Featured When translations are older...

There have been a host of rather accurate English translations since 1900. Hmm...just thinking out loud --the NIV comes to mind. ;-)

 

I am against some of your claims since some of them seem to be very similar to incorrect KJV-only reasoning except you would advocate them for the Geneva Bible instead of for the KJV. Perhaps you could be considered a Geneva Bible onlyist.

You have not demonstrated that there is a perfectly or completely accurate English translation as you attempt to suggest. You have not presented a consistent, sound, scriptural case for your view. You may assume your unproven view by fallacies similar to those used by KJV-only advocates, but you would evidently reject the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

There is nothing sad about my view of Bible translations. My view of Bible translations is actually the same basic view as that held by William Tyndale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the translators of the KJV. The early English translators considered having more than one good overall English translation a good thing. I correctly consider the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible to be the translated word of God in English in the same sense as the KJV is and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV is.

If that is what you think necessary, I have an original language source with the Hebrew OT text and Greek NT text similar to those used by the early English translators that I can hold in my hands

 

The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44) and not by natural means of human wisdom or scholarship. The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of His prophets (Luke 1:70, Acts 3:21, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, 2 Pet, 1:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The exact same words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Rom. 9:17, Exod. 9:16). The overall teaching of God's Word would indicate that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

Since the entire Old Testament was designated by God with names such as "Moses and the prophets," "the law and the prophets," “all the prophets and the law,“ and “the scriptures of the prophets,“ this could be understood to indicate that all the O. T. writers were prophets (Luke 16:29, 16:31, 24:27; Matt. 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, 26:56; Luke 16:16; John 6:45, Acts 24:14, 26:22, 28:23; Rom. 1:2, 3:21, 16:26). The writer of Hebrews could be understood to describe the entire Old Testament as what God spoke by the prophets (Heb. 1:1). William Whitaker affirmed “that the whole scripture of the old Testament was written and promulgated by prophets” (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 50). At Luke 16:29, the writer (Moses) is put for his writings. Moses was a prophet (Deut. 34:16). Since the Psalms is sometimes included in the designation "the prophets," it would suggest that the writers of the individual psalms could have been considered prophets. In addition, individual writers of the Psalms were referred to as prophets (Matt. 13:35, Acts 2:30). The writers who received the revelation concerning Christ that would be recorded in the New Testament also seem to be regarded as being prophets or apostles or both (Eph. 3:3-5, 2:20). The N. T. prophets given to the church may refer especially to those prophets that were given revelation that would be written as part of the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, Eph. 3:3-5, Eph. 2:20). Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18). The apostle Peter asserted that the commandment of the apostles are connected with the words revealed and spoken by the prophets (2 Pet. 3:1-2). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:18, Luke 16:17). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? It is sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8]. The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them.

If some will not accept the authority of the Word of God given to Moses and the prophets and then to the apostles, how will they be persuaded by the uninspired translating work of the Geneva Bible translators or of the Church of England scholars in 1611 that is in effect separated or cut off from the proper greater authority of the original language Scriptures?

 

Your comments would misrepresent and distort my scripturally-based view of Bible translations.

“The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7). One way or sense that a Bible translation could properly be considered a servant is in how it borrows, derives, or acquires its own text and its authority from its master or source original language text or texts from which it is made (Prov. 22:7). A translation is a borrower from its original language texts. As a borrower, a translation is servant to the lender or lenders [its original language texts] according to what is stated at Proverbs 22:17. The words of the master original language texts determine which words should be in a translation. The original meaning of the words as used in context in the master original language texts determine which words should be used in a translation of those texts. The words of a translation are under the authority of the original language words from which they are translated. The original language words that proceeded directly from God set the standard and are the proper authority for what the words of a translation should say (John 12:49, Matt. 4:4). Therefore, it is sound and scriptural to assert that the original language words have greater authority than the derived translated words that borrow authority from their source or sources.

Principles or truths from other scriptures would affirm this truth that a translation acts as a servant. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt. 10:24). In like manner, it can be inferred or deduced that a translation is not above the underlying texts from which it is translated. "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16). Likewise, a translation is not greater than the original language source or sources [the master text] from which it was made and translated and that gave it its proper derived authority. The lord or master gives authority to his servants (Mark 13:34). The servants do not give authority to the master nor do they have greater authority than the one who delegates authority to them. The person or servant who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16b). Likewise, a translation is not greater than the underlying texts from which it was made. A translation acts as a servant ambassador or messenger that attempts to present faithfully or accurately the meaning of the original language words of its underlying texts in the words of the receptor language. By its definition and in its role as a borrower, a translation can be properly considered servant to the master original language texts from which it was made and translated.

Translators/interpreters do not give authority to the prophets and apostles who were given the Scriptures by the miracle of direct inspiration. Translators do not give authority to the original language words given by inspiration of God. Translators are men under the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, Matt. 10:24, Mark 13:34, John 13:16). Besides God, translators are also accountable to something else prior to themselves [the texts which they translate]. The work of translators is clearly derivative. The words of men’s wisdom and scholarship in translating do not give authority to the actual words in the original languages given directly by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles. The body of Christ or believers do not give authority to the Scriptures by accepting or approving them. A translation does not give or lend authority to the Scriptures in the original languages that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. A translation can have proper derived authority while being under greater authority, which can be properly used to correct it.

The original language words from above given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles are above or greater in authority than the translation decisions of men (John 3:31, John 3:34, Isa. 45:9, Matt. 10:24, John 13:16). Which is greater: a translation or the underlying source or sources of the translation? Which is greater: the actual specific original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles or the different words chosen by translators to try to present the meaning in a different language? Can a translation be more pure and have more authority than that from which it was made or translated (Job 4:17, Rom. 11:18)? Are not the words given directly by God greater in authority than the choices of men in translating (Job 33:12, Job 4:17, Matt. 4:4)? Shall a translation say to the ones that fashion it and to the sources from which it was made that it is superior (Isa. 45:9)? How can a supposed "lesser" authority [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] according to the KJV-only view make a translation of itself into a supposed "greater" authority than itself? How can a branch [any translation] of the KJV-only view’s tree have "greater" authority than the vine, tree, or root [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] (John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-18)? The branch did not bear or produce the root since the root and tree produced the branch (Rom. 11:18). It would seem to be unscriptural to boast for one branch in claiming that it is the final authority and to boast in effect against the root since the root bears the branch (Rom. 11:18).

God is the God of order, and He established the order or primacy [the state of being first or foremost] with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages serving as the foundation and authority on which translations would need to be based or built. The Scriptures in the original languages obviously preceded any translations. No other foundation for translations can be laid than the one God laid when He gave the Scriptures in the original languages by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, 1 Cor. 2:13, Ps. 11:3).

 

Think that Logos holds to just those in the Tynsdale/TR/MT tree as being really accurate though!

 

There is NO single English translation to us as a prefect version, but several good ones!

 

You would not hold to any other English versions save those you mentioned here as being reliable/accurate then?

 

No translation is a "perfect" base to "correct" other translations.

You are in severe error.

 

False dichotomy: either we agree with your opinion or we don't trust God?

 

A claim of perfection for the 1560 Geneva Bible does seem to involve use of some of the same fallacies as are evident in typical KJV-only reasoning.

GenevanBaptist, while you have presented no consistent, sound, scriptural case for your stated view, you do in effect accuse believers who may not agree with your opinions of not trusting God as much as you think that you do.

 

The 1535 Coverdale's Bible used "steel" at several verses (1 Sam. 17:5, 6, 38, 2 Sam. 22:35, 1 Kings 14:27, 2 Chron. 12:10, Job 20:24, Ps. 18:34, Jer. 1:18, 15:20, Daniel 4:15, 23), some of which was revised or corrected to "brass" in some other early English Bibles including the KJV. At least three of Coverdale’s uses of "steel" (2 Sam. 22:35, Job 20:24, Ps. 18:34) remain in the 1540 edition of the Great Bible and in the 1568 Bishops‘ Bible. On the other hand, the Geneva Bible had revised or corrected “steel“ with "brass" at 2 Samuel 22:35 and Psalm 18:34, but it perhaps overlooked and left "steel" at Job 20:24.

GenevanBaptist, can you demonstrate that the Geneva Bible's inconsistent rendering "steel" at Job 20:24 is perfect when it would conflict with its own rendering of the same Hebrew word at 2 Samuel 22:35 and Psalm 18:34?

 

You have no proof though to uphold your belief, and we should always correct our translation with the Greek/Hebrew original language texts, not other English ones!

 

I have no problem in our brother preferring the Geneva over all other versions, but His version of KJVO has same problems as the KJV claims do!

 

The fact that another English translation may disagree with a rendering in the Geneva Bible does not show that it is in error and needs correcting.

Can you provide sound evidence that would show that the Geneva Bible's rendering "unicorn" at Deuteronomy 33:17 is actually the perfect base for correcting the rendering of those other English Bibles that would affirm with the Hebrew that the animal in question had horns [plural], not one horn?

 

That is a great question!