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

[logos1560]

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.

When you say that we need to continually update the English in our Blessed Book, what are you actually saying? Do you mean that we should just remove the archaic words?

Where is your sound evidence of this claimed purposeful tampering in present English Bibles that can be demonstrated to be clearly contrary to accurate English renderings of the preserved original language words as determined by use of consistent just measures?

There would be just as sound of evidence [if not more sound] that shows clearly traceable purposeful tampering to the pre-1611 English Bible introduced by the biased Church of England makers of the KJV.

Of course they tampered, which is why the AV was necessary.

The checks and balances set up in the AV translation eliminated the atmosphere for bias, since there were 3 opposing sides set to work together.

You provide not historical documented evidence that supports your claim. 

There were no such checks and balances as you claimed involved in the making of the KJV.  The rules for the making of the KJV indicate an atmosphere of bias.    There were no equal opposing sides.  All the makers of the KJV were members of the Church of England under the authority of Archbishop Bancroft and under the head of the Church of England--King James I . 

A few of them had been part of the Puritan party in the Church of England, but they had been forced to conform by Archbishop Bancroft so that they could not advocate any Puritan views.  The High Church party held all the positions of power over the translating as seen by Archbishop Bancroft being the overseer of the translating process with all the chairman of the various groups of translators also being High Church and with the majority of each group being High Church.  The High Church party could and would win any votes over any disagreements.

 

[logos1560]

Along with the rules for the translating and the appointing of Archbishop Bancroft over the translating, there were other ways that King James could have influenced or have had some control over the process for the making of the KJV.  Two of the translation/revision committees met at Westminster, which was under direct authority of the king.  John Nordstrom pointed out that two companies of translators met “at Westminster, the seat of royal authority” (Stained with Blood, p. 178).  In his anniversary essay in the 1611 reprint edition by Oxford University Press in 2010, Gordon Campbell noted:  “The reason for the choice of Westminster (as opposed to London, from which it was then separate) was that Westminster Abbey was a royal peculiar, which meant that it was exempt from any jurisdiction other than that of the monarch” (p. 2 of essay).  The king also had some control or influence at Oxford and Cambridge since the rules specified that the “king’s professor in Hebrew or Greek in each university” be chairman of those committees.  Gordon Campbell observed:  “The king’s professors (now known as regius professors) at Oxford and Cambridge were appointed by the Crown (as they are now), so these four professors owed their jobs to the Crown, and could be relied upon to bear the king’s wishes in mind as they discharged their duties” (Ibid.). 

    In a 1852 booklet, Baptists stated:  "We believe that church to have been extremely bigoted and intolerant, and that the version made by order of King James, was in some particulars purposely conformed to the peculiar doctrines and practices of the Establishment" (The Bible Question, p. 37).  Hezekiah Harvey (1821-1893) contended that the KJV "was prepared under the influence of prelacy" (Church, p. 42).  In his revised preface to the second edition of his translation, John Nelson Darby pointed out that theological views had biased the KJV translators in some cases (p. 813).  Any open examination of all the evidence reveals that the KJV translators were under pressure to follow the renderings and interpretations of their head (king) and their state church.  In their dedication of the 1611 KJV, the translators refer to King James as "the principal mover and Author of the work."  Is this statement by the KJV translators true or is it false?  Either way, it creates a dilemma for the KJV-only view. 

    Gilbert Burnet (1643-1715) listed the rules given for the translating under this heading or title:  “The rules to be observed in translation of the Bible” (History of the Reformation, II, p. 514).  While D. A. Waite listed five of these rules in his book, he skipped over those rules that could have hindered a correct translation (Defending the KJB, pp. 86-87).  Rule 1 was that "the ordinary Bible read in the [state] church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit." The third rule was that "the old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, etc." After listing this third rule, Adam Nicolson commented:  “Bancroft, and almost certainly the king, was not prepared to give any ground in the language of the translation to the Presbyterians” (God’s Secretaries, p. 75).  David Daiches noted that the third rule was "directed against the Puritan tendency to abandon the traditional terms which had associations with Catholic ritual and is an interesting reflection of the essentially Anglican nature of A.V."  (The  KJV  of  the English Bible, p. 169).  John Nordstrom asserted that the third rule “reveals Bancroft’s Anglicanism more than any other and shows that Bancroft wanted to guide the new revision back to a high-church position, taking away any congregational power” (Stained with Blood, p. 169).  Was this third rule also a possible attempt to satisfy and answer the written objections of Roman Catholics Sir Thomas More and Gregory Martin concerning earlier English translations?  David Norton suggested that “following More and Martin, ‘the old ecclesiastical words [are] to be kept, viz. the word ‘Church’ not to be translated ‘congregation’” (History, p. 620.  In his introduction to Tyndale’s New Testament, David Daniell noted:  “Of the words to which Sir Thomas More took exception so bitterly, the most objectionable was ‘congregation’ instead of ‘church’ for ekklesia” (p. xxi). 

 

[Biblebeliever]

Where is your sound evidence of this claimed purposeful tampering in present English Bibles that can be demonstrated to be clearly contrary to accurate English renderings of the preserved original language words as determined by use of consistent just measures?

The purposeful tampering in the modern versions is quite clear.

The NIV removes approximately 64,000 words from the Holy Scriptures.

Also, the very Greek Texts which the NIV and the rest of the modern versions are based on are the Nestle's Text and also the United Bible Society's Text. These two Greek Texts are corrupt since they have been influenced by the Westcott and Hort Theory of Textual Criticism. The mentality behind the Westcott and Hort theory is that the Bible is to be treated simply as just any other book. In other words, this Theory of theirs leaves out the Supernatural working of God concerning His holy word, the Holy Bible.

And so it Is not surprising to me that Westcott rejected the Infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. Afterall, both he and Hort were Hereticks.

And so the very face that Westcott and Hort tampered with the true Text of Scripture, and the fact that they replaced the Received Text with the Alexandrian texts of Egypt (Aleph and Vaticanus), and used the very Corrupt foundation of Aleph and Vaticanus to form their own Greek Text, should tell you that any bible version based upon their Greek text will also be corrupt and heretical.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Where is your sound evidence of this claimed purposeful tampering in present English Bibles that can be demonstrated to be clearly contrary to accurate English renderings of the preserved original language words as determined by use of consistent just measures?

The purposeful tampering in the modern versions is quite clear.

The NIV removes approximately 64,000 words from the Holy Scriptures.

Also, the very Greek Texts which the NIV and the rest of the modern versions are based on are the Nestle's Text and also the United Bible Society's Text. These two Greek Texts are corrupt since they have been influenced by the Westcott and Hort Theory of Textual Criticism. The mentality behind the Westcott and Hort theory is that the Bible is to be treated simply as just any other book. In other words, this Theory of theirs leaves out the Supernatural working of God concerning His holy word, the Holy Bible.

And so it Is not surprising to me that Westcott rejected the Infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. Afterall, both he and Hort were Hereticks.

And so the very face that Westcott and Hort tampered with the true Text of Scripture, and the fact that they replaced the Received Text with the Alexandrian texts of Egypt (Aleph and Vaticanus), and used the very Corrupt foundation of Aleph and Vaticanus to form their own Greek Text, should tell you that any bible version based upon their Greek text will also be corrupt and heretical.

Denied

Of course you're wrong. No evidence presented.

What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously.

 

[Recovering IFB]

BB, please don't tell me that you buy into the "Alexandrian text are corrupt because anything from Egypt is a picture of the world" argument.

 

[T-Bone]

BB, please don't tell me that you buy into the "Alexandrian text are corrupt because anything from Egypt is a picture of the world" argument.

Seriously? You're asking that of the man who bought into a YouTube video that Michelle Obama is a man!

 

[Biblebeliever]

Denied

Of course you're wrong. No evidence presented.

Nope. I am right. Westcott and Hort were both hereticks.
Westcott did reject the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures:

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).


Hort also had a huge disdain for the Authority and Infallibility of the Holy Scriptures:


"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)


And as I stated earlier, both of these men believed that the Bible should be treated and regarded just like any other book or writing (be it secular or religious):


For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity. - Fenton Hort (Edward Hills, Believing Bible Study, The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1967, p. 122.)

 

[T-Bone]

You must believe BB about the heretics ....he has surely proven his ability of discernment, not to mentionn to provide infallible proof of his accusations...why he has even called Ransom a heretic without providing one bit of evidence where Scott teaches or believes anything heretical!  You got to believe a guy like that! : :

 

[Recovering IFB]

You must believe BB about the heretics ....he has surely proven his ability of discernment, not to mentionn to provide infallible proof of his accusations...why he has even called Ransom a heretic without providing one bit of evidence where Scott teaches or believes anything heretical!  You got to believe a guy like that! : :

I'm trying to give BB an opportunity to further explain himself.  I know in not the smartest guy here, so I'm just trying to really understand his position.

 

[bgwilkinson]

BB said,

"The purposeful tampering in the modern versions is quite clear."

Denied

Of course you're wrong. No evidence presented.

What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously.

 

[T-Bone]

You must believe BB about the heretics ....he has surely proven his ability of discernment, not to mentionn to provide infallible proof of his accusations...why he has even called Ransom a heretic without providing one bit of evidence where Scott teaches or believes anything heretical!  You got to believe a guy like that! : :

I'm trying to give BB an opportunity to further explain himself.  I know in not the smartest guy here, so I'm just trying to really understand his position.

Knock yourself out...hope you like tops!

 

[logos1560]

Where is your sound evidence of this claimed purposeful tampering in present English Bibles that can be demonstrated to be clearly contrary to accurate English renderings of the preserved original language words as determined by use of consistent just measures?

The purposeful tampering in the modern versions is quite clear. 

You fail to back up your claim.

The NIV removes approximately 64,000 words from the Holy Scriptures.

Since I have not recommended the Critical Text or any English translations based on it such as the NIV, your unsupported assertion does not answer what I stated nor address my scripturally-based view. 

Is that unsupported count based on a mere comparison to the English words in one edition of the KJV which includes many, many added words in italics for which there was no original language word?  The KJV also sometimes used several English words to translate one original language word when another English translation might just use one word

Also, the very Greek Texts which the NIV and the rest of the modern versions are based on are the Nestle's Text and also the United Bible Society's Text.

Your statement is factually incorrect since there are present English versions that are based on the same Greek NT texts as the KJV is such as the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ21, the KJ2000,  etc.  and there is available a modern-spelling edition of some of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva Bible. 

All modern English versions are not based on the two Greek texts editions mentioned in your statement so that your statement is not factual and true.  You have been misinformed.

 

[logos1560]

We do not need any new translations, 

According to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning, English-speaking believers in 1611 did not need any new English translation since they already had the Scriptures translated into English.

Why would anyone want to settle for anything less than absolute purity and perfection?[/color]

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages has greater authority and purity than any imperfect translation made from them. 

The 1611 edition of the KJV was not absolutely pure and perfect.

Since the 1611 KJV has not been demonstrated to be an absolutely pure and perfect translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, you make the case that it should not be settled.

Even one of the pre-1611 English Bibles was more accurate, pure, and perfect in some renderings than the 1611 KJV was when compared to the same original language texts of Scripture, showing that the 1611 KJV was not absolutely pure and perfect. 

In a number of places, the 1611 edition of the KJV would later be revised and corrected to a rendering already found in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles.  Along with correcting some errors in the 1611, later editions of the KJV would introduce some new errors in the KJV that would need to be corrected.

 

[Biblebeliever]

BB said,

"The purposeful tampering in the modern versions is quite clear."

Denied

Of course you're wrong. No evidence presented.

What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously.

It has already been proven BG.

As more and more modern versions come out, they just get worse and worse. Ever read "the Message" ?  That corrupt version should be proof enough that there has been tampering done to the text of the word of God. Even in Paul's day back in the first century, there were people who were corrupting the word of God (2 Cor. 2:17). And Paul said that there were MANY who were corrupting it. If there were many people corrupting (purposely tampering) the word of God back in the first century, then do you honestly  believe that at the present time in these last days (nearing the close of the Church Age) that we now live in that there have not been any corruptions and counterfeiting of the Scriptures?

 

[Biblebeliever]

BB, please don't tell me that you buy into the "Alexandrian text are corrupt because anything from Egypt is a picture of the world" argument.

R-IFB, I believe that the Alexandrian texts are corrupt mainly because of the following facts:

- The Vaticanus has seven of the apocryphal books in it.
- The Vaticanus manuscript was also found in the Vatican.
- There is heresy in the Alexandrian manuscripts. Of which can be traced back to two hereticks, Eusebius (260-340), and Origen (185-251).

This is the following heresy which Origen believed:

- he believed and taught that everyone (including Satan) would be saved eventually.

- he believed in purgatory

- he believed in Baptismal regeneration

- he believed that Christ was a created being.

- he taught that the Genesis account of Creation was a myth.

- he denied the physical resurrection of believers.



Furthermore, concerning the Siniaticus manuscript, Scrivener examined this very manuscript and this was his finding:


"The Codex is covered with such alterations-- i.e., alterations of an obviously correctional character-brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the Ms., many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century." (Scrivener)


John William Burgon  also examined the Sinaiticus manuscript and this is what he wrote concerning what he found:

"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." (John W. Burgon)


And to conclude, the Siniaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts contradict each other in the Gospels over 3,000 times.

Hoskier had tabulated the major differences found between both the Siniaticus and Vaticanus.  And his finding was that the differences between the two manuscripts in the Gospels alone amounted to the following:

Matthew: -5556+
Mark: -567+
Luke: -791=
John: -1022+

These totaling: 3,036.

And so given the above evidence, this is why I know that the Alexandrian texts are corrupt. The very foundation of the Alexandrian text is corrupt and is heretical.

 

[Biblebeliever]

It should also be noted that contained in both Siniaticus and Vaticanus, is the Arian heresy.  For in John 1:18, "the only begotten Son" is changed to "the only begotten God."

God was not begotten. It was the Son who was begotten in the Incarnation.

 

[subllibrm]

Ever read "the Message" ?

Ever read a dictionary? Translation and paraphrase are two different things. Not defending "The Message" but you also cannot honestly compare it to the NASB or ESV.

 

[logos1560]

BB said,

"The purposeful tampering in the modern versions is quite clear."

Denied

Of course you're wrong. No evidence presented.

What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously.

It has already been proven BG.

As more and more modern versions come out, they just get worse and worse. Ever read "the Message" ?  That corrupt version should be proof enough that there has been tampering done to the text of the word of God.

You improperly try to excuse your unproven accusation by referring to a paraphrase, that is not a translation.

According to a consistent application of your own  incorrect reasoning, the 1611 KJV would be a worse English translation than the earlier English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible.

 

[logos1560]

This is the following heresy which Origen believed:

- he believed in Baptismal regeneration

The Church of England makers of the KJV believed in baptismal regeneration so are you claiming that they were heretics?

 

[logos1560]

Origen

KJV-only author Peter Ruckman even acknowledged that the hero of Erasmus was Origen (King James Onlyism, p. 10).

Irena Backus observed that Theodore Beza often referred to Erasmus as being "too much under the influence of Origen" (Reformed Roots of the English N.T., p. 39).  MacCulloch referred to “Erasmus’s discreet fascination with Origen” (Reformation, p. 111).  Eugene Rice pointed out that we "find Erasmus relying on the authority of Origen when he attacked Luther in 1524" (Saint Jerome, pp. 91-92).  John Gleason noted that "Erasmus thought one page of Origen worth ten of Augustine" (John Colet, pp. 262-263).  William Campbell wrote:  “For Erasmus, Origen was first and Augustine last in preference” (O’Sullivan, Bible as Book: the Reformation, p. 104).  Campbell also cited a quotation from Peter Gorday that the favourite patristic authority of Erasmus was “Origen” (Ibid.).  In his Paraclesis to the N. T., Erasmus wrote:  'If you refer to commentaries, choose out the best, such  as  Origen  (who  is far above all others)"  (Hexter,  Traditions,  II, p. 301).  Pennington quoted Erasmus as writing:  “With regard to commentators on the sacred volume, none will teach him better than Origen” (Life, p. 125).  Bouyer noted that Erasmus "showed repeatedly a strong liking for the Greek Fathers, particularly for Origen" (Erasmus and his Times, p. 149).  MacCulloch maintained that Erasmus “frequently turned both to Origen and Jerome’s analysis” of Paul’s epistles to the Romans and Galatians (Reformation, p. 110). Rummel claimed that Erasmus in his Annotations cited  "Origen most often to confirm a reading different from the standard text" (Erasmus' Annotations, p. 67).  Estep pointed out:  "At the time of his last illness, Erasmus was living in Froben's home and working--as much as his waning strength permitted--on a new edition of Origen's works, a task that his death interrupted" (Renaissance, p. 92). 

What do the facts concerning Erasmus and Origen say for the spiritual discernment of Erasmus? 

If KJV-only advocates are correct in their strong condemnations of Origen, they must also condemn Erasmus for admiring and following Origen.  Will KJV-only advocates apply the same exact measures or standards to Erasmus, a Roman Catholic, that they apply to Origen?