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

[RevBob]

Wow Scott, you've been busy correcting lately

As long as people keep treating RevBob as a real person, or appear to, it's a much-needed public service.

More like, you don't have anything Biblical to say, so you're trying to smear real Christians. 

And apparently it's nothing new either:
"slandering the KJV and vilifying those who trust it. For example, long-time poster, "Ransom" who is known for his use of demonic-looking avatars such as vampires and upside-down crosses, expresses his contempt for those who trust the King James Bible: "You gotta laugh. KJVers are so stupid.""

http://libertytothecaptives.net/stand_up_for_jesus.html

 

[Ransom]

Well, troll, I'll give you credit: while Lisa Ruby is your fellow troll, she is at least a real person and not one of your imaginary friends.

If KJVers weren't stupid, they wouldn't be KJVers.  But trolls will always be trolls, because there isn't a one of 'em with an IQ that breaks into double digits.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Bobby, can you prove to all here the KJV is in fact the Word of God and all other translations are corrupt?

The floor is yours.....

 

[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?

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

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.

The middle ground is to take each version, and first look at the source of its translation, the thesis of its editor(s).


Haklo

When you used the word thesis regarding Bible translations I thought of this Thesis by
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED.

http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/thesis.htm

I am in substantial agreement with what Mr. Goodspeed wrote.

Do you agree with his thesis?

Do you agree with Miles Smith's Preface?

 

[prophet]

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

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.

KJVO is an accusation, when you use it, and you know it.
It has one literal definition, and that is namely: that one believes that the KJV is the only form that the Word of God exists in, and that, prior to 1611, was lost or incomplete.

Very few idiots actually believe this.

And this accusation is false against anyone who believes that the KJV was the last accurate English translation, but that the Word of God exists in many languages, presently.

You have demonstrated that you hurl this repeatedly, at anyone who distrusts Nestle-Aland for instance, and etc, and I just pointed that out.

Your continuance to prove that you assume that I, or anyone else must defend some defenseless position, which you assign to a wide range of people, is just proof that you are in a gun fight with a butter knife in your pocket.

Haklo

 

[FSSL]

Lol! "KJVO" is an "accusation?" It probably feels that way to those who are embarrased by the community.

Otherwise, it just describes the position. We could call them KJBE (king james bible exxclusive).

 

[Recovering IFB]

KJVO is an accusation, when you use it, and you know it

wrong; its a position that many take and wear the badge proudly. your friend Steve Anderson, you know him, the one you defend on here? He's one of them.

It has one literal definition, and that is namely: that one believes that the KJV is the only form that the Word of God exists in, and that, prior to 1611, was lost or incomplete.

also that it corrects the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.....

Very few idiots actually believe this.

Don't get out much? again your buddy,...Steve?.......

And this accusation is false against anyone who believes that the KJV was the last accurate English translation, but that the Word of God exists in many languages, presently.

Which is exactley the definition of a KJVO position

 

[prophet]

KJVO is an accusation, when you use it, and you know it

wrong; its a position that many take and wear the badge proudly. your friend Steve Anderson, you know him, the one you defend on here? He's one of them.

It has one literal definition, and that is namely: that one believes that the KJV is the only form that the Word of God exists in, and that, prior to 1611, was lost or incomplete.

also that it corrects the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.....

Very few idiots actually believe this.

Don't get out much? again your buddy,...Steve?.......

And this accusation is false against anyone who believes that the KJV was the last accurate English translation, but that the Word of God exists in many languages, presently.

Which is exactley the definition of a KJVO position

Since the thread is about Steve, and why he isn't the leader of the KJVO movement, and you have masterfully brought the discussion back around to that, I will say this again:

Steve's position is NOT that the Bible didn't exist prior to 1611, which is exactly my whole point.

The KJVO movement has a leader, Ruckman, and he holds this position.
Steve doesn't, and they don't like him.

I was trying to maybe convince BB to walk out of the drone production line, and think for himself. If he's not a lost cause...

Haklo

 

[prophet]

Lol! "KJVO" is an "accusation?" It probably feels that way to those who are embarrased by the community.

Otherwise, it just describes the position. We could call them KJBE (king james bible exxclusive).

Read a Logos post, where the term KJVO is used 6 times, "Makers" I'd used to describe translators, etc.  You'd have to be daft to not see that it is derogatory.

If you and he were honest, you would admit that you feel intellectually superior to "KJVO" of any of the 4 or so main definitions.
You feel that your position is scholarly, or orthodox, or somehow more palatable, and so, from that viewpoint, you feel that you are talking down to the unwashed plebian KJVO.

The truth is, that, unless you are willing to define the term every time you use it, you are, in fact, name-calling and insinuating inferiority.

Lol @ "community".
Haklo

 

[FSSL]

Then give us a better name...

 

[prophet]

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.

You do not demonstrate that your unsupported accusation is true.

Lol @ more intellectual dishonesty from Logos 1560

Haklo

 

[prophet]

The middle ground is to take each version, and first look at the source of its translation, the thesis of its editor(s).

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.

I commend you for answering forthright.

From here, we can possibly have a reasoned discussion.

I "smeared" you as extreme, not your "position", because you can't post with out deriding the other side.
Insecure much?

I don't believe that original language documents are "preserved".

I don't hold to the one -verse-based doctrine of preservation.

Now, where we agree.
Yes, each version must be given fair opportunity for consideration as Scripture.

Where we may not agree:
The first place I look, before I waste my time wading through a version, is:
1. Who edited the version, and what did they express was there intent.
Not that they will always be honest, (a prime example would be the New World Translation), but they get a chance, if we are to be reasonable.
2.  What body of documents is the basis for the version?
Ex.
The E.S.V.
Many enthusiasts were claiming it was basically a Geneva in modern English.
So, I read the intro., found out that it was based on a previous modern version, as stated by the editor, and saved me from doing the legwork that had already been done on the parent version.

If we find out, through hand written letters in their own words, that Hort(and Wescott) preferred Maryolatry, and coached Wescott to keep that and other positions concealed until their published work had made it into the classroom at seminaries....then we can reasonably suspect any subsequent translation from that "original language document".

If Arthur Farstad felt that the KJV was translated from inferior documents, and wrote a book explaining his bias, then why would any reasonable man not distrust his motives for wanting to be involved in the NKJV editing?
Certainly, if the KJV was so incapable of expressing God's Word, he would have made a new translation, from his preferred documents, and not kept the tie to the inferior by naming it "New" inferior version. Right?
Darby started a sect, and so, duh!, one would suspect his "new translation" of containing bias towards the Plymouth Brethren pet doctrines.
One doesn't have to wade past Job 14 to see him building a case for pretrib and dispensational views, that he is credited as the modern purveyor of.

So we may disagree as to when the LXX existed, etc, differing sources make their cases well.

But I agree on vetting every version, and not giving it the stamp of "official" or showing it the door, without a fair review.

BTW, I reserve the right to call some versions partially God's Word, because studying shows where preferred readings have been inserted.

Why wouldn't this be considered a reasonable approach?



Haklo

 

[prophet]

The middle ground is to take each version, and first look at the source of its translation, the thesis of its editor(s).


Haklo

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.

I, prophet, and not some "community", call versions that are from mixed sources, contain inferior readings in some places, "partial".
So, stick your tongue out at me, if you don't like it, but that is what I will do.

Haklo

 

[FSSL]

It is funny that you deny that KJVOs have a community.

On these forums.... we witness some strange alliances where believers and unbelievers call themselves "dear brother" all because they find comradery on the KJVO isssue.

Among the state fellowships, IFBdom has internal schisms where the KJVO comrades  try to take over the fellowships. (Eg. Illinois, Michigan)

So, while you may not consider yourself a part of those communities, they certainly do exist. Yes. They are highly schismatic, but there is nothing more uniting than having the same conflict.

 

[FSSL]

.... call versions that are from mixed sources, contain inferior readings in some places, "partial".

That's the position the KJV translators fought against.

 

[prophet]

.... call versions that are from mixed sources, contain inferior readings in some places, "partial".

That's the position the KJV translators fought against.

I'm OK with differing from anyone, and agreeing with anyone.
Truth is truth.



Haklo

 

[FSSL]

.... call versions that are from mixed sources, contain inferior readings in some places, "partial".

That's the position the KJV translators fought against.

I'm OK with differing from anyone, and agreeing with anyone.
Truth is truth.



Haklo

Sure. That is not the point. Your differing opinion (version of truth), is by no means "middle" or "balanced." It is more extreme than any modern version user on this forum. None of us call a translation partially God's Word.

 

[IFB X-Files]

It is more extreme than any modern version user on this forum. None of us call a translation partially God's Word.

Well, DUH, if you did, then you wouldn't be using "modern versions".

 

[FSSL]

Good thing the KJV translators gave us a balanced perspective. God's Word IS God's Word... not partially.

 

[prophet]

It is funny that you deny that KJVOs have a community.

On these forums.... we witness some strange alliances where believers and unbelievers call themselves "dear brother" all because they find comradery on the KJVO isssue.

Among the state fellowships, IFBdom has internal schisms where the KJVO comrades  try to take over the fellowships. (Eg. Illinois, Michigan)

So, while you may not consider yourself a part of those communities, they certainly do exist. Yes. They are highly schismatic, but there is nothing more uniting than having the same conflict.

Thank you, you made the point as well as anyone could have.

Since there are many opposing communities, fighting with each other, the sum of all cannot be called "a community".

I will acknowledge any fact that you present, if I have previously observed it to be fact.
I will not wear someone's uniform, with whom I disagree.
(BTW, I don't know a single human that I agree with on everything.)
If I don't line up with the basic premise of someone's (Ruckman, FI) schtick, I'm not wearing their uniform (KJVO).


Haklo