When translations are older...

[Yeshua1]

Not unless they are correct ones.
There are incorrect texts available, as I am sure you know.

And the previous translators didn't think that.

Why would you, unless you think yourself more wise than they?
I am sure you don't match up to the kind of men they were. Intelligence-wise that is. I am sure you have not had the education and experience with the ancient languages as they.

One should never correct either MT/CT by English translation!

 

[Covenanter]

Again, please explain to me how two different readings can both be right.

Many of the differences concern omissions/additions where it may not be possible to decide which. The modern translations tend to omit useful & important texts, but doctrine is not changed.

e.g. Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. KJV

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. NIV​

The Vulgate agrees with the NIV:

hoc audito Iesus ait illis non necesse habent sani medicum sed qui male habent non enim veni vocare iustos sed peccatores​

I don't think we need doubt the call to repentance, nor in Colossians, redemption through Jesus' blood:

Col. 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: KJV

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NIV
​

Again the Vulgate agrees with the NIV:

in quo habemus redemptionem remissionem peccatorum
​

I am not claiming any particular virtue for the Vulgate, but it may be of interest that the English Reformation effectively began with Wycliffe's translation of the Vulgate 150 years before Geneva, & over 200 years before the KJV.

The Wycliffe version was hand copied & there are still about 200 copies in museums & libraries, despite RC orders to burn it.

 

[TCassidy]

Many of the differences concern omissions/additions where it may not be possible to decide which. The modern translations tend to omit useful & important texts, but doctrine is not changed.

e.g. Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. KJV

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. NIV​

The Vulgate agrees with the NIV:

hoc audito Iesus ait illis non necesse habent sani medicum sed qui male habent non enim veni vocare iustos sed peccatores​

I don't think we need doubt the call to repentance, nor in Colossians, redemption through Jesus' blood:

Col. 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: KJV

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NIV
​

Again the Vulgate agrees with the NIV:

in quo habemus redemptionem remissionem peccatorum
​

I am not claiming any particular virtue for the Vulgate, but it may be of interest that the English Reformation effectively began with Wycliffe's translation of the Vulgate 150 years before Geneva, & over 200 years before the KJV.

The Wycliffe version was hand copied & there are still about 200 copies in museums & libraries, despite RC orders to burn it.

You missed the point.

 

[Logos1560]

I am sure you don't match up to the kind of men they were. Intelligence-wise that is. I am sure you have not had the education and experience with the ancient languages as they.

According to the Baptist New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, would the only important issue be merely that of earthly intelligence, education, or scholarship? Is God not able to give each believer the necessary wisdom that each needs if they ask God for it? Would you suggest that a certain unidentified amount of intelligence or education can make some men perfect, sinless, and infallible in their thinking, understanding, and translating?

Your claims for the Geneva Bible seem to suggest that you in effect assume that its translators are to be regarded as some-type special, exclusive, elite group of priests or pope-like scholars who alone were able to translate the Scriptures into English correctly or even perfectly. What makes you the expert or authority that you get to decide which group of scholars is to be blindly trusted in their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions? Where is your sound, scriptural case for what you claim for the Geneva Bible and its translators?

If certain individuals or a certain group are claimed to have greater education and experience with the ancient languages, do the Scriptures teach that it means that they are supposed be accepted as perfect and infallible in their translating of the Scriptures from those languages?

You ignored or skipped my post that presented a scripturally-based case for asserting that translators are under the authority of the preserved original language words of Scriptures instead of over them.

 

[Logos1560]

I think the text of the 1560 Geneva Bible to be the perfect 'base' of scripture to correct any other English translation, where they are in error.

Since the Geneva Bible has some words added by men [some of them inconsistently in italics], how does that make it a perfect base of Scripture?

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies of it would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Jer. 26:2, Rev. 22:18-19) could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the perfect word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken or given by inspiration (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:35).

It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not spoken words added by men (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8) and since the words of the LORD are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It would be a sound, righteous judgment based on scriptural truths to maintain that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words inspired by God. Therefore, any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies of Scripture can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken or given by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16). Just as the source would definitely have to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Would not the preserved original language Scriptures given by inspiration be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing?

The scriptural truths concerning righteous judgments and just measures also provide sound guidance in determining how to know which words the LORD has or has not spoken or given as part of Scripture. The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9). The scriptural principles of using just measures and not using unjust measures would be timeless and would not be limited to a specific situation or time period. These instructions to use just measures and not use unjust measures are not in conflict with other scriptural teaching, but instead they are in agreement with other scriptural teaching. The use of inconsistent, unjust measures or double standards could be connected to being double-minded (James 1:8). Like physical measurements, mental and spiritual judgments or measures also should be good, true, upright, and just or righteous (John 7:24, Lev. 19:35, Lev. 19:15, Ps. 19:9, Ps. 119:39, Zech. 7:9, Prov. 12:17, Ps. 119:66, 1 Thess. 5:21, Ps. 119:137). According to what the Scriptures state and teach, it would be clear that the holy, just God would oppose the wicked perverting or wresting of righteous judgment by use of unjust measures (Job 34:12, Job 8:3, Exodus 23:7, Exodus 23:2, Rev. 15:3). Every false way including that of the making of inconsistent, unrighteous judgments and the use of unjust measures should be hated by believers (Ps. 119:104, 128). Righteous judgments based on just measures and in line with the wisdom that is from above would be without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17). The making of sound, true, righteous judgments would be considered a weighter matter (Matt. 23:23). A failure to use consistent, “altogether just” measures, standards, criteria, or principles (Deut. 16:20, Prov. 16:11, Ezek. 45:10, Deut. 25:15, Ps. 19:9) in comparing or trying manuscript copies or translations of Scripture would condemn the inconsistent, unfair, uneven, and unjust judgments that would result. Should someone who would use unjust measures or would be unjust concerning textual differences that are considered least be trusted in greater textual differences (Luke 16:10)? In order to be faithful and just in that which is least, one would need to use consistent, just measures. That the preserved copies of the Scriptures in the original languages as searched, evaluated, and discerned by use of just measures should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture state or indicate.

 

[HankD]

You are all wrong!

The Catholic Church has decreed that "Latin is the language of heaven".

Proof text:
John 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

These 3 languages therefore are the only languages approved of by the scripture.

Prove me wrong!

The Latin Vulgate was The Bible of the Church for almost a millennium.

LVO! Clementine Version of course, the Nova Vulgata has been corrupted.

HankD

 

[Jerome]

Even today in Baptist churches one occasionally hears Latin: the chorus of Angels We Have Heard on High!

But in some Baptist churches one now hears Latin constantly: sola this, sola that.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Actually, I would use Strongs' as the "index" for the lexicon assuming I was an English language only researcher.

MUCH better using a good greek Lexicon instead of Strongs definitions!

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Since the Geneva Bible has some words added by men [some of them inconsistently in italics], how does that make it a perfect base of Scripture?

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies of it would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Jer. 26:2, Rev. 22:18-19) could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the perfect word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken or given by inspiration (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:35).

It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not spoken words added by men (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8) and since the words of the LORD are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It would be a sound, righteous judgment based on scriptural truths to maintain that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words inspired by God. Therefore, any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies of Scripture can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken or given by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16). Just as the source would definitely have to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Would not the preserved original language Scriptures given by inspiration be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing?

The scriptural truths concerning righteous judgments and just measures also provide sound guidance in determining how to know which words the LORD has or has not spoken or given as part of Scripture. The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9). The scriptural principles of using just measures and not using unjust measures would be timeless and would not be limited to a specific situation or time period. These instructions to use just measures and not use unjust measures are not in conflict with other scriptural teaching, but instead they are in agreement with other scriptural teaching. The use of inconsistent, unjust measures or double standards could be connected to being double-minded (James 1:8). Like physical measurements, mental and spiritual judgments or measures also should be good, true, upright, and just or righteous (John 7:24, Lev. 19:35, Lev. 19:15, Ps. 19:9, Ps. 119:39, Zech. 7:9, Prov. 12:17, Ps. 119:66, 1 Thess. 5:21, Ps. 119:137). According to what the Scriptures state and teach, it would be clear that the holy, just God would oppose the wicked perverting or wresting of righteous judgment by use of unjust measures (Job 34:12, Job 8:3, Exodus 23:7, Exodus 23:2, Rev. 15:3). Every false way including that of the making of inconsistent, unrighteous judgments and the use of unjust measures should be hated by believers (Ps. 119:104, 128). Righteous judgments based on just measures and in line with the wisdom that is from above would be without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17). The making of sound, true, righteous judgments would be considered a weighter matter (Matt. 23:23). A failure to use consistent, “altogether just” measures, standards, criteria, or principles (Deut. 16:20, Prov. 16:11, Ezek. 45:10, Deut. 25:15, Ps. 19:9) in comparing or trying manuscript copies or translations of Scripture would condemn the inconsistent, unfair, uneven, and unjust judgments that would result. Should someone who would use unjust measures or would be unjust concerning textual differences that are considered least be trusted in greater textual differences (Luke 16:10)? In order to be faithful and just in that which is least, one would need to use consistent, just measures. That the preserved copies of the Scriptures in the original languages as searched, evaluated, and discerned by use of just measures should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture state or indicate.

Wow.

Did you take a breath in there somewhere?

I have noticed you are very repetitive and quite windy there Logos.

You obviously like to 'let it flow'...uncontrollably so it seems.

The word of God says we should study it. Not tear down the 'base' language to find hidden meanings so 'doctors of the law' can show their 'higher' intelligence.

Do you not agree we need to know his words?

Then read the text...in your own language...and learn of Him.

Quit wasting SO much of your time pointing out the so called 'originals' and learn of the Lord Jesus.

He is meek and he is lowly...

I trust the 1560 Geneva Bible because of what it says. Not because of what wisdom the translators had. But when you lift yourself up like you have, and proclaim how much wisdom you have, compared to them...that's when I will point out their wisdom...and you just don't measure up.

You need to wake up my friend, and maybe go fill your lamp with oil before it's too late.

Trim your lamps brethren!

 

[Rippon]

GB, your torrent of words against what Logos 1560 has said is immature on your part. Was anything he said false? Maybe your feelings are hurt because you can't apply sound reasoning to support your entrenched opinion.

 

[HankD]

Trim your lamps brethren!

They are.

HankD

 

[Logos1560]

. But when you lift yourself up like you have, and proclaim how much wisdom you have, compared to them...that's when I will point out their wisdom...and you just don't measure up.

You do not demonstrate your allegations to be true. You fail to show that I supposedly lift myself up and proclaim my own wisdom as you improperly accuse. Are you in effect trying to attack me personally instead of discussing anything I stated?

I lift up the actual words given by God to the prophets and apostles as the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

I have presented sound, scriptural truths that would relate to the issue of Bible translations, and you avoid discussing them.

You still present no sound, scriptural case for your claims for the Geneva Bible. It is likely rarely read today. I have likely read and studied the Geneva Bible more than the typical reader of English today. Most English readers today likely have not read it at all. How widely is the Geneva Bible actually read today? Would your view in effect suggest that the great majority of English readers who do not read the Geneva Bible do not have the word of God accurately translated in English?

 

[GenevanBaptist]

You do not demonstrate your allegations to be true. You fail to show that I supposedly lift myself up and proclaim my own wisdom as you improperly accuse. Are you in effect trying to attack me personally instead of discussing anything I stated?

You show my allegations to be true - and your lifting up of yourself over men of God who had all the time in the world to study the translation sources to get a proper English translation, of which, (just give a rough estimate), how many hours a day have you had to study multiple languages to know clearly just what the scriptures say in any language that you know fluently, so that you can correct them? (I would guess you do not know any at all, since you never have answered whether you do, as per more than once being asked)

I lift up the actual words given by God to the prophets and apostles as the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

Of which you cannot prove one iota - because there are no originals left, right?

I have presented sound, scriptural truths that would relate to the issue of Bible translations, and you avoid discussing them.

Because your opinion is not 'foundational', because you lack what those translators actually used that you criticize. How do you know all the existing sources they used? You do not. So you can't say there were no sources for how they got their translation. Just because their sources do not exist today, you can't make a 'guess' that they never existed. Ever think of that?

You still present no sound, scriptural case for your claims for the Geneva Bible.

The text speaks for itself. I have used the Geneva Bible since 1998 - preaching and teaching from it, and have only seen the text prove itself out all those years.

It is likely rarely read today.

That matters not. But I have been in contact with Hendrickson Publishers, and they say sales are strong, and they have been printing the 1560 edition since 2007.

I have likely read and studied the Geneva Bible more than the typical reader of English today.

Probably not more than me, I dare say.

Most English readers today likely have not read it at all. How widely is the Geneva Bible actually read today?

Probably much more than you think.

Would your view in effect suggest that the great majority of English readers who do not read the Geneva Bible do not have the word of God accurately translated in English?

Isn't that what you are saying about any English translation?

 

[Logos1560]

Because your opinion is not 'foundational', because you lack what those translators actually used that you criticize. How do you know all the existing sources they used? You do not. So you can't say there were no sources for how they got their translation. Just because their sources do not exist today, you can't make a 'guess' that they never existed. Ever think of that?

Are you consistent or inconsistent in what you suggest or assert? Do you own posts reveal that you have failed to practice what you preach?

Are you suggesting that you have to know and identify what specific sources the Geneva Bible translators actually used before you are entitled to recommend their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions since your own demands of others apply equally to you yourself?

Would you be suggesting that actual use of multiple, textually-varying and even conflicting sources in the making of the Geneva Bible without any stated, identified just measures favors it?

Are you in effect asserting your own guesses and own subjective opinions concerning the Geneva Bible are to be blindly accepted?
Where is your clear proof that all the sources used in the making of the Geneva Bible do not still exist today?

Are you asserting that all the histories of the English Bible including of the Geneva Bible have not identified the actual sources used in the making of the Geneva Bible?

Your claims for the Geneva Bible seem to suggest that you in effect assume that its translators are to be regarded as some-type special, exclusive, elite group of priests or pope-like scholars who alone were able to make perfect textual criticism decisions concerning their textually-varying sources and then translate the Scriptures into English correctly or even perfectly.
What makes you the expert or authority that you get to decide which group of scholars is to be blindly trusted in their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions?
Where is your sound, scriptural case for what you claim for the Geneva Bible and its translators?

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Are you consistent or inconsistent in what you suggest or assert? Do you own posts reveal that you have failed to practice what you preach?

Are you suggesting that you have to know and identify what specific sources the Geneva Bible translators actually used before you are entitled to recommend their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions since your own demands of others apply equally to you yourself?

Would you be suggesting that actual use of multiple, textually-varying and even conflicting sources in the making of the Geneva Bible without any stated, identified just measures favors it?

Are you in effect asserting your own guesses and own subjective opinions concerning the Geneva Bible are to be blindly accepted?
Where is your clear proof that all the sources used in the making of the Geneva Bible do not still exist today?

Are you asserting that all the histories of the English Bible including of the Geneva Bible have not identified the actual sources used in the making of the Geneva Bible?

Your claims for the Geneva Bible seem to suggest that you in effect assume that its translators are to be regarded as some-type special, exclusive, elite group of priests or pope-like scholars who alone were able to make perfect textual criticism decisions concerning their textually-varying sources and then translate the Scriptures into English correctly or even perfectly.
What makes you the expert or authority that you get to decide which group of scholars is to be blindly trusted in their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions?
Where is your sound, scriptural case for what you claim for the Geneva Bible and its translators?

Ok. I know you can remember this.

The text in what it says doctrinally is the proof when compared to others.

That's all.

The text proves the right translating was done.

I am sure you understand that concept.

I hope.

 

[Rob_BW]

Ok. I know you can remember this.

The text in what it says doctrinally is the proof when compared to others.

That's all.

The text proves the right translating was done.

I am sure you understand that concept.

I hope.

But where does the doctrine come from? The text, right?
Seems like a rather circular argument.

Imagine if someone knocked on your door and told you that you could trust the New World Translation because of what it said, and then said that you should just read the Bible in English and not worry about the originals...well, would you be concerned?

 

[Logos1560]

The text in what it says doctrinally is the proof when compared to others.

That's all.

The text proves the right translating was done.

I am sure you understand that concept.

I recognize the same erroneous reasoning in your claims for the Geneva Bible as that in KJV-only reasoning. Does your view in effect attempt to make the 1560 Geneva Bible the final authority on earth just as some KJV-only advocates attempt to make the KJV the final authority?

You do not show that you hold a consistent, sound view of the preservation of the Scriptures since your view seems to suggest that God failed to preserve the actual specific words He gave to the prophets and apostles in the existing preserved original language manuscripts copies of Scripture. Do you guess or speculate that the sources of the Geneva Bible were lost so that you can have an excuse to dodge demonstrating its translating to be faithful and accurate? Do you attempt to put the cart before the horse as you assume your own premises for your Geneva Bible-only theory to be true instead of proving them to be true?

Is your human reasoning for your Geneva Bible-only theory circular and dependent upon fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading?
Perhaps you merely read your own preferred doctrinal views into the Geneva Bible and merely assume by fallacies that your view is supposedly correct.

Without the actual original language sources being identified and being demonstrated to be the correct ones according to the use of consistent, just textual measures, how can it be properly demonstrated from the translation that its translating was right, sound, and accurate? You make no sound, scriptural case for your opinions concerning the Geneva Bible.

 

[Logos1560]

I may know of over 5,000 places where the KJV's rendering could be considered an improvement over the rendering in the Geneva Bible.

The over 5,000 places where the KJV's rendering could be considered an improvement for English readers over the Geneva Bible rendering all involve the same difference [the KJV's LORD or GOD that would indicate a difference in the Hebrew name of God used in those over 5,000 places for those who study and learn what the difference means versus the Geneva Bible's Lord or God in those same places].

 

[GenevanBaptist]

The over 5,000 places where the KJV's rendering could be considered an improvement for English readers over the Geneva Bible rendering all involve the same difference [the KJV's LORD or GOD that would indicate a difference in the Hebrew name of God used in those over 5,000 places for those who study and learn what the difference means versus the Geneva Bible's Lord or God in those same places].

Oh. That one. You shouldn't have bothered. I thought maybe there was something more obvious.

Thanks anyway.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

But where does the doctrine come from? The text, right?
Seems like a rather circular argument.

Imagine if someone knocked on your door and told you that you could trust the New World Translation because of what it said, and then said that you should just read the Bible in English and not worry about the originals...well, would you be concerned?

Here it is.

Put yourself in another situation.

While some state nobody can really know for sure what scripture should say unless they read from the original languages...sounds like Logos1560 knocking on the door...