The Amplified Bible is *not* guilty of illegitimate totality transfer. I have been researching this topic for 2 years, collecting together various explanations and examples of this exegetical fallacy to see for myself if it is actually occuring in the Amplified Bible. I put together all the evidence for and against, comparing the AMP with other 'mainstream' versions such as the ESV, KJV, NASB, and the NIV. If you google "Context is for Kings: Is the Amplified Bible Guilty of Illegitimate Totality Transfer?" the PDF is the first search result. Of course, if you *do* know of a legit example of illegitimate totality transfer actually happening in the AMP, I would be happy to add it; that would make my day!
But, what you'll find is that it's just wars between publishers and the scholars they employ. For example, imagine my surprise to learn that the most-cited critic of the Amplified Bible was the lead New Testament scholar for Thomas
Nelson’s Expanded Bible, which according to its introduction (p. v) “allows the reader to see multiple possibilities for words, phrases,
and interpretations. Rather than opting for one choice, it shows many”(!). How is the Expanded Bible not guilty like the Amplified Bible, you ask? Well, I went straight to the horse's mouth and asked Mark Strauss to explain this self-contradiction (see pages 110-118, attached to this post). I asked him to provide an example where the EXB gets right what the AMP got wrong... Well, he got checkmated with each and every example, usually just by quoting his own words against him. See for yourself!
Also, the link that GracethroughfaithinChrist provided is from Robert Plummer. I have included every quote by him on this topic, including the result of our one-on-one discussion. (See pages 21, 44, 73, 84, 103-106, and 122). He also couldn't provide an example of illegitimate totality transfer in the AMP when directly asked. Again, see for yourself!