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

[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

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.

Saying that "God isn't capable of arranging for us to have Scripture in English with no need for knowledge of 3 dead languages", is extreme.
Saying that the Word of God appeared in 1611, is extreme.


Haklo

 

[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

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.

Funny, you clipped my quote to make it look less balanced.

There is no need, I'm am open about what I believe, and capable of expressing apologetics of my position.

My position is only extreme, if it can not be reached without logical fallacies, leaps, etc.
It is not, it is purely practical.

I have no issue with discussing anything, and I don't even take offense at being unpopular and considered unorthodox.
I don't mind that we disagree on things.
I mind when I am pushed towards a box, and expected to step into it.

You don't see me calling you an unbeliever, or any such extremism.
So I am not sure why I have to admit to being an extremist, in order to have a discussion with you.

Maybe we will never see eye to eye.
I enjoy the discussion, debate, etc.
I hold no mallace towards you.

Somebody has to play the role I'm playing, or you will just be preaching to your choir, so I'll keep popping up as your target practice...

8)

Haklo

 

[logos1560]

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.

KJV-only is not an accusation.  It is an accurate term that describes a certain viewpoint.  The 1611 KJV is an English translation so a definition of KJV-only would refer to English translations, not all translations of the Bible, and especially English translations from 1611 and afterwards. 

KJV-only is an accurate term properly describing the view of those who make exclusive only claims for one English translation, claiming that it is the word of God in a different sense than any other English translation, especially any English translation since 1611. 

KJV-only advocates can still believe that the word of God exists in the original languages and in Bible translations in other languages.  Would you try to deny that Peter Ruckman holds a KJV-only view?

 

[logos1560]

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

I point out the truth that you did not back up your accusation with any direct quotations or evidence, and you throw out another bogus accusation.

How does it supposedly show intellectual dishonesty on my part to ask you to back up what you claimed?

 

[FSSL]

Funny, you clipped my quote to make it look less balanced.

I clipped your quote appropriately. I just clipped off the subject which was "I, the prophet, not some community...."

Your view is extreme.

 

[Baptist City Holdout]

When i first read this thread, I thought it said, Steven Anderson Is NOT Leaving The KJV Only Movement!!!

 

[prophet]

Funny, you clipped my quote to make it look less balanced.

I clipped your quote appropriately. I just clipped off the subject which was "I, the prophet, not some community...."

Your view is extreme.

OK, I think we've kicked this horse enough.  I love you, Brother.
Back to the OP.

Steve Anderson doesn't hold to the KJVO movement, BB wing's false beliefs of :
1. Double inspiration
2. First appearance of the settled- in- Heaven  Word
3. Only extant version containing the Inspired Word....
And
And
And

He calls himself KJVO, and I chided him about it, but this is his schtick.
He says whatever he feels is going to stir up controversy, in order to spark healthy debate...

Haklo

 

[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

I point out the truth that you did not back up your accusation with any direct quotations or evidence, and you throw out another bogus accusation.

How does it supposedly show intellectual dishonesty on my part to ask you to back up what you claimed?

Anyone who has read 10 of your posts knows.

Haklo

 

[FSSL]

I love you, Brother.

Likewise. It is good to keep that perspective.
BTW: Where are u at these days? We landed in Michigan yesterday for a couple of weeks.

 

[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?

Do you agree with the KJV translators sources and translation methods?

 

[prophet]

I love you, Brother.

Likewise. It is good to keep that perspective.
BTW: Where are u at these days? We landed in Michigan yesterday for a couple of weeks.

In Bama for a week or so.

Chicago for awhile after that.

Give MI a big hug for me.
I am a grateful Gander.

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.



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?

Do you agree with the KJV translators sources and translation methods?

Not completely.

Haklo

 

[logos1560]

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

I point out the truth that you did not back up your accusation with any direct quotations or evidence, and you throw out another bogus accusation.

How does it supposedly show intellectual dishonesty on my part to ask you to back up what you claimed?

Anyone who has read 10 of your posts knows.

Those who read my posts know that your accusation is bogus.  My posting of accurate information, scriptural truths,  and honest, sound observations does not show any supposed "intellectual dishonesty." 

Your disagreement with my observations does not provide any sound basis for your attempted improper distortion or smear tactics.  You have failed to point out and demonstrate any extreme view on my part as you claimed.    Where you assume that I am wrong, please point it out and explain the basis of your claim.

 

[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?

Do you agree with the KJV translators sources and translation methods?

Not completely.

Haklo

Ok, name one thing they did with which you disagree, margin notes, maybe?

 

[Biblebeliever]

So the KJV is perfect-er?  ???

The KJV is the absolute perfect and inerrant word of Almighty God.

 

[Bob H]

BTW: Where are u at these days? We landed in Michigan yesterday for a couple of weeks.

Well, ain't that something. So did I {and likewise, also for a couple of weeks}. So just maybe this "coincidence" really isn't  . Since I'm going to Bakers {Grand Rapids} it might be by "Divine appointment" that I clear up some of your _ _ _ _ _ _ _  in person.  Love ya man!

 

[Biblebeliever]

If the pre-1611 English Bibles were pure Bibles, they are still pure Bibles in the reprint editions available today,

Sure, I agree with this.

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.

While the true words of God needed not to be purified, still because the true words of God in process of time, had been mixed with scribal errors and with counterfeit scriptures, and corrupt translations. We know this to be the case since even Paul in his day, said that there were many which had corrupted the word of God (2 Corinthians 2:17). Therefore, it was only from the corruptions which had been made that God's word needed to be purified, but not the actual words of the Living God themselves.

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.

Again, I agree that the Original Scriptures (Autographs were perfect and wholly pure).

But again what you fail to acknowledge is the fact that there were Hereticks even in the days of the apostles who perverted and changed the true Scriptures. And thereby they made corrupt translations and counterfeit Scriptures. So it just makes sense that there would need to be a purification process sometime in History.  And that major purification process, I believe began with the Tyndale English Bible. And it concluded with the 1611 printing of the English Holy Bible. Which came to be known as the Authorized Version and as we refer to it today, the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

 

[Biblebeliever]

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

Yes I do R-IFB,


Psalm 12:6-7 King James Version (KJV)

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.



Psalm 119:140 King James Version (KJV)

140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.


Psalm 119:160 King James Version (KJV)

160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.



John 17:17 King James Version (KJV)

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.


1 Peter 1:25 King James Version (KJV)

25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

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

Yes I do R-IFB,


Psalm 12:6-7 King James Version (KJV)

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.



Psalm 119:140 King James Version (KJV)

140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.


Psalm 119:160 King James Version (KJV)

160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.



John 17:17 King James Version (KJV)

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.


1 Peter 1:25 King James Version (KJV)

25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Those verses exist in every version.  So now you have to prove that the "word of the Lord" in these verses refer specifically and only to the KJV.  Good luck. 

 

[FSSL]

BTW: Where are u at these days? We landed in Michigan yesterday for a couple of weeks.

Well, ain't that something. So did I {and likewise, also for a couple of weeks}. So just maybe this "coincidence" really isn't  . Since I'm going to Bakers {Grand Rapids} it might be by "Divine appointment" that I clear up some of your _ _ _ _ _ _ _  in person.  Love ya man!

I will get as far West as Lansing (Sleepy Hollow State Park), but that will probably be as far as we travel within Michigan. We are currently in Hartland (Walden woods).

Since I live in a RV, my physical book purchasing days are over. Logos 6 Platinum rocks!!