The Geneva English Bible: The Shocking Truth

[Logos1560]

Ahem. All doctrine is Baptist doctrine whether or not others follow it also.

All doctrine means is scriptural teachings.

Perhaps you are assuming by fallacies such as begging the question that whatever renderings are in the Geneva Bible are correct and that they teach Baptist doctrine when you do not demonstrate that they do.

You accuse other English Bibles of not teaching scriptural Baptist teachings, but you refuse to back up your allegations against them. Perhaps you are misunderstand or misinterpret some verses in the Geneva Bible in order to make them fit your own personal views and misunderstand or misinterpret some verses in other English Bibles to try to claim that they conflict with scriptural Baptist teaching. Using different measures/standards for the Geneva Bible than for other English Bible translations would not be following scriptural teaching.

Perhaps your unclear view of Bible translations is not scriptural and is not in agreement with Baptist doctrine.

 

[Logos1560]

All doctrine means is scriptural teachings.

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 edifying, and they would not be limited to a specific situation or time period.

Use of these scriptural principles would aid in proving all things, in proving what is acceptable to God, and in holding fast that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21, Eph. 5:10, Rom. 12:9). 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.

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, Prov. 31:9). 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). Have one-translation-only advocates or those who assume one translation to be the standard chosen the way of truth if they choose to use inconsistent, unjust measures (Ps, 119:30)?

Every false or evil way including that of the making of inconsistent, unrighteous judgments and the use of unjust measures should be hated or abhorred by believers (Ps. 119:104, 128, Rom. 12:9, Ps. 97:10). Righteous judgments based on just measures and in line with the wisdom that is from God above would be without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17). Showing partiality or respect of persons to one group of Bible translators would not be agreement with the wisdom from above. The making of sound, true, righteous judgments would be properly considered a weightier 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.

 

[Logos1560]

Where doctrine, specific doctrine, is corrupt in most English Bibles, including the KJV, the Geneva has it correct.

You fail to prove your assertion to be true, and you do not demonstrate that it is based on use of consistent, just measures/standards.

 

[Logos1560]

And what am I claiming about the 1560 Geneva Bible?

That it follows Baptist doctrines closer than anyother English version.

You can read it clearly in the text.

Does the 1560 Geneva Bible more clearly teach Baptist doctrine concerning baptism (especially the mode of baptism) than any other English Bible?

Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1538 Coverdale's Duoglott, 1539 Great, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles have "in water" at Matthew 3:11. The 1560 Geneva Bible has "baptize you with water" at Matthew 3:11 while the KJV has "baptize you with water".

The 1842 revision of the KJV began Matthew 3:11 as follows: “I indeed immerse you in water.”

S. E. Anderson observed: "The KJV of Matthew 3:11 reads, "I baptize you with water," but the Greek has it, "I immerse you in water" (Biblical Baptist Beliefs, p. 17). Henry Burrage also noted: "In those passages in our English version [KJV] where we find the words 'with water,' as in Matt. 3:11, 'I indeed baptize you with water,' the Greek has 'in water'" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 153). Concerning this verse in his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus has this comment: “With--rather, in water is the proper rendering of the preposition and case here employed” (p. 48).

Concerning this verse in the KJV, John Christian noted: “You must remember this is the Episcopalian translation of King James. The original Greek has, they shall be baptized ‘in water’” (Immersion, p. 51). He concluded: “The literal meaning of the passage is in water and not with

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Perhaps you are assuming by fallacies such as begging the question that whatever renderings are in the Geneva Bible are correct and that they teach Baptist doctrine when you do not demonstrate that they do.

You accuse other English Bibles of not teaching scriptural Baptist teachings, but you refuse to back up your allegations against them. Perhaps you are misunderstand or misinterpret some verses in the Geneva Bible in order to make them fit your own personal views and misunderstand or misinterpret some verses in other English Bibles to try to claim that they conflict with scriptural Baptist teaching. Using different measures/standards for the Geneva Bible than for other English Bible translations would not be following scriptural teaching.

Perhaps your unclear view of Bible translations is not scriptural and is not in agreement with Baptist doctrine.

Wow.

Looking quickly at your postings one would question your scriptural sanity.

First off - I do have a life and job and do not have a bunch of time to quibble about a bunch of words and accusations coming from you about what I believe.

I believe the 1560 Geneva Bible more accurate according to my experiences debating and teaching and preaching for the last 20 years.

It's not simple to put it all into one answer just for you.

I have given verses and subjects in this area and another on versions.

The multitude of differences mean nothing to one who is so defensive like you have been.

Be patient.

Movie time with my wife!

 

[HankD]

Wow.

Looking quickly at your postings one would question your scriptural sanity.

First off - I do have a life and job and do not have a bunch of time to quibble about a bunch of words and accusations coming from you about what I believe.

I believe the 1560 Geneva Bible more accurate according to my experiences debating and teaching and preaching for the last 20 years.

It's not simple to put it all into one answer just for you.

I have given verses and subjects in this area and another on versions.

The multitude of differences mean nothing to one who is so defensive like you have been.

Be patient.

Movie time with my wife!

LOL He has a few more years here at the BB than you do GB and frankly seems on a higher educational wave length.

Enjoy the movie with your wife, if you are willing to say - what are you watching?

Do you go to a walk-in or cable or ROKU?

 

[GenevanBaptist]

LOL He has a few more years here at the BB than you do GB and frankly seems on a higher educational wave length.

Enjoy the movie with your wife, if you are willing to say - what are you watching?

Do you go to a walk-in or cable or ROKU?

Yes. I agree.

I graduated from high school. Nic'd college. Became a Christian. Got hitched. Had kids. And life took off.

Read the Bible 25 times or so. In English. Busy reading English with little to no time for looking into originals that vary between themselves as to their own wording SO much that some scholar has to collate them for someone to use as an 'original' source.

So yeah, he is probably smarter than me.

That just makes him sound more like someone who needs more than originals.

He needs to relax and just understand his own language, the one God put him into by birth. Assuming he was born in an English country.

"The Meg" by the way.
From Redbox.

 

[HankD]

Yes. I agree.

I graduated from high school. Nic'd college. Became a Christian. Got hitched. Had kids. And life took off.

Read the Bible 25 times or so. In English. Busy reading English with little to no time for looking into originals that vary between themselves as to their own wording SO much that some scholar has to collate them for someone to use as an 'original' source.

So yeah, he is probably smarter than me.

That just makes him sound more like someone who needs more than originals.

He needs to relax and just understand his own language, the one God put him into by birth. Assuming he was born in an English country.

"The Meg" by the way.
From Redbox.

Thanks for the autobiography.

OOh the Meg- 2 stars and 45% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Sounds OK, Review says "Jaws on steroids"

 

[Logos1560]

If you could provide verses I would be happy to go compare the Geneva Bible to the KJV and see for myself. I suspect there are others reading this thread that would do the same.

I have given verses and subjects in this area and another on versions.

GenevanBaptist, you make broad-sweeping accusations against other English Bibles without providing enough sufficient evidence to back up your claims. You seem to conclude too much from too little evidence. More evidence has been provided that conflicts with your claims than you have provided to support what you claim.

In a post, you accused other English Bibles of teaching false doctrine concerning a list of subjects without proving your allegation to be true, without providing verses to compare related to all those subjects, and without demonstrating that it is based on use of consistent, just measures/standards.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

GenevanBaptist, you make broad-sweeping accusations against other English Bibles without providing enough sufficient evidence to back up your claims. You seem to conclude too much from too little evidence. More evidence has been provided that conflicts with your claims than you have provided to support what you claim.

In a post, you accused other English Bibles of teaching false doctrine concerning a list of subjects without proving your allegation to be true, without providing verses to compare related to all those subjects, and without demonstrating that it is based on use of consistent, just measures/standards.

You are right!

But can't you wait for it?

Have you not added patience to your faith?

 

[Logos1560]

Readers may have been patiently waiting since 2017 for you to back up what you claim.

Perhaps a person who is going to make allegations and assertions should have patiently prepared and already have sound evidence for what they post.

 

[HankD]

Readers may have been patiently waiting since 2017 for you to back up what you claim.

Perhaps a person who is going to make allegations and assertions should have patiently prepared and already have sound evidence for what they post.

Or at least admit it is an opinion.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Readers may have been patiently waiting since 2017 for you to back up what you claim.

Perhaps a person who is going to make allegations and assertions should have patiently prepared and already have sound evidence for what they post.

Or maybe not have had his computer hard drive go ballistic and have to do this stuff from his phone??

 

[Yeshua1]

Or maybe not have had his computer hard drive go ballistic and have to do this stuff from his phone??

Would a more Baptist translation also mean its more Calvinist?

 

[HankD]

Would a more Baptist translation also mean its more Calvinist?

Maybe - Primitive Baptist.

 

[Yeshua1]

Maybe - Primitive Baptist.

Or maybe Particular Baptist!