Spread of the "Only" Sect

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

HankD

 

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

King of majesty tremendous,
Who dost free salvation send us,
Fount of pity, then befriend us.

 

manchester,

I read Geneva Bible site, as you gave it to us.

It says, Geneva Bible does have 80 books, not 66. Wait a minute. You know many Protestants, Puritans, they do not accept Apocrypha. But, why the site says, Original Geneva Bible include with Apocrypha.

I strongly feel that William Tyndale refuses added 14 books in the English Bible. He was executed by the Church of England, also by Roman Catholics in year around 1536.

I need evidence, if it is true, Geneva Bible was printed on the first edition include Apocrypha.

I do not like play games with cover-ups from history. I need proof and evidences with informations of history with the truth.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

From what I remember, the original Geneva did have the apocrapha early on (I will have to look for my source - and it was not a Webpage). However, it was purged in the 1599 edition.

Tyndale was killed by RCC and not the CoE. He did not live long enough to translate the entire Bible. So, we do not know if he would have translated the apocrapha or not. We should remember that Tyndale was RCC and did train for the priesthood. However, after he was converted, he rejected priesthood and rejected pope. And thus, he became the principle English reformer. He had a vision to translate the Bible into English so that the plow boy could read and understand the scriptures better than the trained priests - that really got him in trouble. But, he stuck to his convictions even though it cost him his (physical) life.

 

The fact that the Geneva Bible originally included the Apocrypha IN NO WAY takes away from the fact that it is THE WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH. They did not believe the Apocrypha was scripture it was just included like margin notes.

 

The Church of England was not the only entity that had problems shedding the grave clothes of Rome.

HankD

 

Absolutely, the same reason the KJV is also the Word of God. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter what the translators think. God uses non-Christians all of the time to do His work.

As evidenced by many, many versions---non-Christian translation is a poor argument for or against any version of the Word of God.

Reality is the accuracy of the translation.

 

Any argument that works for the KJVo works at least as well for Geneva-only. Plus, the Geneva is older and the early Baptists/anabaptists rejected the KJV and used the Geneva Bible.

 

Hey, Manchester. Every arguement (legit arguement, that), every verse of scripture can apply to each and every translation know to man...or that will be known to man.

Funny how the KJVO don't seem to think that, though. Neither do they find it as funny as I do.

Go figure...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Considering the fate of Tyndale and other historical situations (whether directly related or not), I think I would probably pick the "government" version. Not necessarily because it is the right choice, but because I'm a big chicken. I'm afraid I have a lot in common with Peter on the night of Jesus' arrest.

 

Maybe not.

When my family lived in Maine we raised chickens.

Let me tell you, there is nothing "chicken" about a rooster protecting his brood!

HankD

 

Good point. The AV is truly the Anglican Version promoted by King James. I find it intersting that the particular version was named after a man. IAmazing what comes when man puts his name on something. Nothing like exalting man is there.

 

Did not the KJV translators remove a certain
word from the text and the marginal notes of the English Bible that King James I may not have liked? Did this make the KJV more in agreement with King James' "divine right of kings" claims?

 

Just exactly where are you getting this stuff? I am proud that my Bible was translated by the men it was, men who loved and served God and who, by their actions gave us the Word of God. It seems that, since the anti-KJV people cannot attack the scholarship of the King James, as no MV anywhere can match it, are reduced to attacking their very faith!
In case you havnt noticed, the bibles YOU claim to reverence have had people on them that I would not trust the slightest bit! They also had people on them that I truly believe honestly thought that they were doing the right thing. Some have since renounced it. Take Hodgeson(sp?) one of the members of the NASB commitee. He has his written and taped testimony on the NASBs corrupt and dishonest practices.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper