Featured How to answer this KJV Only?

How about the times the Kjv called the Holy Spirit an "It". or when they chose to seperate the God and saviour Jesus as meaning 2 Persons, when it actually refers to Jesus as both God and saviour Think the Spirit called an it happens 4 times, and seperating Jesus and God as 2 seperate Persons 4 times also!

 

So the Web bible would be as you cited , and the Nasb would be the critical text version updating Asv?

 

The calvinistic notes bugged him also, no doubt!

 

Right.
The KJB project was presented to the Synod of Dort by James's delegation, inspiring the Reformed there to finally get a Dutch Bible translated from the original languages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_Dutch

 

I didn't know the dictionary thing.

I'm aware the NT quotes the Septuagint. That heavily hurts the kjvo position. If the KJV was the true text, why would it not quote itself each time?

I'm aware Joshua is the Hebrew translation of Jesus. However we're translating from greek to English, not Greek to Hebrew to English.

 

Well one possibility - the book to the Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew but translated into Greek for the majority of Christians a little later.

 

Actually the English language has stayed quite static, it was just confused by a few men who wanted a different way to speak. The 1560 Geneva has many places where it reads more modern than the KJV, so that is like reading 20th century English. So does Tyndales 1526 and sometimes the 1537 Matthews Bible, as well as the 1582 Rhemes. If there is some 'confused' wording or use of a word, you can still use a modern book that is recently printed called a dictionary.

 

I mentioned the inevitability of change. You are speaking on the rate.

I believe the printing press and television have slowed the rate of change, though. I am definitely not here to influence anyone to give up their old and favored translations. But if this world lasts another 500 or 1000 years, English and the rest of the living languages will continue to change.

 

Yes. If one would read Chaucer, in that stage of English, and really try to read it fluently, that may be how it will be 1000 years or so from now. But people, (as now with Chaucer), will still be reading English in the English Bibles of our day to see how WE viewed scripture and its meanings.

 

While the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible according to the first rule for its translating, it does not mean that its revisers/translators strictly followed that rule. The KJV can also be considered a revision of the Geneva Bible. While the makers of the KJV started with the Bishops' as their base English text, they also incorporated or took much from the Geneva Bible. The KJV would be more of a combination of the Bishops' and Geneva than it would be solely a revision of the Bishops. A number of scholars have seen more of the Geneva Bible than of the Bishops' in the KJV.

Gerald Hammond maintained that “the Geneva Bible, not the Bishops’ Bible, became the foundation of the Authorized Version” (Making of the English Bible, p. 144). Cleland Boyd McAfee contended that “the Genevan version was most influential” in the making of the KJV (Greatest English Classic, p. 62). W. F. Moulton asserted that “though the Bishops’ Bible nominally furnished the basis for the new translation [the KJV], it is clear that the Geneva exercised a much more powerful influence” (History of the English Bible, p. 201). David Norton affirmed: “Though not the draft the KJB translators were directed to base their work on, it [the Geneva Bible] was the immediate predecessor that had most influence on the KJB” (KJB: a Short History, p. 19). Steven Voth wrote: “Recognizing the fact that the Bishops’ Bible was used as the basic text, it is generally agreed that the changes incorporated into the KJV were most influenced by the Geneva Bible” (Youngblood, Challenge of Bible Translation, p. 332).

Leland Ryken maintained that the Geneva Bible “contributed more than any other version to the King James Bible of 1611” (Worldly Saints, p. 138). James Stobaugh asserted that “examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible than any other source” (Studies in World History, Vol. 2, p. 119). Charles Butterworth wrote: “In the lineage of the King James Bible this volume [the Geneva Bible] is by all means the most important single volume” (Literary Lineage of the KJB, p. 163). David Allen wrote: “The heavy dependence of the King James Bible upon the Geneva Bible demonstrates its superior excellence by providing the King James’s men with more material than any other single source” (Jewel in the King’s Crown, p. 59). Marvin Vincent maintained that the Geneva Bible “exercised the most marked influence of all the early translations upon the Authorized Version of 1611” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 59).

 

That is true. In many of those places the KJV kept its more archaic language from the Bishops' Bible.

 

The Rhemes was very influential to the 1611 NT, although some may argue against that thought.

Where the verse may mention Jesus as God or the Son, the 1611 does match the 1582, and says contrary to the Tyndale family of Bibles. An eclectic 1611 KJV - a good mixture sometimes. But Bibles back then were meant for study, not just reading. That's why the Geneva Bible had so many notes and verse alternatives in the gloss.

 

The simple trut is that there is NO valid reasonto ever callthe Spirit an it!
And the kjv did seem to addressing boh the Father and the Lord Jesus, wen it was just Jesus alone in certain passages!

There were sme mistales in the translation, correct?

 

What about when it called the prophet Immais I believe?

 

Which begs the qustion, as to why even the need to have the Kjv as the Geneva seemed to be a superior translation to the Kjv any ways?