Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Steven Anderson


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Hmm,  you have been around for a while. My apologies. I’d assumed that anyone pushing against the KJB stance of this board so strongly must be a new member.

 In that case, shame on you! You know the stance of this board. Your behavior leaves somewhat to be desired. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Salyan said:

Hmm,  you have been around for a while. My apologies. I’d assumed that anyone pushing against the KJB stance of this board so strongly must be a new member.

 In that case, shame on you! You know the stance of this board. Your behavior leaves somewhat to be desired. 

A quick look around finds that the last post of his before this current visit was 2009...… (https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/1219-what-is-a-ruckmanite/?do=findComment&comment=218414) To then claim an "advanced member" status may be technically correct according to the info in the side panel, but it is hardly accurate. It might even be considered a little disingenuous......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

  Well, Gentlemen,  change my status if you wish; it's immaterial to me. But, as you can see, my stance hasn't changed, and I'm fully prepared to defend it if necessary. And, I expect the usual rancor from the KJVO side, but I'm used to it after some 40 years of encountering it. It only makes their side look bad.

Again, I'm willing to discuss that, or any other matter you may wish, in whatever forum or sub-forum you choose. Just lemme know.

 

Gotta go for today. Meanwhile, may GOD watch over & bless each of you!

Edited by robycop3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, robycop3 said:

Well, Gentlemen,  change my status if you wish; it's immaterial to me.

That is not the point.

To Claim "advanced member status" when you haven't been active on the site for TEN YEARS, whilst being correct on the technicality of the statistics, is in reality borderline deceitful.

And the fact that you refer to Slayan as a gentleman only serves to prove the point.

The fact is that you noticed your status comment and have tried to use it to give your position more weight, but Salyan is a senior member of the forum, a moderator, and a woman, none of which you realised, which proves that you are not in fact an advanced member IN REALITY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I haven’t been here for a long time - but I remember Robycop and the problems he has stirred up on various message boards in the past. He does seem to have toned down his approach, which is good. He is saying he will discuss this issue, but he has not answered it yet from what I can tell.

What Bible is inerrant today? What Bible do you fully 100% trust and rely upon, if you do not trust and rely upon the KJV? It is one thing to say you are not KJVonly and to say there are problems with it - but give us the name of the Bible versions today that are fully reliable - or else you are just creating more smokescreens to further confuse the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Jerry said:

I haven’t been here for a long time - but I remember Robycop and the problems he has stirred up on various message boards in the past. He does seem to have toned down his approach, which is good. He is saying he will discuss this issue, but he has not answered it yet from what I can tell.

What Bible is inerrant today? What Bible do you fully 100% trust and rely upon, if you do not trust and rely upon the KJV? It is one thing to say you are not KJVonly and to say there are problems with it - but give us the name of the Bible versions today that are fully reliable - or else you are just creating more smokescreens to further confuse the issue.

  Jerry, I primarily use the NKJV, followed closely by the NASV. And, I use the KJV a little, while studying it, and as many other valid English translations, old & new, as I can find.

  I don't care for the NIV, "The Message", "Living Bible", or any other extensively/paraphrased version, nor do I believe the JWs' "New World Translation", Blanco's "Clear Word Bible", etc. are valid versions, as they depart often & greatly from any known ancient Scriptural mss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 3/11/2019 at 11:31 PM, robycop3 said:

  Jerry, I primarily use the NKJV, followed closely by the NASV. And, I use the KJV a little, while studying it, and as many other valid English translations, old & new, as I can find.

  I don't care for the NIV, "The Message", "Living Bible", or any other extensively/paraphrased version, nor do I believe the JWs' "New World Translation", Blanco's "Clear Word Bible", etc. are valid versions, as they depart often & greatly from any known ancient Scriptural mss.

I don’t want to derail this thread. I was thinking of this earlier.

I understand, Roby, that you cannot accept our belief in Kjvonly in the english language; however, you do accept it as a valid Bible to read and study from. For the sake of peace, can you at least respect the position of this board and fellowship over what we do agree on? When I volunteered/worked and preached at a Gospel Mission, I used the King James Bible in my teaching and preaching and did not make comments against the other versions (even though some of the other workers and clients there used them) - unless I was asked why I used the Kjv and what was the difference between them. In other words, we fellowshipped over our Bible-based beliefs. I can deal with the occasional comment stating a specific point was based off of a reading in another version (if the Kjv did not have the same reading)* as long as you are not specifically knocking the Kjv to make your point. Does that make sense? I actually think you make some great, informative points in some of these prophecy threads.

*I do realize that it may make or break the point you are making if you are honest in stating that a particular doctrine or belief is not based on the Kjv (ie. some/all here may not accept it if they cannot see it in the Kjv) - but I, for one, will respect the honesty, and appreciate you showing where you got a particular belief or doctrine from, if you can state your position in a manner that does not trample on the position of these boards. In other words, less clashing and more fellowship - assuming that is why you came here, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

(Debunking Steven Anderson’s False Doctrines, Pt. 1: Replacement Theology)

This is the closet concise video I have seen, of shareable value, that has come close to explaining the error of Steven Anderson's version of Replacement theology with out totally distracting from the issues at hand. Though, I don't agree that he is a cult leader (any more than Ruckman, Hyles, Curtus Hutson, J. Frank Norris, or John R. Rice were anyway). One of the biggest downfalls of a lot of Anti-Anderson videos (Gipp, Grady, Sluder, this one, and etc.) is they spend far too much time putting down the man with half truths, insults, and ad hominems against anyone who would *DARE* listen to anything this "stupid cult leader and his minions" have to say, and they too easily accept any falsehood, spread by other false teachers, simply because they do not like the man. For me such talk just serves to distract from his actual errors in doctrine and justify the narrative that they are "suffering for Jesus" because they are "right" in their doctrine. 

I really have had no interest in defending Brother Anderson or this NIFB movement, but for some reason I always seem to be in one way or another because I really don't appreciate the lies and insults and accusations that have over saturated the real issues (by the people on both sides). Its really not a Christ like way to handle the issues we have with our Brothers across these doctrinal Isles. Additionally, when talking to those considering the NIFB movement or Brother Anderson I have to play defense for the intolerance of the people on our side, that have been caught up in believing the lies over actual truth, so I've have been thinking for a while now about refuting the actual doctrinal issues of the NIFB movement without actually attacking the men themselves, just so I have something to share that doesn't look like I'm a crazed Pharisee trying to stone poor Deacon Stephen.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 hours ago, Jerry said:

I don’t want to derail this thread. I was thinking of this earlier.

I understand, Roby, that you cannot accept our belief in Kjvonly in the english language; however, you do accept it as a valid Bible to read and study from. For the sake of peace, can you at least respect the position of this board and fellowship over what we do agree on? When I volunteered/worked and preached at a Gospel Mission, I used the King James Bible in my teaching and preaching and did not make comments against the other versions (even though some of the other workers and clients there used them) - unless I was asked why I used the Kjv and what was the difference between them. In other words, we fellowshipped over our Bible-based beliefs. I can deal with the occasional comment stating a specific point was based off of a reading in another version (if the Kjv did not have the same reading)* as long as you are not specifically knocking the Kjv to make your point. Does that make sense? I actually think you make some great, informative points in some of these prophecy threads.

*I do realize that it may make or break the point you are making if you are honest in stating that a particular doctrine or belief is not based on the Kjv (ie. some/all here may not accept it if they cannot see it in the Kjv) - but I, for one, will respect the honesty, and appreciate you showing where you got a particular belief or doctrine from, if you can state your position in a manner that does not trample on the position of these boards. In other words, less clashing and more fellowship - assuming that is why you came here, right?

  The moderators told me to not discuss the KJVO issue any more, here, so I won't. But my main purpose is to expose false doctrines, or at least bring them to fellow Christians' attention. I realize there'll be opposition to the facts,, but shame on me if I don't present them anyway.

   For instance, in this thread, I see "pastor" Steve Anderson's stuff being debunked, so I don't need to add much. "Replacement theology" is one such false doctrine he holds.

 As for KJVO, I'll be glad to discuss it on "CARM" or "Baptist Board" or "BVDB", three sites I frequently visit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 3/12/2019 at 2:31 AM, robycop3 said:

 I primarily use the NKJV, followed closely by the NASV. And, I use the KJV a little, while studying it, and as many other valid English translations, old & new, as I can find.

  I don't care for the NIV, "The Message", "Living Bible", or any other extensively/paraphrased version, nor do I believe the JWs' "New World Translation", Blanco's "Clear Word Bible", etc. are valid versions, as they depart often & greatly from any known ancient Scriptural mss.

These versions you trust are based on the phony Sinaiticus, written in Greece around 1843.  It's a complete phony and a fraud and has born rotten fruit ever since.

When one is bouncing around from version to version who then is their final authority?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Administrators

What we have here, folks, IMO, is a wolf.

I'm sorry, there are a couple of swear words in this video. 

This next video is a 9 minute clip from a longer sermon from which pieces were taken for the above video. A lot of the 9 minutes sound good. But listen all the way to the end.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=60066

Bank of America  just froze their church accounts because of his preaching against homosexuality.

Regardless of agreement with him, this should open some eyes. This is not the first instance either, there are several examples like this already.

The banks are owned by progressive globalists just like all big tech and social media is. Trump nor our government can change these facts. True power is held by globalist billionnaires, not governments in these last days.

End of this age

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...