Fact that 1560 Geneva Bible is better than 1611 edition in some places

[Logos1560]

Is the 1560 Geneva Bible better than the 1611 KJV in any of these examples?

Acts 1:3 that he had suffered (Geneva) his passion (KJV)
Acts 1:19 their own language (Geneva) their proper tongue (KJV)
Acts 1:20 charge (Geneva) bishopric (KJV)
Acts 1:22 be made (Geneva) be ordained (KJV)
Acts 1:28 on Matthias (Geneva) upon Matthias (KJV)
Acts 2:8 language (Geneva) tongue (KJV)
Acts 2:13 They are full (Geneva) These men are full (KJV)
Acts 3:12 or godliness (Geneva) or holiness (KJV)
Acts 3:17 I know (Geneva) I wot (KJV)
Acts 3:25 to Abraham (Geneva) unto Abraham (KJV)
Acts 4:28 to do (Geneva) For to do (KJV)
Acts 5:21 all the elders (Geneva) all the senate (KJV)
Acts 7:11 famine (Geneva) dearth (KJV)
Acts 7:17 near (Geneva) nigh (KJV)
Acts 7:20 acceptable unto God (Geneva) exceeding fair (KJV)

Acts 7:38 congregation (Geneva) church (KJV)

Acts 7:40 know not (Geneva) wot not (KJV)
Acts 8:1 to his death (Geneva) unto his death (KJV)
Acts 8:27 to worship (Geneva) for to worship (KJV)
Acts 9:22 the Christ (Geneva) very Christ (KJV)
Acts 9:38 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 10:9 near (Geneva) nigh (KJV)
Acts 11:25 to seek (Geneva) for to seek (KJV)
Acts 11:28 famine (Geneva) dearth (KJV)
Acts 12:4 the passover (Geneva) Easter (KJV)
Acts 12:9 knew not (Geneva) wist not (KJV)
Acts 13:20 about four (Geneva) about the space of four (KJV)
Acts 14:25 to Attalia (Geneva) into Attalia (KJV)
Acts 14:26 commended (Geneva) recommended (KJV)
Acts 15:25 to us (Geneva) unto us (KJV)
Acts 15:29 from things (Geneva) from meats (KJV)
Acts 15:40 commended (Geneva) recommended (KJV)
Acts 16:4 to keep (Geneva) for to keep (KJV)
Acts 16:10 to preach (Geneva) for to preach (KJV)
Acts 16:22 them to be beaten with rods (Geneva) to beat them (KJV)
Acts 17:4 joined in company (Geneva) consorted (KJV)
Acts 17:26 to dwell (Geneva) for to dwell (KJV)
Acts 17:34 among whom (Geneva) among the which (KJV)
Acts 18:5 the Christ (Geneva) Christ (KJV)
Acts 18:28 the Christ (Geneva) Christ (KJV)
Acts 19:33 to the people (Geneva) unto the people (KJV)
Acts 20:1 to go (Geneva) for to go (KJV)
Acts 20:9 overcome with sleep (Geneva) sunk down with sleep (KJV)
Acts 21:38 the Egyptian (Geneva) that Egyptian (KJV)
Acts 22:2 he said (Geneva, NKJV) he saith (KJV)
Acts 22:6 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 22:8 to me (Geneva) unto me (KJV)
Acts 22:27 to him (Geneva) unto him (KJV)
Acts 22:30 On the next day (Geneva) On the morrow (KJV)
Acts 23:3 to him (Geneva) unto him (KJV)
Acts 23:14 oath (Geneva) curse (KJV)
Acts 24:4 courtesy (Geneva) clemency (KJV)
Acts 24:11 to worship (Geneva) for to worship (KJV)
Acts 28:21 any evil (Geneva) any harm (KJV)

 

[Logos1560]

Acts 7:38 congregation (Geneva) church (KJV)

The heading before Psalm 48 in the 1611 edition of the KJV was “the ornaments and privileges of the Church.” “David professeth his joy for the Church” began the heading for Psalm 122. For verse 27 the chapter heading at Jeremiah 31 stated: “His care over the church.” “The Church” is also mentioned in the chapter heading for Micah 7. The heading before Isaiah 41 asserted: “God expostulateth with his people, about his mercies to the Church.” “God calleth Cyrus for his Churches sake” was the heading before Isaiah 45. Before Isaiah 54, the 1611 KJV stated: “The Prophet for the comfort of the Gentiles, prophesieth the amplitude of their Church.” KJV-only author Douglas Stauffer asserted: “Contrary to the [KJV] translators’ biased headings, Isaiah is not primarily about or addressed to the Church” (One Book One Authority, p. 45). Stauffer added: “Each of these provided chapter headings reveals a post-millennial belief” (Ibid.). Stauffer commented: “From these 1611 notes it is obvious that they [the KJV translators] believed that the Church in the New Testament fulfilled the promises to Israel” (p. 43). Stauffer maintained that “their commentary displays a post-millennial and unscriptural replacement theology” (Ibid.). Donald Brake wrote: “The King James Version heading used in Isaiah 52:53, ‘The deliverance of the Church,‘ suggests replacement theology--a position that teaches that the New Testament church replaces Israel as God’s chosen people” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 190). W. H. Griffith Thomas wrote: “In the Authorized Version the headings of the chapters from Isaiah 40 to 66 frequently refer to ‘the Church‘ as though the various messages in that magnificent section had reference to the present dispensation, and to the body of Christ. But when the chapters are considered, it will be found that they have no reference to the Church at all, but to Israel“ (How We Got our Bible, p. 110).

The KJV’s rendering “church” in the text at Acts 7:38 could be intended to provide support the translators’ Old Testament headings.

 

[Logos1560]

Acts 1:22 be made (Geneva) be ordained (KJV)

Is there a Greek word that means ordained in Acts 1:22? Is the KJV's rendering at this verse a possible example of episcopal bias or a dynamic equivalent rendering?

John Beard asserted: “King James’s divines gave implicit obedience to their sovereign by retaining another ecclesiastical term. We allude to the word ‘ordain’” (A Revised English Bible, pp. 107-108). One of the other uses of “ordain” is found at Acts 1:22. Concerning this verse in his commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander wrote: “Ordained, like bishopric [Acts 1:20], has acquired a fixed ecclesiastical meaning, wholly foreign from the Greek word here used, which means simply to become, or more emphatically, to be made” (p. 32). Ross Purdy asked: “How did to become turn into ordained in this verse” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 58). Purdy commented: “Tyndale rendered it that way and the King James ’translators’ merely copied it. Yet the fact remains that the final choice of text was their responsibility and there simply is no basis for ordained in this verse whatsoever. Yet the Church of England ordained their bishops and verse 20 mentions a bishopric” (Ibid.). Ross Purdy added: “Here they inserted an ecclesiastical word that had no basis in the original Greek” (Ibid.). M’Clintock and Strong asserted that “the word ordained is inexcusably interpolated in the English version of Acts 1:22” (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 819). Byron Sunderland claimed that at Acts 1:22 “the word ‘ordained’ is inserted in the English, while it does not occur in the Greek” (Prelacy Discussed, p. 50). In his commentary at this verse, Adam Clarke maintained that “this translation [must one be ordained] misleads every reader who cannot examine the original text” and that “there is no term for ordained in the Greek” (p. 687). Concerning “ordained” at this verse, the 1839 Baptist edition of the Comprehensive Commentary stated: “The Greek is simply ‘be made‘, no rite was used, and none is alluded to” (p. 6). The 1560 Geneva Bible has “be made” at Acts 1:22 instead of “be ordained.” The Wycliffe’s Bible also has “be made” at Acts 1:22. The 1657 English translation of the Dutch has “become” at Acts 1:22 as does the 1842 revision of the KJV. Bullinger’s Lexicon defined this Greek word as “to become” (Acts 1:22) (p. 559). Young’s Analytical Concordance also defined ginomai as “to become” (Acts 1:22) (p. 722).

 

[JD731]

I did not claim that it was better in every rendering and in every verse.

My clear point was and is that the 1560 Geneva Bible is better and more accurate than the 1611 edition of the KJV in at least some places. You keep dodging and avoiding that fact. That fact is a serious, major problem for inconsistent, human KJV-only reasoning.

G1560, Has it ever occurred to you that nothing has ever occurred to God. God knows, for instance, that the Geneva bible has two more words in Gen 15: 1-8 than does the KJV. This fact makes the two translations different. Both cannot be inspired of God if indeed his words are pure words. If he only inspired the message and not the words then that is different, but he does not say the message is his, he says the words are his.

Additionally, we are instructed that his words are spiritual and to understand them they must be compared. This is strike two on the Geneva because the cross reference in the Geneva will be different than the KJV because the words are different. A word study in the Geneva will not yield the same fruit as a word study in the KJV. The doctrines are in the words, especially so if the MO of God is to always liken his spiritual truths to things in the physical, and he does. He says he speaks in similitudes and he makes one thing represent another.

Hosea 12:10
I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

Strike three for the Geneva is the fact that God has a numerical structure to his scriptures and his doctrines are often times confirmed by the number of times a word or phase is used in a text, or a book or the scriptures. Take these things away and we are left with human wisdom to figure out the infinite mind of God, but taking these things away is exactly what theseomultiplied versions with different words and methods of translation does. It is no wonder that we have all these crazy doctrines that are only loosely based on truth.

You would do well to rethink your attacks against the word of God, the KJV.

 

[Conan]

G1560, Has it ever occurred to you that nothing has ever occurred to God. God knows, for instance, that the Geneva bible has two more words in Gen 15: 1-8 than does the KJV. This fact makes the two translations different. Both cannot be inspired of God if indeed his words are pure words. If he only inspired the message and not the words then that is different, but he does not say the message is his, he says the words are his.

Additionally, we are instructed that his words are spiritual and to understand them they must be compared. This is strike two on the Geneva because the cross reference in the Geneva will be different than the KJV because the words are different. A word study in the Geneva will not yield the same fruit as a word study in the KJV. The doctrines are in the words, especially so if the MO of God is to always liken his spiritual truths to things in the physical, and he does. He says he speaks in similitudes and he makes one thing represent another.

Hosea 12:10
I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

Strike three for the Geneva is the fact that God has a numerical structure to his scriptures and his doctrines are often times confirmed by the number of times a word or phase is used in a text, or a book or the scriptures. Take these things away and we are left with human wisdom to figure out the infinite mind of God, but taking these things away is exactly what theseomultiplied versions with different words and methods of translation does. It is no wonder that we have all these crazy doctrines that are only loosely based on truth.

You would do well to rethink your attacks against the word of God, the KJV.

Both the Geneva Bible, and the 1611 KJV, and the different editions of the KJV are the word of God.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Have you warned us about the errors and mistakes in the TR Greek texts then also?

 

[JesusFan]

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?

There are NO core doctrines affected, regardless of which Greek NT is preferred and used!

And which edition of the TR Greek text is the right and correct one then?

 

[JesusFan]

Both the Geneva Bible, and the 1611 KJV, and the different editions of the KJV are the word of God.

As are the Esv/Nas/Nkjv!

 

[JesusFan]

Many scholars disagrees with D A Waite and those people are greater in number and influence than he and his disciples. So, Christian doctrine is not determined by what God says but what scholars you choose to follow has to say about it? Please do not ask me about those Greek words, I can't read them. I trust that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to die for us so we could be saved from the penalty of sin, which is the second death in the lake of fire, and if he did that, he is not going to hide it from the world in dead languages that no one understands without devoting one's life to learning them. These guys that you champion learns them and then learns about manuscript evidence and translate new bibles, which you say has no authority, and if we really want to know what is authoritative, we must either learn the languages ourselves or find these translators to get the real truth from them.

I admit being too simple. It seems to me that it is illogical for God, if he truly wants to save the world and then give us understanding about himself, not in person in a physical presence, but in a written testimony, to hide it in obscure languages that few can comprehend.

Case in point; you claim to speak this Greek and I do not and we have a completely different concept of God and what he is like.

Here is a prayer of the apostle Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, concerning the desire we completely understand God. See what you think about it.

Col 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;


11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

God had to hide the grave of Moses lest people worshiped it. We need to learn to pivots when God pivots. Thinks he translates are always better.

Did the Holy Spirit actually inspire the Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek texts or not? Did he inspire the Kjv in same fashion or not?

 

[JD731]

Both the Geneva Bible, and the 1611 KJV, and the different editions of the KJV are the word of God.

How can they be the word of God without being the words of God?

 

[JD731]

There are NO core doctrines affected, regardless of which Greek NT is preferred and used!

And which edition of the TR Greek text is the right and correct one then?

Fooling yourself like this has a consequence I think you will not like. There is a real and a personal devil and we are not ignorant of his devises.

 

[Logos1560]

Fooling yourself like this has a consequence I think you will not like.

You are one who would be fooling or deceiving himself by believing assertions concerning the KJV that are not true. It has been demonstrated that you make claims that would conflict with each other so that both claims could not be true.

 

[Logos1560]

How can they be the word of God without being the words of God?

Because of the fact that Bible translations are translations of the words of God, and they are not the actual original-language words given by inspiration of God.

 

[Conan]

How can they be the word of God without being the words of God?

They either both are, or they both are not. In this case it is a no-brainer, they both are the Word of God. Neither is perfect, but both are extremely accurate.

 

[Logos1560]

Strike three for the Geneva is the fact that God has a numerical structure to his scriptures and his doctrines are often times confirmed by the number of times a word or phase is used in a text, or a book or the scriptures. Take these things away and we are left with human wisdom to figure out the infinite mind of God, but taking these things away is exactly what theseomultiplied versions with different words and methods of translation does. .

Your assertion would also condemn the KJV since the KJV does not have an English word or phrase the same number of times as the corresponding original-language words or phrases are found in its underlying texts. Your assertion against the good Geneva Bible would be based on use of unjust divers measures/standards.

According to a consistent application of your very own claim, you are left with human wisdom to figure out the infinite mind of God.

Readers have likely noticed that your human KJV-only wisdom with its showing of partiality conflicts with the wisdom from God above which is without partiality.

 

[Logos1560]

God knows, for instance, that the Geneva bible has two more words in Gen 15: 1-8 than does the KJV. This fact makes the two translations different. Both cannot be inspired of God if indeed his words are pure words. .

You again contradict yourself. You have suggested that it is not a problem for a New Testament quotation of an Old Testament passage to have a different number of words and to use different words and yet both are inspired of God, but now you try to contradict your own reasoning in your inconsistent allegation against the Geneva Bible.

Are you now suggesting that the original Old Testament passage and the New Testament quotation of it cannot both be the pure words of God if they have a different number of words and if they use any different words?

Neither the Geneva Bible nor the KJV were given by direct inspiration of God. Both are translations in the same sense and way.

 

[JesusFan]

They either both are, or they both are not. In this case it is a no-brainer, they both are the Word of God. Neither is perfect, but both are extremely accurate.

KJVO treat the kjv exactly same way Muslims do their Koran!

 

[JD731]

Because of the fact that Bible translations are translations of the words of God, and they are not the actual original-language words given by inspiration of God.

Well, you are standing alone on this thread because the other posters claim that these translations have as much authority as the original language manuscripts. Yes, I know, if this is true then why are we worried about the original language manuscripts anymore. See some quotes below;

They either both are, or they both are not. In this case it is a no-brainer, they both are the Word of God. Neither is perfect, but both are extremely accurate.

There are NO core doctrines affected, regardless of which Greek NT is preferred and used!

And which edition of the TR Greek text is the right and correct one then?

Have you warned us about the errors and mistakes in the TR Greek texts then also?

Both the Geneva Bible, and the 1611 KJV, and the different editions of the KJV are the word of God.

Now you are saying that no translation is the word of God with any authority and if one must have authority he must either learn the original languages or go ask some dufus that has learned the languages but cannot parse an English verb.

Some of the logic here is tragic. You want us to believe you are the sharpest knives in the drawer and you tout the original language manuscripts and English translations of it while your warn the readers to not believe they have authority. You need to think about what you are doing in the context of a righteous judgement in our futures.

2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

 

[Logos1560]

Now you are saying that no translation is the word of God with any authority and if one must have authority he must either learn the original languages or go ask some dufus that has learned the languages but cannot parse an English verb.

I did not at all say what you incorrectly alleged. You misunderstand, misrepresent, or distort what I have stated. I nowhere said that "no translation is the word of God with any authority". That would be your own words that you improperly try to put in my mouth, but those words are not my words. I have clearly stated that Bible translations have proper secondary or derived authority.

I have also clearly acknowledged that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense or way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense or way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. That is clearly stating that Bible translations have authority. Bible translations are not an independent and final authority in and of themselves since they derive their proper acquired authority from their underlying texts. If the 1611 edition of the KJV was supposedly an independent and final authority in and of itself, it could not have been revised, changed, and corrected by comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in later KJV editions. That fact would prove that the 1611 edition is not an authority in and of itself.

What I have also soundly asserted in agreement with the KJV translators is that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

 

[Logos1560]

God knows, for instance, that the Geneva bible has two more words in Gen 15: 1-8 than does the KJV. This fact makes the two translations different. Both cannot be inspired of God if indeed his words are pure words.

Sometimes variations were introduced in the KJV when the same words are found in the Greek. For example, the same Greek words in Matthew 19:20 and Mark 10:20 are translated with these variations: "All these things have I kept from my youth up" and "All these have I observed from my youth." Exactly the same Greek words in Luke 7:50 and Luke 17:19 are rendered with the different English words: "Thy faith hath saved thee" and "Thy faith hath made thee whole." Matthew 26:41 and Mark 14:38 are identical in the Greek, but they are translated differently in KJV. Look up and consider the differences in these parallel verses: Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36, and Luke 9:25. What is the compelling reasons for the differences in the KJV in these phrases: "He that received the seed into stony places" (Matt. 13:20) and "they which are sown on stony ground" (Mark 4:16)? At Matthew 27:45 and Mark 15:33, the Greek words are translated “over the whole land” while at Luke 23:44 they are translated “over all the earth.“ The same Greek noun is translated by the following different English words in the KJV: revelation (Rom. 2:5), manifestation (Rom. 8:19), coming (1 Cor. 1:7), and appearing (1 Pet. 1:7). The same Greek word is translated "Areopagus" in Acts 17:19 and "Mars' Hill" in Acts 17:22. Paisley observed that "in James 2:2-3 one Greek word is translated in three different ways--apparel, raiment, clothing" (My Plea, p. 47).

JD731, according to a consistent application of your very own words, when there are differences in translation in the KJV of the same Greek words, both cannot be inspired of God. A consistent application of our own words would condemn some renderings in the KJV. Your inconsistent human reasoning is demonstrated to be incorrect.