@Adrian Pritchard What did people use before the KJV, and are they heretics going to burn in hell for all eternity because they didn't have "God's preserved word (namely, the KJV)?"
By Anderson’s logic of “knowing so many languages makes one a Biblical expert”, then the Jerusalem Bible must be the ultimate standard because JRR Tolkien was a translator and editor of that Bible and he spoke: Greek, Latin, English, Old English, Welsh, Old Welsh, Hebrew, Aramaic, Finnish, German, French, Old Icelandic, Old Norse, and even came up with his own languages. The KJV is a wonderful and venerable translation, but the new versions done by believing scholars are also wonderful.
What’s funny is he just studied German at a small community college. He doesn’t even know the biblical languages. Yet we’re supposed to believe he’s on his “third time”? He’s so full of 💩
Really, that is why I am doing what I do to get Hebrew, Greek, and Latin learned. Really for me the emphasis has been about using language in bible study and think if not knowing these languages-will not be as perceptive. It has been more or less about figuring out things like Genre and how did a Genre work when it was written. Or just go with my original comment I put in here-how are you going to understand God if you do not know the languages he gave his word in?
What is Anderson's CV? Why is Greek scholar, Dr. Daniel Wallace not in complete agreement with him? I have an article written by Wallace, "Why I do not think the KJV is the best translation". With Dr White on one side, Wallace on the same side, and Anderson at odds with both, I see no contest in whose scholarship is most reliable. Anderson is a train wreck.
@@carsonfball4 his Facebook says he studied German at a community college. But still, you’re right: TOTAL POSER. He has ZERO credibility and his lazy KJVO theology is sickening.
@@nateUnofficial You need one to be a valid minister. That's why most denominations won't ordain someone who hasn't shown that they know what they are talking about by being able to achieve at least a master's degree.
I haven’t heard this said and that’s probably for a good reason, but I have to ask. Is this belief (KJV only ism) not simply idolatry? They seem to raise up a particular English translation as holy over and reject all other translations, regardless of the proven fruit of the Spirit via many other translations.
Not being a christian, I can't avoid wondering how White has the patience necessary not only to listen to a guy that unashamedly admits not caring about circular reasoning, but he also has the patience to dissect his falacies (which, by the way, are so obvious that even nonspecialists like me could point them out).... I'm sure dr. White has better things to do with his time...
It would be to hopefully expose the arguments he has for what they are.. Wrong, and to maybe help those who believe in KJVO to actually come to understanding, or for people like me, who were on the verge of believing it, but were able to get a clear view before being all in
I liked some of pastor Anderson's sermons when I first started out. I still think he is a decent human being...he's a little unhinged and a very flawed human being but his heart is in the right place on many issues. Unfortunately bible translation isn't one of them. It's disconcerting and frankly, just sad that he wouldn't even consider me a brother in Christ because I prefer the ESV and NASB.
When people asked me why I was trying to learn Hebrew, I would tell them,"so I could understand God when I get to heaven." Only my KJVO IFB friends were the ones who took me seriously.
I use KJV and I even believe Steven Anderson is wrong to advocate such a position! I became a Christian while reading the NIV too! But, eventually just kept to literal Bible translations.
I don't even understand why Dr White has to respond line by line to this guy. Didn't he demolish him in his own living room few years ago? But I like what he said about the KJV translators being not saved based on Mr Anderson's believes.
It's very common for Dr. White to be approached by people who have left this NIFB movement- as such it could even be considered a mission field for truth.
@@Koger0825 Anderson believed that Jesus went to Hell between his death and resurrection, despite telling the thief on the cross "Today you will be with me in Paradise." Anderson ignored it. At that point there was no point debating him anymore.
Adrian Pritchard the trinity is not the answer, there is no trinity. The answer is that hell is the grave. Also the thief asked Jesus to remember him, that is saying have me in your mind. One last point, in the verse the coma in your bible is in the wrong place. It should read ... verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.
I have always read and studied from the KJV. early in my christian life, 40yrs long now, I was even a KJV/TR only. currently, I stick with it, aided by my Strongs and Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, but I no longer believe thew KJV itself to be THE inspired English translation. I read and study it exclusively primarily because it's familiar and I love the language and phraseology of it above the other English translations.
It's very unlikely that the translators were mostly Calvinist as the KJV was Authorized partly in response to Calvin's Geneva Bible which contained his fallible doctrine in the margins. They were also clear in the preface to the KJV that they "Avoided the scrupulousity of the Puritans"
Here is my question-when the original Fundamentals of the Faith came out in its day, did those men who affirmed, participated, championed the ideals of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, did they make that about translations or a variety of renderings that differed from translation to translation? I ask this because one argument is one of these translations are infallible and inerrant and those other translations are not because they differ from the standard translation? In other words, is making one translation infallible and inerrant and the others are not-was that a position championed by the original fundamentalists who defined inerrancy and infallibility? I hope my question was clear enough.
Some of SA’s arguments should be used as textbook examples of “category error.” I’m speaking specifically of him confusing “God’s word” with the KJV bible.
"theyre the best translators! but theyre going to hell" Lol! You got him there man, i understand his bias knows no bounds, thank goodness I studied Jim Browns Grace and Truth ministries which taught me that only the hebrew/greek is the word of God, all translations are just that: translations. God knows english sure, but God didnt write the bible in english. All "only-isms" are not conducive to spiritual growth. Bible: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God". Steven "Textual criticism is unnecessary." Gods facepalm to that would part the red sea again.
Its sad to see someone as smart and committed to Gods work being loyaly to a false and flawed tradition. (Pride is not our friend,) l don't see Anderson's pride as helpful to his theology. A lesson for us all to give up presuppositions and humbly come to biblical truth.KJV onlyism is a Ben Wilkinson doctrine a SDA in the 30s.
It is interesting. I wouldn’t necessarily call myself KJV Only, but I must say that I am definitely taken by how poor his arguments are. The arguments in favor are infinitely stronger than he is making out and the arguments which he is putting forward are just horrendous.
I'm sorry, but ANYTHING can be "inspired". The Holy Spirit is constantly at work. You can argue that the inspiration for the original writings by the Apostles is different than that used in a translation, but you've painted yourself in a logical corner if you say that a translation is only a "preservation". If what you're saying were true, the Septuagint would not be inspired. (And I'm saying this as an Orthodox Christian who is all about that Septuagint and definitely not wont to take sides with Steven Anderson who ridicules us very shamefully.) Perhaps you define the term differently as an Evangelical, but from our understanding in Orthodoxy, inspiration can come at any moment and in any form.
He might disagree but I'll give an Evangelical perspective to the best of my understanding: anything *could* be inspired including translations. However the only texts we can say are definitively inspired are the originals. We can also definitively add the specific quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament, but I would say you can't necessarily use that logic to say the whole Septuagint is inspired. The NT also contains quotes from Enoch and Greek pagan poets. We protestants generally only use "inspired" theologically in the same context as you would say inerrant. Of course the Holy Spirit works within all members of Christ's Church and so can literally inspire thought, word, and action at any time. But personally I would hesitate to claim anything specific I said or did was inspired. I believe the Holy Spirit has spoken through me, there were times I basically didn't even think about what I needed to say and the Word just came flowing out of my mouth, you could say that's inspiration, but I don't *know* for sure and would apply the same standards of judgement to what I said as any other statement by anyone, the inerrant standard of the Scriptures.
Anybody who is a KJV only needs to watch when you sat down w/ Anderson in that discussion lol. He was nearly a drooling mess by the end of it… eventually he kind of just gave up and admitted he has no good reason for being KJVO, just that… “it’s right” lol
While I’m certainly no KJV onlyist, there is something to it that is special. The language. It helps you memorize it. It reads beautifully. And it does feel more inspired. That’s just a fact. But to say it’s the only translation is silly.
I like the NKJV. Mainly because I picked a random Bible off the shelf in elementary school, and I still have it today. I think it sounds better than the KJV. Unless you can point to an intentional theological mistake of significance in a translation, it should be readable. I don't understand why people go around saying that one translation is the only good translation, and all others are diluted versions. Seems unreasonable to claim that God wouldn't preserve the message of His word in most translations. Some outliers can exist, but those can easily be taken out.
Adrian Pritchard It depends on what you mean with salvation. There are multiple events that happen. You have the instantaneous salvation and justification, etc., but you also have two events that are happening or will happen. Sanctification and glorification. I think both translations are correct, but the NKJV is more general.
Adrian Pritchard Okay. The only thing I have a problem with is either translations that deliberately omit or add entire ideas or claims that only one translation is good, while all others are inferior.
Adrian Pritchard What about 1 John 5:6-8? I checked and it is in both KJV and NKJV. There is a strong argument to be made that it was added on accident. Specifically, it was a scribes note that ended up actually being put into the translation on accident. I am not particularly sure about it, but it seems like only later transcripts have the KjV/NKJV version. So, are you okay with that addition (if it truly was an addition). Also, I don’t think that it is adding an entirely new idea. Sanctification and glorification are two steps of salvation that are yet to happen. So, it is still correct, just from another perspective. Had it been entirely wrong from all perspectives, there would have been a bigger problem.
The only authoritative text of the Jewish Bible according to Jews is the Hebrew Text. We do have some Jewish translations into English and other languages but for us Jews the Hebrew text is paramount. Many Jewish translations of our Tanakh often include the Hebrew text alongside of it.
@@christo-chaney ...the jews also claim the Torah was written before the creation of the universe and given to Moses at the objection of the angels. Its amazing how much liberty rabbis take in interpretation of the Hebrew bible and yet be so critical of the NT.
@@shawnstephens6795 actually most Jews don’t literally believe that. Those claims are from a collection of commentary texts called the Midrash Rabbah. Midrash isn’t meant to be taken literally.
Of Course, I realize your statement is tongue in cheek. It sure helped me when I was in college and had never seen anything except the KJV. I feel in love with it and started reading it when my roommate wasn't around because it was his. It definitely spurred my interest in the Bible. I'm not saying it should replace anyone's primary Bible like the KJV or NIV or NASB but God sure used it.
Then there might be a deeper problem with you than you reaalize. S. Anderson is extremely hateful, aggressive any biblical rule for the preacher breaking rude man, bringing shame to the name of the Lord. Pure cultist. Think about it a little bit.
"The King James is the standard because it is." That very statement is an embarrassment.
@Adrian Pritchard I do. And I don't compare every other translation to the KJV, I try to compare them against the words God actually preserved.
Adrian Pritchard
I do and I love the nasb
@Adrian Pritchard I think you'll find most of the people who compare all other Bible versions with the KJV are KJV Onlyists.
@Adrian Pritchard What did people use before the KJV, and are they heretics going to burn in hell for all eternity because they didn't have "God's preserved word (namely, the KJV)?"
There is just ZERO thinking involved in that statement.
By Anderson’s logic of “knowing so many languages makes one a Biblical expert”, then the Jerusalem Bible must be the ultimate standard because JRR Tolkien was a translator and editor of that Bible and he spoke: Greek, Latin, English, Old English, Welsh, Old Welsh, Hebrew, Aramaic, Finnish, German, French, Old Icelandic, Old Norse, and even came up with his own languages. The KJV is a wonderful and venerable translation, but the new versions done by believing scholars are also wonderful.
What’s funny is he just studied German at a small community college. He doesn’t even know the biblical languages. Yet we’re supposed to believe he’s on his “third time”? He’s so full of 💩
The Jerusalem Bible is actually quite good imo. Catholics have been using it for decades now.
Really, that is why I am doing what I do to get Hebrew, Greek, and Latin learned. Really for me the emphasis has been about using language in bible study and think if not knowing these languages-will not be as perceptive. It has been more or less about figuring out things like Genre and how did a Genre work when it was written. Or just go with my original comment I put in here-how are you going to understand God if you do not know the languages he gave his word in?
What is Anderson's CV? Why is Greek scholar, Dr. Daniel Wallace not in complete agreement with him? I have an article written by Wallace, "Why I do not think the KJV is the best translation". With Dr White on one side, Wallace on the same side, and Anderson at odds with both, I see no contest in whose scholarship is most reliable. Anderson is a train wreck.
Anderson's highest degree is a high school diploma. He's not even a real minister (no M.Div., D.Div., D.Min., etc.).
@@carsonfball4 his Facebook says he studied German at a community college. But still, you’re right: TOTAL POSER. He has ZERO credibility and his lazy KJVO theology is sickening.
@@carsonfball4you do not need a seminary degree to be used of God in pastoral ministry.
@@nateUnofficial
You need one to be a valid minister. That's why most denominations won't ordain someone who hasn't shown that they know what they are talking about by being able to achieve at least a master's degree.
@@carsonfball4 my brother, if you can show me where in the Scriptures it says that, I will change my belief. Soli deo Gloria.
Steven Anderson has NO LOVE in his heart... VERY VERY obvious
Oh my so true
So emotionally driven
My 6yrs old daughter makes much more reasonable statements and uses better common sense than Mr Anderson
@jacobtesfa6278 Aw, cutie.😍
I haven’t heard this said and that’s probably for a good reason, but I have to ask. Is this belief (KJV only ism) not simply idolatry? They seem to raise up a particular English translation as holy over and reject all other translations, regardless of the proven fruit of the Spirit via many other translations.
One could make the argument considering they put a translation done 1600 years after the original Greek was written above the *original* Greek.
I was a KJV only , but a good Baptist preacher out of Bob Jones got me to understand.
Not being a christian, I can't avoid wondering how White has the patience necessary not only to listen to a guy that unashamedly admits not caring about circular reasoning, but he also has the patience to dissect his falacies (which, by the way, are so obvious that even nonspecialists like me could point them out).... I'm sure dr. White has better things to do with his time...
It would be to hopefully expose the arguments he has for what they are.. Wrong, and to maybe help those who believe in KJVO to actually come to understanding, or for people like me, who were on the verge of believing it, but were able to get a clear view before being all in
I liked some of pastor Anderson's sermons when I first started out. I still think he is a decent human being...he's a little unhinged and a very flawed human being but his heart is in the right place on many issues. Unfortunately bible translation isn't one of them. It's disconcerting and frankly, just sad that he wouldn't even consider me a brother in Christ because I prefer the ESV and NASB.
He has his own cult, where he flexes his ego. That's not decent behavior.
When people asked me why I was trying to learn Hebrew, I would tell them,"so I could understand God when I get to heaven." Only my KJVO IFB friends were the ones who took me seriously.
Now that's mouthful lol
KJVOIFB second only to LGBTQ2A+
Lol
I use KJV and I even believe Steven Anderson is wrong to advocate such a position! I became a Christian while reading the NIV too! But, eventually just kept to literal Bible translations.
😳 Wow, Anderson said that he doesn't have fellowship with anyone who doesn't use the KJV, that's an absurd !
I do not read the KJV. I read the NIV. If it means not having fellowship with Steven Anderson. Then it is a real blessing.
I don't even understand why Dr White has to respond line by line to this guy. Didn't he demolish him in his own living room few years ago? But I like what he said about the KJV translators being not saved based on Mr Anderson's believes.
It's very common for Dr. White to be approached by people who have left this NIFB movement- as such it could even be considered a mission field for truth.
J T No, White actually got up and removed his headset because he didn’t know what hell was and at what point one enters 🔥🔥🔥
@@Koger0825 Anderson believed that Jesus went to Hell between his death and resurrection, despite telling the thief on the cross "Today you will be with me in Paradise." Anderson ignored it. At that point there was no point debating him anymore.
@Adrian Pritchard If he went to Hell, that means he died spiritually. That's heresy.
Adrian Pritchard the trinity is not the answer, there is no trinity. The answer is that hell is the grave. Also the thief asked Jesus to remember him, that is saying have me in your mind. One last point, in the verse the coma in your bible is in the wrong place. It should read ... verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.
The New York Times point was just wow. It is so hard to take anything this guy says seriously after that.
Why do we believe in the New York Times, folks, because the New York Times is the standard.
I have always read and studied from the KJV. early in my christian life, 40yrs long now, I was even a KJV/TR only. currently, I stick with it, aided by my Strongs and Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, but I no longer believe thew KJV itself to be THE inspired English translation. I read and study it exclusively primarily because it's familiar and I love the language and phraseology of it above the other English translations.
That's a good and proper understanding and certainly nothing wrong with your preference or methodology.
Durbin is going to be mad that you forgot to wear your thumb ring like him/her 😂😂😂😂😂😂
He hangs a cross around his neck now. I think he is trying too hard to be cool.
It's very unlikely that the translators were mostly Calvinist as the KJV was Authorized partly in response to Calvin's Geneva Bible which contained his fallible doctrine in the margins. They were also clear in the preface to the KJV that they "Avoided the scrupulousity of the Puritans"
Here is my question-when the original Fundamentals of the Faith came out in its day, did those men who affirmed, participated, championed the ideals of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, did they make that about translations or a variety of renderings that differed from translation to translation?
I ask this because one argument is one of these translations are infallible and inerrant and those other translations are not because they differ from the standard translation?
In other words, is making one translation infallible and inerrant and the others are not-was that a position championed by the original fundamentalists who defined inerrancy and infallibility?
I hope my question was clear enough.
Some of SA’s arguments should be used as textbook examples of “category error.” I’m speaking specifically of him confusing “God’s word” with the KJV bible.
"theyre the best translators! but theyre going to hell" Lol! You got him there man, i understand his bias knows no bounds, thank goodness I studied Jim Browns Grace and Truth ministries which taught me that only the hebrew/greek is the word of God, all translations are just that: translations. God knows english sure, but God didnt write the bible in english. All "only-isms" are not conducive to spiritual growth. Bible: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God". Steven "Textual criticism is unnecessary." Gods facepalm to that would part the red sea again.
All only isms.... right after u said ONLY the Greek and Hebrew. Huh
30:12 yes, picked up on that as he said it, thank you for the video!!
Were the translators really mostly Calvinist?
Its sad to see someone as smart and committed to Gods work being loyaly to a false and flawed tradition. (Pride is not our friend,) l don't see Anderson's pride as helpful to his theology. A lesson for us all to give up presuppositions and humbly come to biblical truth.KJV onlyism is a Ben Wilkinson doctrine a SDA in the 30s.
So the Septuagint would be the definitive old testament but what about for new testament?
It is interesting. I wouldn’t necessarily call myself KJV Only, but I must say that I am definitely taken by how poor his arguments are. The arguments in favor are infinitely stronger than he is making out and the arguments which he is putting forward are just horrendous.
I'm sorry, but ANYTHING can be "inspired". The Holy Spirit is constantly at work. You can argue that the inspiration for the original writings by the Apostles is different than that used in a translation, but you've painted yourself in a logical corner if you say that a translation is only a "preservation". If what you're saying were true, the Septuagint would not be inspired. (And I'm saying this as an Orthodox Christian who is all about that Septuagint and definitely not wont to take sides with Steven Anderson who ridicules us very shamefully.) Perhaps you define the term differently as an Evangelical, but from our understanding in Orthodoxy, inspiration can come at any moment and in any form.
He might disagree but I'll give an Evangelical perspective to the best of my understanding: anything *could* be inspired including translations. However the only texts we can say are definitively inspired are the originals. We can also definitively add the specific quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament, but I would say you can't necessarily use that logic to say the whole Septuagint is inspired. The NT also contains quotes from Enoch and Greek pagan poets.
We protestants generally only use "inspired" theologically in the same context as you would say inerrant. Of course the Holy Spirit works within all members of Christ's Church and so can literally inspire thought, word, and action at any time. But personally I would hesitate to claim anything specific I said or did was inspired. I believe the Holy Spirit has spoken through me, there were times I basically didn't even think about what I needed to say and the Word just came flowing out of my mouth, you could say that's inspiration, but I don't *know* for sure and would apply the same standards of judgement to what I said as any other statement by anyone, the inerrant standard of the Scriptures.
What ever happened to Anderson?
These clones must have a trimmed beards. And an olive green suit. And a painting backdrop or some unpainted wooden boards.
Easter was a bad translation. That's one. So much for perfect.
How do you figure?
KJV guys argue against that.
Kent Hovind is a KJV Prefferencist. Not onlyist. Now what?
Anybody who is a KJV only needs to watch when you sat down w/ Anderson in that discussion lol. He was nearly a drooling mess by the end of it… eventually he kind of just gave up and admitted he has no good reason for being KJVO, just that… “it’s right” lol
While I’m certainly no KJV onlyist, there is something to it that is special. The language. It helps you memorize it. It reads beautifully. And it does feel more inspired. That’s just a fact. But to say it’s the only translation is silly.
@@Nick-wn1xw lol ok. So you think the NASB (which is what I read) is as beautiful as KJV? Give me a break.
Hey James, can you quote that fellow from Athens that said, “That’s me in the corner” on air?
I like the NKJV. Mainly because I picked a random Bible off the shelf in elementary school, and I still have it today. I think it sounds better than the KJV. Unless you can point to an intentional theological mistake of significance in a translation, it should be readable. I don't understand why people go around saying that one translation is the only good translation, and all others are diluted versions. Seems unreasonable to claim that God wouldn't preserve the message of His word in most translations. Some outliers can exist, but those can easily be taken out.
Adrian Pritchard
It depends on what you mean with salvation. There are multiple events that happen. You have the instantaneous salvation and justification, etc., but you also have two events that are happening or will happen. Sanctification and glorification. I think both translations are correct, but the NKJV is more general.
@@classycactus8449 The Greek here means are saved I asked a man from Greece who is eastern Orthodox and he confirmed it means are saved
@@formernifb6864
Ok. The tense is different from the original manuscripts. It still isn't wrong theologically.
Adrian Pritchard
Okay. The only thing I have a problem with is either translations that deliberately omit or add entire ideas or claims that only one translation is good, while all others are inferior.
Adrian Pritchard
What about 1 John 5:6-8?
I checked and it is in both KJV and NKJV. There is a strong argument to be made that it was added on accident. Specifically, it was a scribes note that ended up actually being put into the translation on accident. I am not particularly sure about it, but it seems like only later transcripts have the KjV/NKJV version. So, are you okay with that addition (if it truly was an addition).
Also, I don’t think that it is adding an entirely new idea. Sanctification and glorification are two steps of salvation that are yet to happen. So, it is still correct, just from another perspective. Had it been entirely wrong from all perspectives, there would have been a bigger problem.
The SEPTUIGANT is the most accurate Old Testament
Yes sir
Jews would disagree...considering that they wrote it...do I really need to explain any further???
The only authoritative text of the Jewish Bible according to Jews is the Hebrew Text. We do have some Jewish translations into English and other languages but for us Jews the Hebrew text is paramount. Many Jewish translations of our Tanakh often include the Hebrew text alongside of it.
@@christo-chaney ...the jews also claim the Torah was written before the creation of the universe and given to Moses at the objection of the angels. Its amazing how much liberty rabbis take in interpretation of the Hebrew bible and yet be so critical of the NT.
@@shawnstephens6795 actually most Jews don’t literally believe that. Those claims are from a collection of commentary texts called the Midrash Rabbah. Midrash isn’t meant to be taken literally.
29:34
Strait, or Straitened, means to be pained or painful
You don’t like the good news bible 😂
Of Course, I realize your statement is tongue in cheek. It sure helped me when I was in college and had never seen anything except the KJV. I feel in love with it and started reading it when my roommate wasn't around because it was his. It definitely spurred my interest in the Bible. I'm not saying it should replace anyone's primary Bible like the KJV or NIV or NASB but God sure used it.
@@ruckanitepreacher5618I still use the good news bible bud I am joking 😂
What in the world white did not acknowledge the narrow vs difficult doctrinal difference whatsoever. Unnerving!
The ESV says “hard is the way” in Matthew 7. This is a mistranslation, salvation is not hard
That guy that you are using here chooses to be ignorant. By choice! Its on him!
Yeah and it wasn’t translated correctly
James White is theology’s critical theory guru…
How many doors has James White knocked on. Even though I don't go to Pastor Anderson church I respect him as a Christian much more than White.
Then there might be a deeper problem with you than you reaalize. S. Anderson is extremely hateful, aggressive any biblical rule for the preacher breaking rude man, bringing shame to the name of the Lord. Pure cultist.
Think about it a little bit.
How many doors did Jesus or the apostles knock on? None. They stayed in a persons house and people came to them. They didn’t intrude on people.
@@camberlubos3995 why because he sticks up for what the Bible actually says?
@@Imsaved777 Yea, try reading it yourself.
@Nick-wn1xw have you read the book of Acts?