Do you trust in the Hebrew and Greek texts that the Kjv used for their translation?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fact that 1560 Geneva Bible is better than 1611 edition in some places
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Since I am the only one answering questions, yes, I do. Next.Do you trust in the Hebrew and Greek texts that the Kjv used for their translation?
You ignored my question by changing the subject.
You did the same thing. You ignored my sound direct question that relates to the actual subject of this thread. You try to change the subject of this thread with your diversionary questions and off-target comments. You are not the only one answering questions.
JD731, will you now acknowledge the fact that the 1560 Geneva Bible is more accurate than the 1611 edition of the KJV in at least some places?
Actual facts demonstrate that God did not directly translate the KJV.
Did the Geneva Bible translate in some instances better then the 1611 kjv did?Since I am the only one answering questions, yes, I do. Next.
Did the Geneva Bible translate in some instances better then the 1611 kjv did?
I bet you do not know what I am getting ready to tell you but Jesus Christ, having the Spirit of God residing in his body without measure, did not choose a single word he said, except those he spoke on the cross when he had suffered spiritual death for you and for me. Following is his words and it is how I can say this with confidence.
Jn 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. (BECAUSE HE SPOKE THE WORDS OF GOD - that is the point)
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
If Jesus did not paraphrase God, why do you think it is okay for you to do it? Answer my question please.
So why did the Translators choose to give dynamic renderings, or add or omit words from the Greek text, is that acceptable to you?I bet you do not know what I am getting ready to tell you but Jesus Christ, having the Spirit of God residing in his body without measure, did not choose a single word he said, except those he spoke on the cross when he had suffered spiritual death for you and for me. Following is his words and it is how I can say this with confidence.
Jn 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. (BECAUSE HE SPOKE THE WORDS OF GOD - that is the point)
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
If Jesus did not paraphrase God, why do you think it is okay for you to do it? Answer my question please.
you first.So why did the Translators choose to give dynamic renderings, or add or omit words from the Greek text, is that acceptable to you?
If Jesus did not paraphrase God, why do you think it is okay for you to do it?
If Jesus did not paraphrase God, why do you think it is okay for the Church of England makers of the KJV to do it?
You do not apply the reasoning behind your very own question consistently and justly since you do not apply it to the process of the making of the KJV. You prove your own question to be pointless or invalid since you refuse to apply it consistently and justly. Your question is soundly answered by a question back to your inconsistent human KJV-only reasoning.
If Jesus did not paraphrase God, why do you think it is okay for the Church of England makers of the KJV to do it?
You do not apply the reasoning behind your very own question consistently and justly since you do not apply it to the process of the making of the KJV. You prove your own question to be pointless or invalid since you refuse to apply it consistently and justly. Your question is soundly answered by a question back to your inconsistent human KJV-only reasoning.
You are assuming that it is not logical and proper to observe the ways of the LORD as it is given us to observe in the historical context of bible times and to be guided by it. Can you think of any instance in the biblical record where God allowed his word to be handled in the manner you are handling it? I remember reading about a king who destroyed the original copy and God just rewrote it word for word and then added some things to it. One has to wonder if the added words had been settled beforehand in heaven.
I don't see any precedent for your doctrine in scripture and I do not see God commending unbelief in what he says.
He says the words of the Lord are pure words. You either believe it or you don't. This is not hard to figure out.
The pure words only apply towards the originals, never to any translationYou are assuming that it is not logical and proper to observe the ways of the LORD as it is given us to observe in the historical context of bible times and to be guided by it. Can you think of any instance in the biblical record where God allowed his word to be handled in the manner you are handling it? I remember reading about a king who destroyed the original copy and God just rewrote it word for word and then added some things to it. One has to wonder if the added words had been settled beforehand in heaven.
I don't see any precedent for your doctrine in scripture and I do not see God commending unbelief in what he says.
He says the words of the Lord are pure words. You either believe it or you don't. This is not hard to figure out.
See post # 48you first.
You are assuming that it is not logical and proper to observe the ways of the LORD as it is given us to observe in the historical context of bible times and to be guided by it.
I make no such assumption. You are the one who seems to keep assuming things about what I believe that is not what I believe. I advocate no unbelief in what God said in the Scriptures as you incorrectly and improperly try to suggest or imply. I believe God's words are absolutely pure words.
It is clearly proper, logical, wise, and scriptural to choose not to believe assertions that are not true.
You keep jumping to wrong conclusions or making false allegations because I choose not to believe KJV-only assertions that are not true and that are not stated in the Scriptures.
You keep dodging the question or point that is the subject of this thread.
It is completely scriptural to maintain that errors introduced by men would not be pure words of God and that words added by men would not be pure words of God.
I make no such assumption. You are the one who seems to keep assuming things about what I believe that is not what I believe. I advocate no unbelief in what God said in the Scriptures as you incorrectly and improperly try to suggest or imply. I believe God's words are absolutely pure words.
It is clearly proper, logical, wise, and scriptural to choose not to believe assertions that are not true.
You keep jumping to wrong conclusions or making false allegations because I choose not to believe KJV-only assertions that are not true and that are not stated in the Scriptures.
You keep dodging the question or point that is the subject of this thread.
It is completely scriptural to maintain that errors introduced by men would not be pure words of God and that words added by men would not be pure words of God.
To be silent is to agree. You have supported by your silence the present practice of paraphrasing and condensing and the art of continuing to translate original language texts over and over that no one believes are 100% reliable as if there is not a personal Devil, who is called Satan, and who is at least as much concerned about translations as you are. Are you prepared to say you are more righteous than me because you accept all these many and varied translations and preach that God is leading his church in this practice and I have not?
Well, get yourself a couple dozen new translations and knock yourself out reading them. You can read them as a novel at least. Depending on the ones you choose, it will be like a new story in every one.The pure words only apply towards the originals, never to any translation
same way if you bothered to buy and look over all of the various Kjv editions made over the centuries!Well, get yourself a couple dozen new translations and knock yourself out reading them. You can read them as a novel at least. Depending on the ones you choose, it will be like a new story in every one.
The Holy Spirit ONLY authorized as the editor directly the originals, as they were inspired by Him and perfect, not any translationI make no such assumption. You are the one who seems to keep assuming things about what I believe that is not what I believe. I advocate no unbelief in what God said in the Scriptures as you incorrectly and improperly try to suggest or imply. I believe God's words are absolutely pure words.
It is clearly proper, logical, wise, and scriptural to choose not to believe assertions that are not true.
You keep jumping to wrong conclusions or making false allegations because I choose not to believe KJV-only assertions that are not true and that are not stated in the Scriptures.
You keep dodging the question or point that is the subject of this thread.
It is completely scriptural to maintain that errors introduced by men would not be pure words of God and that words added by men would not be pure words of God.
Are you prepared to say you are more righteous than me because you accept all these many and varied translations and preach that God is leading his church in this practice and I have not?
Your question would be invalid since it is based on bogus strawman misrepresentation. I have not accepted nor recommended the Critical Text or any English translations made from it.
In agreement with clear scriptural truths, I have chosen not to accept blindly KJV-only allegations or accusations that involve the use of unjust divers measures [double standards]. In agreement with clear scriptural truths, I advocate that the same exact measures/standards be applied to the making of all Bible translations. On the other hand, in your posts you have demonstrated that you refuse to apply the same exact measures/standards to the process of the making of the KJV that you inconsistently and thus unjustly attempt to apply to other English Bible translations.
The English Bible translations that I accept are based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV.
You continue to dodge and avoid the actual subject of this thread. The 1560 Geneva Bible is better and more accurate than the 1611 edition of the KJV in at least some places. Does your being silent concerning this fact pointed out in this thread mean that you agree with it?
Last edited:
Your question would be invalid since it is based on bogus strawman misrepresentation. I have not accepted nor recommended the Critical Text or any English translations made from it.
In agreement with clear scriptural truths, I have chosen not to accept blindly KJV-only allegations or accusations that involve the use of unjust divers measures [double standards]. In agreement with clear scriptural truths, I advocate that the same exact measures/standards be applied to the making of all Bible translations. On the other hand, in your posts you have demonstrated that you refuse to apply the same exact measures/standards to the process of the making of the KJV that you inconsistently and thus unjustly attempt to apply to other English Bible translations.
The English Bible translations that I accept are based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV.
You continue to dodge and avoid the actual subject of this thread. The 1560 Geneva Bible is better and more accurate than the 1611 edition of the KJV in at least some places. Does your being silent concerning this fact pointed out in this thread mean that you agree with it?
You have not warned anyone about the errors in the critical texts, and knowing myself, if I wanted to write and sell books on the subject of translations, I would not either.
Don't you even know that Greek scholars disagree among themselves on the veracity of several passages in the critical texts? So much for an authority, eh?The Holy Spirit ONLY authorized as the editor directly the originals, as they were inspired by Him and perfect, not any translation
You have not warned anyone about the errors in the critical texts
Since I have clearly asserted that errors introduced by men are not pure words of God, I have in effect warned against errors in any manuscripts, texts, and Bible translations.
You fail to demonstrate that I advocate the acceptance of any errors introduced by men so your accusation would bear false witness.
Where have you warned against actual errors found in Textus Receptus editions and in KJV editions?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.