair, honest discussion and are trying to smear  with your unproven, incorrect accusation or innuendo.  Do you seek to avoid providing evidence for your own earlier claim and to avoid applying your unsupported claim concerning tampering consistently using just measures?

Evidently, you consider my posting of accurate, true information, my appeal for the use of consistent, sound, just measures, and my acceptance of what the Scriptures teach concerning themselves to be "intellectually dishonest."

I may have over estimated your intelligence.

My apologies.

Haklo

 

[logos1560]

I may have over estimated your intelligence.

My apologies.

At least I can still see that the KJV-only use of fallacies ,the KJV-only use of unjust measures, and the KJV-only showing of partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611 to advocate a modern, man-made KJV-only view are wrong.

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. 

 

[FSSL]

I may have over estimated your intelligence.

My apologies.

At least I can still see that the KJV-only use of fallacies ,the KJV-only use of unjust measures, and the KJV-only showing of partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611 to advocate a modern, man-made KJV-only view are wrong.

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.

Yep!

 

[RevBob]

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.

 

[FSSL]

So.. the gospel, now, according to the so called Rev is that those who are against KJVOs, like RevBob, are unbelievers.

That is a curious "gospel."

 

[RevBob]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a Bible believer.  So, obviously, "KJVO", though I don't like this designation.  We have the Christian Bible--KJB.  That's it.  You either believe it or you don't.  Where I come from, the so-called "version issue" is a non-issue.

Surely, they may be some that were misled or just don't know better, and may think that "all versions are the same", but those who are anti-KJV are without a doubt unbelievers.

 

[FSSL]

You have moved the premise from the KJV to the KJVO.

Your gospel is morphing.

 

[T-Bone]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a Bible believer.  So, obviously, "KJVO", though I don't like this designation.  We have the Christian Bible--KJB.  That's it.  You either believe it or you don't.  Where I come from, the so-called "version issue" is a non-issue.

Surely, they may be some that were misled or just don't know better, and may think that "all versions are the same", but those who are anti-KJV are without a doubt unbelievers.

Where you come from? You are the poster child of why marrying your cousin is illegal!

 

[bgwilkinson]

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

 

[BALAAM]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a Bible believer.  So, obviously, "KJVO", though I don't like this designation.  We have the Christian Bible--KJB.  That's it.  You either believe it or you don't.  Where I come from, the so-called "version issue" is a non-issue.

Surely, they may be some that were misled or just don't know better, and may think that "all versions are the same", but those who are anti-KJV are without a doubt unbelievers.

Um, no; I hadn't noticed that you were a bible believer. You hide it quite well.

 

[IFB X-Files]

Well that settles it you must be KJVO to be saved.
All none KJVOs go to hell.
Now we know.

(laughing as I read this!) 

 

[RevBob]

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.

 

[Jehanne La Pucelle]

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.

Yikes!