When translations are older...

[Logos1560]

Ok. I know you can remember this.

The text in what it says doctrinally is the proof when compared to others.

That's all.

The text proves the right translating was done.

I am sure you understand that concept.

I hope.

I see your use of incorrect reasoning. Your assumed opinion that the English translation teaches the right doctrine is not sound evidence that it actually does. You have not demonstrated that the 1560 Geneva Bible was translated from any perfect texts nor that it was translated perfectly.

You make positive claims [positive criticism] for the Geneva Bible so you have the burden of proof to prove your positive claims to be true. Your assuming or asserting a claim does not make it true. You do not demonstrate your claims to be sound, true, or scriptural. You make demands on believers who disagree with your unproven claims, but you do not practice what you preach and provide what you demand of others.

I accept the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV as what they actually are--overall accurate English translations with some imperfections.

Just as KJV-only advocates do with the KJV, you do with the Geneva Bible, try to assume that it is something that it is not--perfect.

You did not answer my questions to you so I will provide them again for you.

Are you suggesting that you have to know and identify what specific sources the Geneva Bible translators actually used before you are entitled to recommend positively their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions since your own demands of others apply equally to you yourself?

Would you be suggesting that actual use of multiple, textually-varying and even conflicting sources in the making of the Geneva Bible without any stated, identified just measures favors it?

Are you in effect asserting your own guesses and own subjective opinions concerning the Geneva Bible are to be blindly accepted?
Where is your clear proof that all the sources used in the making of the Geneva Bible do not still exist today?

 

[Yeshua1]

According to the Baptist New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, would the only important issue be merely that of earthly intelligence, education, or scholarship? Is God not able to give each believer the necessary wisdom that each needs if they ask God for it? Would you suggest that a certain unidentified amount of intelligence or education can make some men perfect, sinless, and infallible in their thinking, understanding, and translating?

Your claims for the Geneva Bible seem to suggest that you in effect assume that its translators are to be regarded as some-type special, exclusive, elite group of priests or pope-like scholars who alone were able to translate the Scriptures into English correctly or even perfectly. What makes you the expert or authority that you get to decide which group of scholars is to be blindly trusted in their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions? Where is your sound, scriptural case for what you claim for the Geneva Bible and its translators?

If certain individuals or a certain group are claimed to have greater education and experience with the ancient languages, do the Scriptures teach that it means that they are supposed be accepted as perfect and infallible in their translating of the Scriptures from those languages?

You ignored or skipped my post that presented a scripturally-based case for asserting that translators are under the authority of the preserved original language words of Scriptures instead of over them.

He would be claiming for them the same as KJVO do, that the translators were inspired by God and not able to make any mistakes!

 

[Yeshua1]

I see your use of incorrect reasoning. Your assumed opinion that the English translation teaches the right doctrine is not sound evidence that it actually does. You have not demonstrated that the 1560 Geneva Bible was translated from any perfect texts nor that it was translated perfectly.

You make positive claims [positive criticism] for the Geneva Bible so you have the burden of proof to prove your positive claims to be true. Your assuming or asserting a claim does not make it true. You do not demonstrate your claims to be sound, true, or scriptural. You make demands on believers who disagree with your unproven claims, but you do not practice what you preach and provide what you demand of others.

I accept the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV as what they actually are--overall accurate English translations with some imperfections.

Just as KJV-only advocates do with the KJV, you do with the Geneva Bible, try to assume that it is something that it is not--perfect.

You did not answer my questions to you so I will provide them again for you.

Are you suggesting that you have to know and identify what specific sources the Geneva Bible translators actually used before you are entitled to recommend positively their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions since your own demands of others apply equally to you yourself?

Would you be suggesting that actual use of multiple, textually-varying and even conflicting sources in the making of the Geneva Bible without any stated, identified just measures favors it?

Are you in effect asserting your own guesses and own subjective opinions concerning the Geneva Bible are to be blindly accepted?
Where is your clear proof that all the sources used in the making of the Geneva Bible do not still exist today?

Tobe the perfect version, either Geneva/Kjv would have to have a standard perfect source text to translate off from, and only the Originals qualified for that!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning.

This thread will be closed sometime after 8 PM Pacific.

 

[Logos1560]

Here it is.

Put yourself in another situation.

While some state nobody can really know for sure what scripture should say unless they read from the original languages...sounds like Logos1560 knocking on the door...

That is not what I state. I accept the proper derived authority of Bible translations.

Bible translations are not independent and underived. The translation's proper authority depends upon its accuracy in presenting the meaning of its underlying texts from which it is translated.

Do you accept or reject the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning.

This thread will be closed sometime after 8 PM Pacific.