# Complete Interview between Dr James White and KJV Only Pastor Steven Anderson



## MichaelNZ (Aug 15, 2014)

Earlier in the year, KJV Only Pastor Steven Anderson released a film attacking modern translations of the Bible. For this he interviewed Dr James White, a firm opponent of KJV Onlyism. Only a small part of the interview was used in the film, but Anderson has released the full interview.

You can watch the full video here.


----------



## Logan (Aug 15, 2014)

That was very nice that he put the entire interview up. It was nice to see something of a more informal discussion between the two. Thanks for sharing, I worked through it in bits throughout the day while working on other things.

Anderson seemed to come back a lot to feelings: he knows the KJV is the inspired word of God because he hears God's voice in it. He says someone else who says the same about say, the NASB (that they hear God's voice in it) must mean that they are lying or not saved, because that's just simply not the truth. It's a dangerous position and I wonder that he can be so dogmatic about it. Doubting someone's salvation because they think the "shepherd's voice" is found in the NIV or NASB or ESV or whatever, is sad.

Also, when ultimately pressed, the Greek doesn't matter, even when it was the Greek that underlies the KJV. What matters is what the KJV said, and the KJV translators did not err because he recognizes their product as the word of God. At least he believes that it does represent the original Greek though, even if there are no extant Greek manuscripts that say what the KJV does in certain places (i.e., the manuscripts could have been lost). My problem with this though is that, much as the TR-proponents say that God's Word would not have been lost to be "rediscovered" in Aleph and B and various papyrii, this view seems fine with the idea that the originals had been lost only to now be preserved in the KJV (or TR). 

In fact, often when White says something about the Greek and whether a particular translation got it right, Anderson just ignores it and responds with "I believe it is accurate in the King James." That is the standard by which everything else it judged.

There is definitely a double-standard too. Any time he admits a meaning is obscured in the KJV he talks about context and the rest of scripture, etc. and it doesn't really matter but then is quick to turn around and accuse other translations in areas that the KJV is stronger. The talk on Gehenna vs Hades (around 2:15:00) was specifically revealing, i.e., "hades is too foreign to people so we should use hell in our translations because that's what they know and not make a distinction between hades and gehenna" but on the other hand "we're supposed to explain the KJV's archaic words to people." Why be so serious about explaining the one and refuse to explain the other?

He believes that Jesus' soul was in "a place of torment" (hell) for three days...a "burnt" sacrifice...based on the reading in the KJV, and that it doesn't matter if the Greek makes a distinction? He says this "proves" that a person with the KJV will have different doctrine than someone with another translation...therefore the KJV is the authority.

It was funny that he favored the KJV also because it was was not a "Calvinist" Bible: it didn't have the word "sovereign" in it 

I want to add that despite Anderson's best efforts to sabotage the credibility of the KJV, I still love it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 15, 2014)

Does Anderson restate his (in)famous "pisseth" argument?


----------



## Logan (Aug 15, 2014)

Ha, I just saw that video for the first time. No, that wasn't mentioned but James White did ask Anderson to refrain from kicking their pulpit 

As far as I can tell, Anderson was quite a bit "tamer" here than many of his viral videos were.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Aug 15, 2014)

As far as where Jesus was for the time between death and resurection, Jesus and apostles outlined his sufferings many times and they never mention Jesus suffering in that time. Peter does say something about Jesus preaching to spirits, not saying what.

Someone recommended to me to watch the White / Anderson discussion but it sounds like Anderson took a largely subjective 'this sounds to me like the voice of Jesus' approach and what of translation into other languages, very problematic what that would mean for a strict KJV only view. For me, it's persuasive that we have all the information the KJV translators had and more, more manuscripts, more understanding of Greek and culture and we should have translations that reflect the increased info


----------



## KeithW (Aug 15, 2014)

I watched the whole video. It was quite different from the brief clips used in Anderson's KJV-only promo video.

The most telling part was at the end about the English word hell. While Anderson claims the KJV in English is the final authority he learns that in the Greek their are two different words for the one English word hell. So he looks up every occurrence of how those two words are used in context and learns something which is not possible to know from the KJV in English.

I have been paying attention to the KJV-only debate for the last few years because a long time friend of mine is KJVO and I want to understand why someone takes that position.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 15, 2014)

I thought James White displayed his usual brilliance. There is little point in arguing with those who are convinced KJVO IME. The circular reasoning mentioned by James White, and displayed by Pastor Anderson, is inexplicably what I've always encountered. I must say I was impressed by JW pointing out that in his daily Bible reading he doesn't read translations, but the Hebrew and the Greek. Something most of us can only aspire to.

I am still friends with my former pastor at the Baptist church I used to attend before going OPC. He used to read KJV + NKJV, ESV and NASB. Recently he has given up on critical text translations because they 'leave out' some verses. The fact that Erasmus used the Vulgate when his Greek text did not have the last page of the Book of Revelation does not bother him apparently. Or that no Greek text contains some of what is in the last chapter of the Revelation in the KJV


----------



## MW (Aug 15, 2014)

WCF 14.2, "By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein."


----------



## Justified (Aug 15, 2014)

The beginning of that interview seemed liked it was going to go all right. Then Anderson basically started saying that one is justified by the translation they use, i.e., the KJV. He absolutely was maiming the passage "my sheep hear my voice," by applying to his KJV only agenda. Doesn't he realize that the those who translated the KJV would have recognized the superiority of the Greek and Hebrew? If the KJV is so pure, why doesn't he subscribe to the theology of its translators-- Anglicanism? 

Although, I did get a couple chuckles when White was mentioning all sorts of books, people, etc., and then Anderson would nod affirmingly. I was thinking, "Anderson has no idea what White is even talking about."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## nick (Aug 16, 2014)

I wasn't sure what I was about to watch as I don't know much about the KJV-only crowd. Wowzers. And that trailer to the movie the interview is from...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 16, 2014)

Interesting. I'm only at the 40 minute point (2½ hours is a lot of video for me to watch at one clip), though when SA says that those who consistently read the NIV and reject the AV are not hearing God's word and are likely not saved, White is correct to call him on this, for SA errs here very seriously. White has a good mind, and a discernment of the presuppositional stances of others.

For those who think this is representative of a King James position (and I want it to be clear I am not King James only, but King James _priority _– big difference), there are other stances which accord legitimacy to the modern versions. I'm not sure what else Mr. Anderson's views are, but this is a bad start.

My view is that, due to the serious variants exhibited in most modern versions (the omission of God was manifest in the flesh 1 Tim 3:16, the woman taken in adultery John 7:53-8:11, the last twelve verses of Mark, Jesus saying He came to save men’s lives and not destroy them Luke 9:56, etc etc) there are important portions missing, yet in the main such Bibles are adequately preserved and by the operation of the Holy Spirit through them able to save and sustain souls, and nurture and sustain entire churches through the ministry of godly pastors. The advantage of the AV is that its preservation is in the minutiae, not just in the main. It has to do with the various readings, and its degree of preservation.

To disallow the basic legitimacy of modern versions is a view that is harmful to the body of Christ. It trashes the faith of many over an issue of conscience and understanding. Yes, I also prefer the translations of the King James, yet I will consult the modern versions to see if their translations add anything to the understanding of a passage or word – and sometimes they do. Yet I will stick with the AV for the sake of its fidelity to the best Greek and Hebrew texts, and its ability to capture the majesty of God speaking in the original languages. Yes, it may be a little more difficult to take in and comprehend on occasion, but I am willing to deal with that for its insuperable merits. A good preacher or teacher is able to open the sense of a passage to the hearers.


----------



## One Little Nail (Sep 7, 2014)

Pastor Kent Brandenburg, editor of the book Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture.
over at WHAT IS TRUTH is a more learned Defender & Advocate of the King James Bible gives a review of the Interview in 2 Parts here & here.



Logan said:


> I want to add that despite Anderson's best efforts to sabotage the credibility of the KJV, I still love it.



he also mentions


> but it is why with a King James supporter like Anderson, who needs enemies?


----------



## One Little Nail (Sep 7, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> The fact that Erasmus used the Vulgate when his Greek text did not have the last page of the Book of Revelation does not bother him apparently. Or that no Greek text contains some of what is in the last chapter of the Revelation in the KJV



Erasmus, Erasmus, Erasmus...

Pastor Kent Branderburg states..



> Hi brother Gable,
> 
> What I have found to be the case is that advocates of the eclectic or critical text have a strong belief in the preservation of historical data, including what they read about Erasmus, even greater trust in information God didn't promise to preserve than in the Words of God that the Lord did promise to preserve. First, we don't know all that Erasmus had as a basis for that first printed edition of the textus receptus. Second, Erasmus very likely was relying on manuscripts that had the Words he included in his printed edition of the book of Revelation in the Greek. Third, the churches didn't settle on Erasmus' edition of the textus receptus anyway, making this all a moot point.
> 
> ...


----------



## jgilberAZ (Sep 7, 2014)

What I don't understand is …

Given that there is no manuscript that matches the King James text, and

Given that they had to compare manuscripts and make decisions about what Greek text to use, and

Given that this is, in effect, textual criticism,

Why then do KJVO people act as if there is one manuscript (the received text) upon which the KJB is based, and

Why do KJVO people disdain textual criticism?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

