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

RevBob said:
prophet said:
I don't mind the endless debate on mss evidence, the Truth comes out, and debate is healthy.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you sponge bob but there are even more verses in the Bible than these! :o :o :o
 
prophet said:
bgwilkinson said:
prophet said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...

My question was not worded very well. So I'll try again.

Here is position one. 
All Bibles that are not the KJV version, are Satan's Bibles. I would call this KJVOx.

Here is position two.
All versions are valid Bibles when done by scholarly religious professionals like the King James Translators.

I would hold to position two.

Ok now where is the middle ground?

Is there anything here on which we can agree?

Let's see if we can work through the issues one at time.
 
bgwilkinson said:
My question was not worded very well. So I'll try again.

Here is position one. 
All Bibles that are not the KJV version, are Satan's Bibles. I would call this KJVOx.

Here is position two.
All versions are valid Bibles when done by scholarly religious professionals like the King James Translators.
Click to expand...
True Christian position:
All "bibles" that are not the KJB are Satan's Bibles because they were corrupted, as they were not done by scholarly Christian professionals working with the original manuscripts (which are no longer available and no longer needed) like the King James Translators.

Since we have Jesus' own KJB, why would we need "new" translations anyway?  KJV is perfectly readable and easily understandable.  Any true Christian is of the Elect, and should have no trouble discerning its meaning.
 
In other words "The gospel was lost and found again in 1611."
 
FSSL said:
In other words "The gospel was lost and found again in 1611."
Click to expand...
It was not lost--it is perfectly preserved within the KJB!
 
RevBob said:
bgwilkinson said:
My question was not worded very well. So I'll try again.

Here is position one. 
All Bibles that are not the KJV version, are Satan's Bibles. I would call this KJVOx.

Here is position two.
All versions are valid Bibles when done by scholarly religious professionals like the King James Translators.
Click to expand...
True Christian position:
All "bibles" that are not the KJB are Satan's Bibles because they were corrupted, as they were not done by scholarly Christian professionals working with the original manuscripts (which are no longer available and no longer needed) like the King James Translators.

Since we have Jesus' own KJB, why would we need "new" translations anyway?  KJV is perfectly readable and easily understandable.  Any true Christian is of the Elect, and should have no trouble discerning its meaning.
Click to expand...

Um no, they weren't.
 
Recovering IFB said:
Wow Scott, you've been busy correcting lately
Click to expand...

As long as people keep treating RevBob as a real person, or appear to, it's a much-needed public service.
 
OK, somewhat back on topic:

I'm doing some KJV0-only research that involves, in part, Spamderson.  I'm trying to find out the name and date of his sermon that includes the infamous "pisseth against the wall" rant. It's from 2007 or early 2008, that's all I know at this time. (Hard to believe it's actually that recent; it feels like Stevie's been doing his schtick forever!)

Anyone able to help me out?
 
bgwilkinson said:
prophet said:
bgwilkinson said:
prophet said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...

My question was not worded very well. So I'll try again.

Here is position one. 
All Bibles that are not the KJV version, are Satan's Bibles. I would call this KJVOx.

Here is position two.
All versions are valid Bibles when done by scholarly religious professionals like the King James Translators.

I would hold to position two.

Ok now where is the middle ground?

Is there anything here on which we can agree?

Let's see if we can work through the issues one at time.
Click to expand...
The middle ground is to take each version, and first look at the source of its translation, the thesis of its editor(s).


Haklo

 
prophet said:
So, I must defend Riplinger, or Gipp, because I'm obviously "KJVO" (which has no definition, and is usually a slur).
Click to expand...

You have not demonstrated that it is demanded that you defend Gail Riplinger and Sam Gipp so perhaps you try to misrepresent what believers who disagree with KJV-only opinions actually state.

KJV-only is a proper accurate term that has a definition, and you do not demonstrate and back up your accusation that it is usually a smear.  You continue to throw out accusations that you do not back up.
 
prophet said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do not demonstrate that your unsupported accusation is true. 
 
prophet said:
The middle ground is to take each version, and first look at the source of its translation, the thesis of its editor(s).
Click to expand...

My scripturally-based position would be to take each version and evaluate it by consistent, just measures in comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, and yet you seemed to try to smear it as being extreme.
 
prophet said:
The middle ground is to take each version, and first look at the source of its translation, the thesis of its editor(s).


Haklo
Click to expand...

The KJV translators established a good balanced attitude towards the scriptures, even those they considered "the meanest."

They called the Vulgate and LXX the Scriptures. You cannot even call the ESV or NASB "Scripture."

Your position, by definition, is exclusive and is far more extreme than any modern version user on this forum.
 
IFB X-Files said:
logos1560 said:
KJV-only is a proper accurate term that has a definition
Click to expand...

And what is that definition?
Click to expand...

Those that believe the KJV is the only proper English version of the Scriptures. How difficult was that?

In my experience, the majority of KJV-preferred are really KJVO. They are just nice enough to tell you they prefer it. In reality, they don't use anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top