How to answer this KJV Only?

[TCassidy]

So th eGeneva Bible was really more of the one used by the puritans and calvinists of the times?

Even though the Bishops' Bible was the one appointed to be read in the Churches (Church of England) the common people preferred the Geneva Bible. But King James hated the Geneva Bible because of the anti-Monarchy notes in the margins. "No Bishops, no King." That is one of the reasons, when he authorized the new version be translated, he specified no marginal notes.

So Kjv more akin to Nasb that came from Asv, then the Niv, that was a fresh translation?

It is more like the WEB is the corrected ASV using the Byzantine/Majority textform.

 

[Yeshua1]

These are all three very poor places to support your position.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary "easter" in 1611 had a secondary meaning of "The Jewish Passover."

That is because the OT was originally in Hebrew and the quotes in the New Testament were translated into Greek It is well know that the LXX does not closely follow the Hebrew OT in many places.

Joshua was the Hebrew translation and Jesus was the Greek translation of the same word. Neither is wrong.

How about the times the Kjv called the Holy Spirit an "It". or when they chose to seperate the God and saviour Jesus as meaning 2 Persons, when it actually refers to Jesus as both God and saviour Think the Spirit called an it happens 4 times, and seperating Jesus and God as 2 seperate Persons 4 times also!

 

[Yeshua1]

Even though the Bishops' Bible was the one appointed to be read in the Churches (Church of England) the common people preferred the Geneva Bible. But King James hated the Geneva Bible because of the anti-Monarchy notes in the margins. "No Bishops, no King." That is one of the reasons, when he authorized the new version be translated, he specified no marginal notes.
It is more like the WEB is the corrected ASV using the Byzantine/Majority textform.

So the Web bible would be as you cited , and the Nasb would be the critical text version updating Asv?

 

[Yeshua1]

Even though the Bishops' Bible was the one appointed to be read in the Churches (Church of England) the common people preferred the Geneva Bible. But King James hated the Geneva Bible because of the anti-Monarchy notes in the margins. "No Bishops, no King." That is one of the reasons, when he authorized the new version be translated, he specified no marginal notes.
It is more like the WEB is the corrected ASV using the Byzantine/Majority textform.

The calvinistic notes bugged him also, no doubt!

 

[TCassidy]

How about the times the Kjv called the Holy Spirit an "It".

The Greek reads αυτο (a Personal Pronoun in the Nominative, Singular, Neuter) το (an article in the Nominative, Singular, Neuter) πνευμα (a Noun in the Nominative, Singular, Neuter). The rule for translating the KJV included formal equivalence. Which means that the form of the word would remain the same when translated into English. A Noun would remain a Noun, a Nominative would remain in the Nominative Case, the Number would remain the same, and the Gender would remain the same. All three are neuter in Greek so are translated as neuter into English.

or when they chose to seperate the God and saviour Jesus as meaning 2 Persons

That is a matter of speculation. Both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 in the KJV can be understood to affirm the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

The calvinistic notes bugged him also, no doubt!

Why? He was essentially raised a Presbyterian. His approach to church governance was much closer to Presbyterian than to Episcopal. As was his soteriology.

 

[TCassidy]

And has some problems with the names of the OT prophets in the NT also!

The spelling differences can be attributed to the difference between Hebrew and Greek orthography.

A good example would be Noah verses Noe. There is no "h" in Greek. The only "h" sound in Greek is produced by placing a rough breathing mark before an initial vowel. The place of the "h" is usually filled by the η (eta). That is why Hades is ᾅδῃς in Greek.

 

[Jerome]

The calvinistic notes bugged him also, no doubt!

Why? He was essentially raised a Presbyterian. His approach to church governance was much closer to Presbyterian than to Episcopal. As was his soteriology.

Right.
The KJB project was presented to the Synod of Dort by James's delegation, inspiring the Reformed there to finally get a Dutch Bible translated from the original languages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_Dutch

The first official Bible translation into Dutch directly from Greek and Hebrew sources was the Statenvertaling. It was ordered by the States-General at the Synod of Dort in 1618/19, and first published in 1637. It soon became the generally accepted translation for Reformed churches in the Netherlands and remained so well into the 20th century

 

[banana]

These are all three very poor places to support your position.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary "easter" in 1611 had a secondary meaning of "The Jewish Passover."

That is because the OT was originally in Hebrew and the quotes in the New Testament were translated into Greek It is well known that the LXX does not closely follow the Hebrew OT in many places.

Joshua was the Hebrew translation and Jesus was the Greek translation of the same word. Neither is wrong.

I didn't know the dictionary thing.

I'm aware the NT quotes the Septuagint. That heavily hurts the kjvo position. If the KJV was the true text, why would it not quote itself each time?

I'm aware Joshua is the Hebrew translation of Jesus. However we're translating from greek to English, not Greek to Hebrew to English.

 

[TCassidy]

I'm aware the NT quotes the Septuagint. That heavily hurts the kjvo position. If the KJV was the true text, why would it not quote itself each time?

Jesus Christ, the very word of God, can quote His own word any way He wants to. He understands it much better than we do.

I'm aware Joshua is the Hebrew translation of Jesus. However we're translating from greek to English, not Greek to Hebrew to English.

Hebrews 6:20 reads, ὅπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθεν ᾿Ιησοῦς, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

Heb 4:8 reads: εἰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ᾿Ιησοῦς κατέπαυσεν, οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα ἡμέρας.

They are exactly the same word. How would you translate them differently?

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Jesus Christ, the very word of God, can quote His own word any way He wants to. He understands it much better than we do.

Hebrews 6:20 reads, ὅπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθεν ᾿Ιησοῦς, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

Heb 4:8 reads: εἰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ᾿Ιησοῦς κατέπαυσεν, οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα ἡμέρας.

They are exactly the same word. How would you translate them differently?

Well one possibility - the book to the Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew but translated into Greek for the majority of Christians a little later.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Lol, the final draft, huh?

Languages either change, or die. They can never truly stay static.

Actually the English language has stayed quite static, it was just confused by a few men who wanted a different way to speak. The 1560 Geneva has many places where it reads more modern than the KJV, so that is like reading 20th century English. So does Tyndales 1526 and sometimes the 1537 Matthews Bible, as well as the 1582 Rhemes. If there is some 'confused' wording or use of a word, you can still use a modern book that is recently printed called a dictionary.

 

[Rob_BW]

Actually the English language has stayed quite static, it was just confused by a few men who wanted a different way to speak. The 1560 Geneva has many places where it reads more modern than the KJV, so that is like reading 20th century English. So does Tyndales 1526 and sometimes the 1537 Matthews Bible, as well as the 1582 Rhemes. If there is some 'confused' wording or use of a word, you can still use a modern book that is recently printed called a dictionary.

I mentioned the inevitability of change. You are speaking on the rate.

I believe the printing press and television have slowed the rate of change, though. I am definitely not here to influence anyone to give up their old and favored translations. But if this world lasts another 500 or 1000 years, English and the rest of the living languages will continue to change.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

I mentioned the inevitability of change. You are speaking on the rate.

I believe the printing press and television have slowed the rate of change, though. I am definitely not here to influence anyone to give up their old and favored translations. But if this world lasts another 500 or 1000 years, English and the rest of the living languages will continue to change.

Yes. If one would read Chaucer, in that stage of English, and really try to read it fluently, that may be how it will be 1000 years or so from now. But people, (as now with Chaucer), will still be reading English in the English Bibles of our day to see how WE viewed scripture and its meanings.

 

[Logos1560]

While the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible according to the first rule for its translating, it does not mean that its revisers/translators strictly followed that rule. The KJV can also be considered a revision of the Geneva Bible. While the makers of the KJV started with the Bishops' as their base English text, they also incorporated or took much from the Geneva Bible. The KJV would be more of a combination of the Bishops' and Geneva than it would be solely a revision of the Bishops. A number of scholars have seen more of the Geneva Bible than of the Bishops' in the KJV.

Gerald Hammond maintained that “the Geneva Bible, not the Bishops’ Bible, became the foundation of the Authorized Version” (Making of the English Bible, p. 144). Cleland Boyd McAfee contended that “the Genevan version was most influential” in the making of the KJV (Greatest English Classic, p. 62). W. F. Moulton asserted that “though the Bishops’ Bible nominally furnished the basis for the new translation [the KJV], it is clear that the Geneva exercised a much more powerful influence” (History of the English Bible, p. 201). David Norton affirmed: “Though not the draft the KJB translators were directed to base their work on, it [the Geneva Bible] was the immediate predecessor that had most influence on the KJB” (KJB: a Short History, p. 19). Steven Voth wrote: “Recognizing the fact that the Bishops’ Bible was used as the basic text, it is generally agreed that the changes incorporated into the KJV were most influenced by the Geneva Bible” (Youngblood, Challenge of Bible Translation, p. 332).

Leland Ryken maintained that the Geneva Bible “contributed more than any other version to the King James Bible of 1611” (Worldly Saints, p. 138). James Stobaugh asserted that “examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible than any other source” (Studies in World History, Vol. 2, p. 119). Charles Butterworth wrote: “In the lineage of the King James Bible this volume [the Geneva Bible] is by all means the most important single volume” (Literary Lineage of the KJB, p. 163). David Allen wrote: “The heavy dependence of the King James Bible upon the Geneva Bible demonstrates its superior excellence by providing the King James’s men with more material than any other single source” (Jewel in the King’s Crown, p. 59). Marvin Vincent maintained that the Geneva Bible “exercised the most marked influence of all the early translations upon the Authorized Version of 1611” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 59).

 

[Logos1560]

. The 1560 Geneva has many places where it reads more modern than the KJV,

That is true. In many of those places the KJV kept its more archaic language from the Bishops' Bible.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

That is true. In many of those places the KJV kept its more archaic language from the Bishops' Bible.

The Rhemes was very influential to the 1611 NT, although some may argue against that thought.

Where the verse may mention Jesus as God or the Son, the 1611 does match the 1582, and says contrary to the Tyndale family of Bibles. An eclectic 1611 KJV - a good mixture sometimes. But Bibles back then were meant for study, not just reading. That's why the Geneva Bible had so many notes and verse alternatives in the gloss.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Greek reads αυτο (a Personal Pronoun in the Nominative, Singular, Neuter) το (an article in the Nominative, Singular, Neuter) πνευμα (a Noun in the Nominative, Singular, Neuter). The rule for translating the KJV included formal equivalence. Which means that the form of the word would remain the same when translated into English. A Noun would remain a Noun, a Nominative would remain in the Nominative Case, the Number would remain the same, and the Gender would remain the same. All three are neuter in Greek so are translated as neuter into English.

That is a matter of speculation. Both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 in the KJV can be understood to affirm the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The simple trut is that there is NO valid reasonto ever callthe Spirit an it!
And the kjv did seem to addressing boh the Father and the Lord Jesus, wen it was just Jesus alone in certain passages!

There were sme mistales in the translation, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

The spelling differences can be attributed to the difference between Hebrew and Greek orthography.

A good example would be Noah verses Noe. There is no "h" in Greek. The only "h" sound in Greek is produced by placing a rough breathing mark before an initial vowel. The place of the "h" is usually filled by the η (eta). That is why Hades is ᾅδῃς in Greek.

What about when it called the prophet Immais I believe?

 

[Yeshua1]

While the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible according to the first rule for its translating, it does not mean that its revisers/translators strictly followed that rule. The KJV can also be considered a revision of the Geneva Bible. While the makers of the KJV started with the Bishops' as their base English text, they also incorporated or took much from the Geneva Bible. The KJV would be more of a combination of the Bishops' and Geneva than it would be solely a revision of the Bishops. A number of scholars have seen more of the Geneva Bible than of the Bishops' in the KJV.

Gerald Hammond maintained that “the Geneva Bible, not the Bishops’ Bible, became the foundation of the Authorized Version” (Making of the English Bible, p. 144). Cleland Boyd McAfee contended that “the Genevan version was most influential” in the making of the KJV (Greatest English Classic, p. 62). W. F. Moulton asserted that “though the Bishops’ Bible nominally furnished the basis for the new translation [the KJV], it is clear that the Geneva exercised a much more powerful influence” (History of the English Bible, p. 201). David Norton affirmed: “Though not the draft the KJB translators were directed to base their work on, it [the Geneva Bible] was the immediate predecessor that had most influence on the KJB” (KJB: a Short History, p. 19). Steven Voth wrote: “Recognizing the fact that the Bishops’ Bible was used as the basic text, it is generally agreed that the changes incorporated into the KJV were most influenced by the Geneva Bible” (Youngblood, Challenge of Bible Translation, p. 332).

Leland Ryken maintained that the Geneva Bible “contributed more than any other version to the King James Bible of 1611” (Worldly Saints, p. 138). James Stobaugh asserted that “examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible than any other source” (Studies in World History, Vol. 2, p. 119). Charles Butterworth wrote: “In the lineage of the King James Bible this volume [the Geneva Bible] is by all means the most important single volume” (Literary Lineage of the KJB, p. 163). David Allen wrote: “The heavy dependence of the King James Bible upon the Geneva Bible demonstrates its superior excellence by providing the King James’s men with more material than any other single source” (Jewel in the King’s Crown, p. 59). Marvin Vincent maintained that the Geneva Bible “exercised the most marked influence of all the early translations upon the Authorized Version of 1611” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 59).

Which begs the qustion, as to why even the need to have the Kjv as the Geneva seemed to be a superior translation to the Kjv any ways?