When translations are older...

[GenevanBaptist]

Please satisfy my curiosity. Who do you think were the "faithful followers of our Lord" who produced the manuscripts upon which Erasmus based his Greek text?

Since Erasmus relied primarily on Minuscule 2815 (produced by the Dominicans) and Minuscule 1 (also in the custody of the Dominicans), at what point were they transcribed by "faithful followers"? Did the Dominicans just happen to end up with the proper manuscripts?

Since men who copied the scriptures BEFORE '2815' was copied. That is how we got the source for every manuscript that is a copy.

Men of God were faithful!

Just because a Dominican wound up copying it last means little.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Possibly in Greek? While there have been some theories that a few of the books were not in Greek originally, that has always been a minority opinion.

"Yet they understood when 'pentacost' occured that the earliest copies of the NT were most likely spread in multiple languages around the globe." is either metaphorical or hyperbolic because 1. There were no NT books at the time of Pentecost and 2. There was no need for dozens of different languages early on because Greek, Latin and Syrian sufficed for the vast majority of the Mideast and Europe. The Roman church, for example, used Greek until the third century.

Do you lack something here?
Is it NOT understood that the same people who heard IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE the wonderful news of the Gospel on that day continued to follow the teachings of those Apostles? And as such, would have received copies of the scriptures later on and made them immediately available in their own tongue?

Yes.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

This is a rather oversimplified question, so I'll answer it in a simplified manner.

Generally, an 'older' manuscript is closer to the original. One can have a later copy which is errant; or a copy of a manuscript translated into another language (the Peshitta, for instance) from an 'older' manuscript which is correct. But one cannot have a copy of an 'errant' document which is somehow correct.

One looks to the current English version as more accurate, as the words are 'correct' in the modern or current meanings. For instance, some 'older' translations use the word 'meat' where the original word - in Hebrew or Greek - means 'food'. Another great misunderstanding is the Sixth (in the Talmud) Commandment. It is translated in 'older' translations as "Thou shalt not kill" causing no end of confusion about 'killing' in war or self-defense. "You will not commit murder" is a much more correct translation in current English.

Not to mention the English word 'gay' has undergone some alterations in meaning since the early 1960s. It just isn't the same any more.

Just for the record, the English language version(s) probably will need to be 're-translated' in another few years to address the changes in the English language between now and then.

I would further point out God protects His message. Minor changes in word order or spelling or such are not as problematic as changes in the actual message. However, either God takes care of His message, OR, He doesn't or He cannot. I find the latter concept rather futile.

That is what is known as an opinion. By what standard are the 'oldest English translations' more reliable? More reliable than what or which 'newer' translations? Are they more reliable than the original texts?
I think I get it. If the modern translation doesn't match up - to what extent? - to the older (claimed to be by Genevan Baptist) more reliable translation, then it is 'unreliable'?

Is the newer translation 'unreliable' if it doesn't match word for word, or if the meaning has been changed?

It was not a question that I didn't already know the answer to.

A newer translation is unreliable when it teaches baptismal regeneration. Or ecstatic tongues. Or baptizing for the dead. Or works saves.

Get my drift?

 

[rsr]

Since men who copied the scriptures BEFORE '2815' was copied. That is how we got the source for every manuscript that is a copy.

Men of God were faithful.

I see. So your answer really is "I don't know."

So if two manuscripts disagree, one was copied by a "faithful man of God" and the other by someone else?

 

[Jerome]

GenevanBaptist has noticed that older English translations mention consulting other languages.

Don't recent ones do as well? In a brief search of such translations' websites, I see things like:

See some Septuagint manuscripts, Old Latin, Syriac, Arabic and Targum

the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted

 

[GenevanBaptist]

I see. So your answer really is "I don't know."

So if two manuscripts disagree, one was copied by a "faithful man of God" and the other by someone else?

It just makes sense.

 

[rsr]

Do you lack something here?
Is it NOT understood that the same people who heard IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE the wonderful news of the Gospel on that day continued to follow the teachings of those Apostles? And as such, would have received copies of the scriptures later on and made them immediately available in their own tongue?

Yes.

Do you lack something here? I said one of the options is that it was metaphorical.

But again, you have no idea the provenance of those readings in, say 1285. You have made a statement that there can be no way of proving.

 

[rsr]

It just makes sense.

Well, not really. A "faithful man of God" might have been given an inferior manuscript to copy while the minion of Satan may have stumbled upon a perfect manuscript to copy.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Do you lack something here? I said one of the options is that it was metaphorical.

But again, you have no idea the provenance of those readings in, say 1285. You have made a statement that there can be no way of proving.

So you don't think there were scriptures spread to every language because of what happened at pentacost?

So what other reason was pentacost?

Just why would the Lord have them hear the gospel in their own languages?

Did the Lord not expect them to take that message home?

Don't you think that since they found the Messiah they would continue to seek information about his existence and receive the written 'gospels' later and translate them in their own language for their own people?

Maybe you need to expand your thinking a bit here brother.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Well, not really. A "faithful man of God" might have been given an inferior manuscript to copy while the minion of Satan may have stumbled upon a perfect manuscript to copy.

You really think God is that weak?

You do him dishonor in that thought line.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, not really. A "faithful man of God" might have been given an inferior manuscript to copy while the minion of Satan may have stumbled upon a perfect manuscript to copy.

Guess to some, that would explain how the Alexandrian sources had any better renderings in them! The "corrupt monks" stumbled across a good text from outof their "trash bins"

 

[Logos1560]

Since men who copied the scriptures BEFORE '2815' was copied. That is how we got the source for every manuscript that is a copy.

Men of God were faithful!

Just because a Dominican wound up copying it last means little.

The actual Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus may not have been as accurate as you seem to think.

Jan Krans noted that “in John he [Erasmus] used min. 2 and in Acts min. 2815, which were corrected and marked-up as printer’s copy. Both manuscripts contain many errors, which affect not only spelling (itacisms etc.) but also missing words and phrases through homoeoteleuton etc.“ (Beyond What is Written, p. 62). J. K. Elliott maintained that “Acts 8:37 is not found in the Greek manuscript (now numbered 2816) used principally by Erasmus for Acts, but was nonetheless translated by him from Latin into Greek” (NT Textual Criticism, p. 291).

Concerning manuscript 1’ [min. 2814], Robert Waltz wrote: “Noteworthy primarily as the single Greek manuscript used by Erasmus to prepare the Apocalypse of his 1516 New Testament” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, p. 1037). Isbon Beckwith wrote: “Cursive no. 1, of the 12th or 13th century containing the Apocalypse, with the commentary of Andreas, is of particular interest, since it was the only Greek Ms. which Erasmus had for the Apocalypse in his first edition of the Greek Testament (1516)“ (Apocalypse of John, p. 412). John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312). Thomas Holland wrote: “The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two” (Crowned With Glory, p. 168). This manuscript is one of two to four dozen of the book of Revelation that include the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia.

The Greek text of this manuscript is sometimes described as the “Andreas text” because the manuscripts with Andreas’s commentary have some readings said to characterize or distinguish them from purely Byzantine Greek manuscripts. In a new translation and his commentary on the book of Revelation, Craig Koester distinguished between the text used in the commentary by Andreas and the Byzantine text (p. 149). Josef Schmid classified the Andreas text as one of the four main text types or families of text for the Apocalypse. Edward Hutton identified “the Andreas text with the great Western family” (Atlas of Textual Criticism, p. 47).

At times in this worn manuscript of the book of Revelation used by Erasmus and his copyist, it has been said that it was difficult to distinguish the commentary from the text. Henry Alford observed: “The text in the MS. is mixed up with the commentary of Andreas” (Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 263, footnote 8). In this manuscript, Thomas J. Conant noted: “The text and commentary alternate, without any break in the line” (Baptist Quarterly, April, 1870, p. 135). James R. White suggested that Erasmus “had an unknown copyist make a fresh copy and returned the original to Reuchlin” (King James Only, second edition, p. 91). Although some errors made by that copyist in his copying may have been corrected in later printed editions, W. Edward Glenny maintained that “the copyist made several errors that are still found in the TR text published today” (Beacham, One Bible Only, p. 82). In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation asserted “the sacred text is here mixed up with the commentary of Andreas,” and he noted: “Owing to this cause, Erasmus omitted, from his first three editions, chapter 21:26” (Vol. IV, p. 462). At Revelation 21:24, William Lee claimed that “the copyist has imported into the text the words of the commentary, viz. ’of them which are saved’” (Ibid.). Thomas J. Conant maintained that the words “of them which are saved” (Rev. 21:24) “rests solely on a mistake by the transcriber, who confounded the commentary of Andreas with the words of the sacred writer” (Baptist Quarterly, Vol. IV, April, 1870, p. 136). Conant suggested that “the transcriber accidentally misplaced the signs for the commencement of the text and of the commentary (as other copies of the commentary show), and thus included in the text the words, ‘of them that are saved,‘ which belong to the commentary on the preceding verse” (pp. 135-136). In the book of Revelation, Robert Waltz asserted that the Textus Receptus has “a handful” of readings “derived from the [Andreas] commentary itself” (Encyclopedia, p. 438). John Nordstrom maintained that Erasmus acknowledged in his annotations that he had translated the last six verses of Revelation 22 from the Latin Vulgate, but that the printer did not choose to print that note in the printed edition. Nordstrom asserted: “This omission can be verified by placing side-by-side Erasmus’ hand-copied notes with the actual printed copy” (Strained by Blood, p. 74). Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11). Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16).

 

[Yeshua1]

The actual Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus may not have been as accurate as you seem to think.

Jan Krans noted that “in John he [Erasmus] used min. 2 and in Acts min. 2815, which were corrected and marked-up as printer’s copy. Both manuscripts contain many errors, which affect not only spelling (itacisms etc.) but also missing words and phrases through homoeoteleuton etc.“ (Beyond What is Written, p. 62). J. K. Elliott maintained that “Acts 8:37 is not found in the Greek manuscript (now numbered 2816) used principally by Erasmus for Acts, but was nonetheless translated by him from Latin into Greek” (NT Textual Criticism, p. 291).

Concerning manuscript 1’ [min. 2814], Robert Waltz wrote: “Noteworthy primarily as the single Greek manuscript used by Erasmus to prepare the Apocalypse of his 1516 New Testament” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, p. 1037). Isbon Beckwith wrote: “Cursive no. 1, of the 12th or 13th century containing the Apocalypse, with the commentary of Andreas, is of particular interest, since it was the only Greek Ms. which Erasmus had for the Apocalypse in his first edition of the Greek Testament (1516)“ (Apocalypse of John, p. 412). John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312). Thomas Holland wrote: “The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two” (Crowned With Glory, p. 168). This manuscript is one of two to four dozen of the book of Revelation that include the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia.

The Greek text of this manuscript is sometimes described as the “Andreas text” because the manuscripts with Andreas’s commentary have some readings said to characterize or distinguish them from purely Byzantine Greek manuscripts. In a new translation and his commentary on the book of Revelation, Craig Koester distinguished between the text used in the commentary by Andreas and the Byzantine text (p. 149). Josef Schmid classified the Andreas text as one of the four main text types or families of text for the Apocalypse. Edward Hutton identified “the Andreas text with the great Western family” (Atlas of Textual Criticism, p. 47).

At times in this worn manuscript of the book of Revelation used by Erasmus and his copyist, it has been said that it was difficult to distinguish the commentary from the text. Henry Alford observed: “The text in the MS. is mixed up with the commentary of Andreas” (Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 263, footnote 8). In this manuscript, Thomas J. Conant noted: “The text and commentary alternate, without any break in the line” (Baptist Quarterly, April, 1870, p. 135). James R. White suggested that Erasmus “had an unknown copyist make a fresh copy and returned the original to Reuchlin” (King James Only, second edition, p. 91). Although some errors made by that copyist in his copying may have been corrected in later printed editions, W. Edward Glenny maintained that “the copyist made several errors that are still found in the TR text published today” (Beacham, One Bible Only, p. 82). In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation asserted “the sacred text is here mixed up with the commentary of Andreas,” and he noted: “Owing to this cause, Erasmus omitted, from his first three editions, chapter 21:26” (Vol. IV, p. 462). At Revelation 21:24, William Lee claimed that “the copyist has imported into the text the words of the commentary, viz. ’of them which are saved’” (Ibid.). Thomas J. Conant maintained that the words “of them which are saved” (Rev. 21:24) “rests solely on a mistake by the transcriber, who confounded the commentary of Andreas with the words of the sacred writer” (Baptist Quarterly, Vol. IV, April, 1870, p. 136). Conant suggested that “the transcriber accidentally misplaced the signs for the commencement of the text and of the commentary (as other copies of the commentary show), and thus included in the text the words, ‘of them that are saved,‘ which belong to the commentary on the preceding verse” (pp. 135-136). In the book of Revelation, Robert Waltz asserted that the Textus Receptus has “a handful” of readings “derived from the [Andreas] commentary itself” (Encyclopedia, p. 438). John Nordstrom maintained that Erasmus acknowledged in his annotations that he had translated the last six verses of Revelation 22 from the Latin Vulgate, but that the printer did not choose to print that note in the printed edition. Nordstrom asserted: “This omission can be verified by placing side-by-side Erasmus’ hand-copied notes with the actual printed copy” (Strained by Blood, p. 74). Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11). Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16).

So he really did not have a single received as the only and accurate Greek NT being used? How can KJVO look to him as having that perfect text source to have used?

 

[GenevanBaptist]

The actual Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus may not have been as accurate as you seem to think.

Jan Krans noted that “in John he [Erasmus] used min. 2 and in Acts min. 2815, which were corrected and marked-up as printer’s copy. Both manuscripts contain many errors, which affect not only spelling (itacisms etc.) but also missing words and phrases through homoeoteleuton etc.“ (Beyond What is Written, p. 62). J. K. Elliott maintained that “Acts 8:37 is not found in the Greek manuscript (now numbered 2816) used principally by Erasmus for Acts, but was nonetheless translated by him from Latin into Greek” (NT Textual Criticism, p. 291).

Concerning manuscript 1’ [min. 2814], Robert Waltz wrote: “Noteworthy primarily as the single Greek manuscript used by Erasmus to prepare the Apocalypse of his 1516 New Testament” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, p. 1037). Isbon Beckwith wrote: “Cursive no. 1, of the 12th or 13th century containing the Apocalypse, with the commentary of Andreas, is of particular interest, since it was the only Greek Ms. which Erasmus had for the Apocalypse in his first edition of the Greek Testament (1516)“ (Apocalypse of John, p. 412). John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312). Thomas Holland wrote: “The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two” (Crowned With Glory, p. 168). This manuscript is one of two to four dozen of the book of Revelation that include the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia.

The Greek text of this manuscript is sometimes described as the “Andreas text” because the manuscripts with Andreas’s commentary have some readings said to characterize or distinguish them from purely Byzantine Greek manuscripts. In a new translation and his commentary on the book of Revelation, Craig Koester distinguished between the text used in the commentary by Andreas and the Byzantine text (p. 149). Josef Schmid classified the Andreas text as one of the four main text types or families of text for the Apocalypse. Edward Hutton identified “the Andreas text with the great Western family” (Atlas of Textual Criticism, p. 47).

At times in this worn manuscript of the book of Revelation used by Erasmus and his copyist, it has been said that it was difficult to distinguish the commentary from the text. Henry Alford observed: “The text in the MS. is mixed up with the commentary of Andreas” (Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 263, footnote 8). In this manuscript, Thomas J. Conant noted: “The text and commentary alternate, without any break in the line” (Baptist Quarterly, April, 1870, p. 135). James R. White suggested that Erasmus “had an unknown copyist make a fresh copy and returned the original to Reuchlin” (King James Only, second edition, p. 91). Although some errors made by that copyist in his copying may have been corrected in later printed editions, W. Edward Glenny maintained that “the copyist made several errors that are still found in the TR text published today” (Beacham, One Bible Only, p. 82). In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation asserted “the sacred text is here mixed up with the commentary of Andreas,” and he noted: “Owing to this cause, Erasmus omitted, from his first three editions, chapter 21:26” (Vol. IV, p. 462). At Revelation 21:24, William Lee claimed that “the copyist has imported into the text the words of the commentary, viz. ’of them which are saved’” (Ibid.). Thomas J. Conant maintained that the words “of them which are saved” (Rev. 21:24) “rests solely on a mistake by the transcriber, who confounded the commentary of Andreas with the words of the sacred writer” (Baptist Quarterly, Vol. IV, April, 1870, p. 136). Conant suggested that “the transcriber accidentally misplaced the signs for the commencement of the text and of the commentary (as other copies of the commentary show), and thus included in the text the words, ‘of them that are saved,‘ which belong to the commentary on the preceding verse” (pp. 135-136). In the book of Revelation, Robert Waltz asserted that the Textus Receptus has “a handful” of readings “derived from the [Andreas] commentary itself” (Encyclopedia, p. 438). John Nordstrom maintained that Erasmus acknowledged in his annotations that he had translated the last six verses of Revelation 22 from the Latin Vulgate, but that the printer did not choose to print that note in the printed edition. Nordstrom asserted: “This omission can be verified by placing side-by-side Erasmus’ hand-copied notes with the actual printed copy” (Strained by Blood, p. 74). Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11). Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16).

You have misunderstood me.

I don't rely on Erasmus for any accurate NT.

I rely on the vast amount of Greek, Latin, and all other ancient texts to prove an accurate English text.

Like the Geneva translators did.

I can do without the KJV.

Like I stated before, your choice of English text is wrong if it teaches works for salvation, baptism saves, baptizing for the dead, and any other useless doctrine of men.

Regardless of which Greek you support.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have misunderstood me.

I don't rely on Erasmus for any accurate NT.

I rely on the vast amount of Greek, Latin, and all other ancient texts to prove an accurate English text.

Like the Geneva translators did.

I can do without the KJV.

The modern versions had many more of them to access, and what main source did Geneva use that KJV did not?

 

[rsr]

So you don't think there were scriptures spread to every language because of what happened at pentacost?

So what other reason was pentacost?

Just why would the Lord have them hear the gospel in their own languages?

Did the Lord not expect them to take that message home?

Don't you think that since they found the Messiah they would continue to seek information about his existence and receive the written 'gospels' later and translate them in their own language for their own people?

Maybe you need to expand your thinking a bit here brother.

Well, my comments were really an aside and dealt mostly with the terminology because I do not believe there was an immediate "explosion" of translations. It took some time for the manuscripts to be circulated, and it's not clear to me there would be a pressing need for translation, given the multiligualism general in the Roman Empire.

That's not to say that there were not early translations (especially into Latin and Syriac, for example), but those we have are, in general, not older than the Greek and have limited value in establishing the original text, IMHO.

The question I really want answered was: How do you know the provenance of the texts your trust and assume they were copied by "faithful men of God"?

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Well, my comments were really an aside and dealt mostly with the terminology because I do not believe there was an immediate "explosion" of translations. It took some time for the manuscripts to be circulated, and it's not clear to me there would be a pressing need for translation, given the multiligualism general in the Roman Empire.

That's not to say that there were not early translations (especially into Latin and Syriac, for example), but those we have are, in general, not older than the Greek and have limited value in establishing the original text, IMHO.

The question I really want answered was: How do you know the provenance of the texts your trust and assume they were copied by "faithful men of God"?

Simply because it makes sense that we know the things we believe because they were passed from generation to generation down to us -

"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believed, to the Jew first, and also to the Grecian. For by it the righteousness of God is revealed, from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

Let me stress a section of that verse - "for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believed".

That power is in the accurate portrayal in written form - THE gospel!

And as such He would let it be accurately available in our own language 'at such a time as this'.

Translated by 'faithful men' down through the centuries, with the accurate teachings He wanted us to know.

That's why I have stated that the English translation, (no matter the source), matters on the 'doctrine' taught in that English text, and proves whether the original source used is of value and accurate.

If your English text teaches baptismal regeneration, or works, or any such 'confused' doctrines, the source is corrupt and not Christian. [Not necessarily the whole text, I must add.]

 

[Logos1560]

Translated by 'faithful men' down through the centuries, with the accurate teachings He wanted us to know.

That's why I have stated that the English translation, (no matter the source), matters on the 'doctrine' taught in that English text, and proves whether the original source used is of value and accurate.

You do not demonstrate that faithful men were perfect, infallible translators who would only have used the most accurate sources and who could not make any mistakes in translating their underlying sources. The Geneva Bible translators made use of the English text of the Great Bible, which was not the most accurate in all its readings and in all its renderings. Great Bible editions had some added readings from the Latin Vulgate that were not always kept in the Geneva Bible.

The doctrine taught in the English translated text does not actually prove whether the underlying sources were accurate since the translators could sometimes translate according to their own doctrinal bias or could sometimes translate inaccurately or imperfectly.

 

[Logos1560]

If your English text teaches baptismal regeneration, or works, or any such 'confused' doctrines, the source is corrupt and not Christian. [Not necessarily the whole text, I must add.]

If translators could possibly introduce their own doctrinal views through their own bias towards them, it would not prove that it was the fault of their underlying source texts.

Some imperfect sources, such as the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, the Syriac Pes hitta, and others, had an influence on all the pre-1611 English Bibles including the Geneva Bible.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

You do not demonstrate that faithful men were perfect, infallible translators who would only have used the most accurate sources and who could not make any mistakes in translating their underlying sources. The Geneva Bible translators made use of the English text of the Great Bible, which was not the most accurate in all its readings and in all its renderings. Great Bible editions had some added readings from the Latin Vulgate that were not always kept in the Geneva Bible.

The doctrine taught in the English translated text does not actually prove whether the underlying sources were accurate since the translators could sometimes translate according to their own doctrinal bias or could sometimes translate inaccurately or imperfectly.

I have no sources that say they used the Great Bible as any more basis than they used Tyndale's or Olivetan's.

So you have summed God and his ability to keep his cause of giving mankind the gospel clearly taught by his own words as an impossible task unfit for a God like him.

All is lost then and we are men most miserable. As our God has no strength to give us his word purely and precisely so we can really know anything of value towards eternal life nor the life we now live.

I am sad for people that believe such nonsense. They have no anchor to hold them to the truth.

My God can, and did, preserve exactly what he wanted written for mankind, and it exists because he used fallible men to record his infallible words, creating a true miracle for all of satan's minions to cringe over - unless he can get men of God to think as it seems you have just spoken.