Steven Anderson vs. James White

aint-nobody-got-time-for-that.png
 
Ransom said:
I've been looking forward to this. Downloading for later listening.
Click to expand...

What is the debate about? I'd like to know before I invest even a second is Spamdersons rantings.
 
Isn't Steve Anderson one of the idols worshiped by Biblebummer? 

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Isn't Steve Anderson one of the idols worshiped by Biblebummer?
Click to expand...
No, that's Avery.
 
There was a little footage in the "modern versions"  movie , of Anderson V. White.
Is this the extended play version, or a whole new debate?
 
prophet said:
There was a little footage in the "modern versions"  movie , of Anderson V. White.
Is this the extended play version, or a whole new debate?
Click to expand...
This is the full interview. I actually quite enjoyed it. It's not Sanderson's typical rantings that he has done. He actually comes off fairly intelligent and well-spoken, even James White has said that(albeit White disagrees with him on the KJV issue).
 
ddgently said:
What is the debate about? I'd like to know before I invest even a second is Spamdersons rantings.
Click to expand...

A few months ago, Spamderson put out a movie titled "New World Order Bible Versions." Apparently he's trying to be the next Gail Riplinger, or something. Good luck with that.

Anyway, he interviewed James White as part of the movie, and White requested that the interview be made available in its entirety. Obviously Spammy has complied with that, despite the fact that he apparently took White pretty poorly out of context in the movie itself (which I have not yet seen; I've been waiting for this video first).
 
Dunkard said:
It's not Sanderson's typical rantings that he has done. He actually comes off fairly intelligent and well-spoken, even James White has said that(albeit White disagrees with him on the KJV issue).
Click to expand...

That's true. Spamderson is not stupid, nor is he your typical undeducated fundy fool.  His handling of the Scriptures, however, is atrocious.
 
Anderson almost sounds intelligent through most of the video. But it's obvious that James had the upper hand throughout the discussion.
 
It is rather strange and distracting, however how he had all these different people who are not involved in the conversation running around the room in the video. I'm guessing these are his lighting and camera crews?
 
Wow!  I'm pretty sure I just heard A KJVO make the argument for dynamic equivalency in order to defend the King James. I've heard it all now.
 
That was the most entertaining thing I've seen in a while. I would be interested in knowing how those who used the king's English in 1611 understood the word hell and if they understood it to have more than one meaning as it would seem to me to have been a trivial debate at the end of they did. Any early English experts here?
 
BandGuy said:
That was the most entertaining thing I've seen in a while. I would be interested in knowing how those who used the king's English in 1611 understood the word hell and if they understood it to have more than one meaning as it would seem to me to have been a trivial debate at the end of they did. Any early English experts here?
Click to expand...

The 1611 King James was written in Modern English. Early English/Old English was quite different. Here's some Old/Early English for you: Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in ġeār-dagum,þēod-cyninga, þrym ġefrūnon,hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.Oft Scyld Scēfing sceaþena þrēatum, monegum mǣġþum, meodosetla oftēah,egsode eorlas. Syððan ǣrest wearð fēasceaft funden, hē þæs frōfre ġebād,wēox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þāh,oðþæt him ǣġhwylc þāra ymbsittendra ofer hronrāde hȳran scolde, gomban gyldan. Þæt wæs gōd cyning!
 
Dunkard said:
BandGuy said:
That was the most entertaining thing I've seen in a while. I would be interested in knowing how those who used the king's English in 1611 understood the word hell and if they understood it to have more than one meaning as it would seem to me to have been a trivial debate at the end of they did. Any early English experts here?
Click to expand...

The 1611 King James was written in Modern English. Early English/Old English was quite different. Here's some Old/Early English for you: Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in ġeār-dagum,þēod-cyninga, þrym ġefrūnon,hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.Oft Scyld Scēfing sceaþena þrēatum, monegum mǣġþum, meodosetla oftēah,egsode eorlas. Syððan ǣrest wearð fēasceaft funden, hē þæs frōfre ġebād,wēox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þāh,oðþæt him ǣġhwylc þāra ymbsittendra ofer hronrāde hȳran scolde, gomban gyldan. Þæt wæs gōd cyning!
Click to expand...
That's cool. How about my question or did I not get the point of your response?
 
Dunkard said:
BandGuy said:
That was the most entertaining thing I've seen in a while. I would be interested in knowing how those who used the king's English in 1611 understood the word hell and if they understood it to have more than one meaning as it would seem to me to have been a trivial debate at the end of they did. Any early English experts here?
Click to expand...

The 1611 King James was written in Modern English. Early English/Old English was quite different. Here's some Old/Early English for you: Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in ġeār-dagum,þēod-cyninga, þrym ġefrūnon,hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.Oft Scyld Scēfing sceaþena þrēatum, monegum mǣġþum, meodosetla oftēah,egsode eorlas. Syððan ǣrest wearð fēasceaft funden, hē þæs frōfre ġebād,wēox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þāh,oðþæt him ǣġhwylc þāra ymbsittendra ofer hronrāde hȳran scolde, gomban gyldan. Þæt wæs gōd cyning!
Click to expand...

AHHHH!!  Dunkard is speaking in tongues!!
 
BandGuy said:
Dunkard said:
BandGuy said:
That was the most entertaining thing I've seen in a while. I would be interested in knowing how those who used the king's English in 1611 understood the word hell and if they understood it to have more than one meaning as it would seem to me to have been a trivial debate at the end of they did. Any early English experts here?
Click to expand...

The 1611 King James was written in Modern English. Early English/Old English was quite different. Here's some Old/Early English for you: Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in ġeār-dagum,þēod-cyninga, þrym ġefrūnon,hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.Oft Scyld Scēfing sceaþena þrēatum, monegum mǣġþum, meodosetla oftēah,egsode eorlas. Syððan ǣrest wearð fēasceaft funden, hē þæs frōfre ġebād,wēox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þāh,oðþæt him ǣġhwylc þāra ymbsittendra ofer hronrāde hȳran scolde, gomban gyldan. Þæt wæs gōd cyning!
Click to expand...
That's cool. How about my question or did I not get the point of your response?
Click to expand...

I think you didn't get the point. If you want to talk about Early English, that's fine, but the KJV wasn't speak in Early English. It was written in Modern English.
 
Dunkard said:
I think you didn't get the point. If you want to talk about Early English, that's fine, but the KJV wasn't speak in Early English. It was written in Modern English.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but this isn't informative, it's pedantic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top