When translations are older...

[Logos1560]

I think the text of the 1560 Geneva Bible to be the perfect 'base' of scripture to correct any other English translation, where they are in error. .

Your opinion may become practically meaningless since you do not back it up with any sound evidence. You will not deal with examples where another English translation could properly be considered more accurate than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Do you think that a Bible translation does not need to be faithful and accurate in that which you consider to be less important matters?

The makers of the KJV made improvements or corrections to some renderings in the Geneva Bible, which would mean that it is not the perfect 'base' of Scripture to correct any other English translations.
While at least some renderings in the Geneva Bible are more accurate than those in the KJV, the KJV could be considered more accurate in hundreds or thousands of places.

I may know of over 5,000 places where the KJV's rendering could be considered an improvement over the rendering in the Geneva Bible.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

I may know of over 5,000 places where the KJV's rendering could be considered an improvement over the rendering in the Geneva Bible.

You must have a good memory!

 

[Yeshua1]

You guys should please reread this post -



I do not think every difference is important enough to argue, just the salvation areas.
I don't care whether an animal described has two horns or one - or what kind of 'metal' was meant.
But I do care if the English text says baptism saves or works saves. When that occurs, then I have issues with that text.

Btw - I was a bit hasty to proclaim that you all don't trust God as much as me. I apologize.

Just do not do as some KJVO have, when the English versions corects the Greek/Hebrew texts!

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Just do not do as some KJVO have, when the English versions corects the Greek/Hebrew texts!

I will if the Hebrew or Greek one uses disagrees with faithful traditional real Christian doctrine.

If the text teaches blasphemous wording about salvation, it can be discarded and the proper teaching English text can, and should be, valued more.

There is nothing wrong with that.

I do think that some people are misunderstood on this subject. I think when someone points this type of statement out, more than likely it's because there is no original text left to source from, so we choose to follow a reliable English text based upon the foundation that its basis was put together by men who used proper original language texts thought to be accurate copies of copies of copies, etc., and other language sources to clarify the original copies where they aren't clear or where they lack text.

That is me. And yes, I am sometimes misunderstood on this.

 

[Yeshua1]

I will if the Hebrew or Greek one uses disagrees with faithful traditional real Christian doctrine.

If the text teaches blasphemous wording about salvation, it can be discarded and the proper teaching English text can, and should be, valued more.

There is nothing wrong with that.

I do think that some people are misunderstood on this subject. I think when someone points this type of statement out, more than likely it's because there is no original text left to source from, so we choose to follow a reliable English text based upon the foundation that its basis was put together by men who used proper original language texts thought to be accurate copies of copies of copies, etc., and other language sources to clarify the original copies where they aren't clear or where they lack text.

That is me. And yes, I am sometimes misunderstood on this.

The Greek/Hebrew texts take precedence over the English version!

 

[GenevanBaptist]

The Greek/Hebrew texts take precedence over the English version!

Not unless they are correct ones.
There are incorrect texts available, as I am sure you know.

And the previous translators didn't think that.

Why would you, unless you think yourself more wise than they?
I am sure you don't match up to the kind of men they were. Intelligence-wise that is. I am sure you have not had the education and experience with the ancient languages as they.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not unless they are correct ones.
There are incorrect texts available, as I am sure you know.

And the previous translators didn't think that.

Why would you, unless you think yourself more wise than they?
I am sure you don't match up to the kind of men they were. Intelligence-wise that is. I am sure you have not had the education and experience with the ancient languages as they.

Just saying that one uses the Greek/Hebrew to correct English, not other way around!

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Just saying that one uses the Greek/Hebrew to correct English, not other way around!

Yes, I understood that.

And I would repeat, but that is enough said. My last post explains my view just fine.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Your opinion may become practically meaningless since you do not back it up with any sound evidence. You will not deal with examples where another English translation could properly be considered more accurate than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Do you think that a Bible translation does not need to be faithful and accurate in that which you consider to be less important matters?

So...you never answered about whether you speak fluently the original languages...well??

If you would, please answer this question.

 

[Covenanter]

A potential problem with ALL translations is the interpretation by the translators, particularly of words that have various meanings, eg:

earth/land
tribes/kindreds.
spirit/wind/breath
baptize/dip/wash

In that case reference to Strong's numberings which gives the various translations & occurrences is very useful.

 

[Rippon]

In that case reference to Strong's numberings which gives the various translations & occurrences is very useful.

I've heard that Strong's is weak.

 

[Covenanter]

I've heard that Strong's is weak.

That is an unhelpful play on words.
Strong numbers every word in the Hebrew & Greek, so we can look up the definition, the etmology & see the words are translated.

e.g. land/earth
Strong's G1093 - gē
The KJV translates Strong's G1093 in the following manner:
earth (188x), land (42x), ground (18x), country (2x), world (1x),
See https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1093&t=KJV

When you see alternative translations in their context, alternative interpretations are possible.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

So...you never answered about whether you speak fluently the original languages...well??

If you would, please answer this question.

Ok. Logos, you have no foundation for saying most of what you state now.

I am a bit let down.

I thought, here is someone who might 'know' something.

Guess you're just like most of us.

 

[Rob_BW]

Ok. Logos, you have no foundation for saying most of what you state now.

I am a bit let down.

I thought, here is someone who might 'know' something.

Guess you're just like most of us.

 

[Logos1560]

Not unless they are correct ones.
There are incorrect texts available, as I am sure you know.

And the previous translators didn't think that.

.

There may be more textual variations and textual corruptions in Latin Vulgate New Testament manuscripts and also in Old Latin New Testament manuscripts than there are in Greek New Testament manuscripts so how does that make Latin a reliable source supposedly to correct more reliable Greek New Testament manuscripts?

You have not demonstrated that the textual critics such as Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza followed any consistent, just textual measures in their making changes or emendations to the preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Did the early English translators actually assert that they followed 100% perfect textual sources?

 

[Logos1560]

Ok. Logos, you have no foundation for saying most of what you state now.

Incorrect. You fail to prove your assertion is true. I have a sound foundation for what I state. You have not actually discussed and dealt with the actual presented scriptural principles that are the basis for many of my sound, scripturally-based points.

Perhaps your posts show that you would be more clearly the one who has not presented any sound, scriptural foundation for what you are assuming and asserting. The foundation for your view seems to be the same-type inconsistent, erroneous reasoning that is the foundation for the KJV-only theory.

 

[Logos1560]

Like I stated before, your choice of English text is wrong if it teaches works for salvation, baptism saves, baptizing for the dead, and any other useless doctrine of men.

KJV-only advocates accuse the NKJV and other present English Bibles of teaching works for salvation.
A number of their accusations would apply to the Geneva Bible which has the same English renderings in several verses as the NKJV has.

Could you answer the KJV-only allegation that verses with obey in the Geneva Bible and the NKJV would supposedly teach obedience or works are necessary for salvation?

In her book, Gail Riplinger suggested that the rendering "disobedience" at Romans 15:31 and Hebrews 4:11 and the rendering "obey" at John 3:36 are doctrinal errors from the Jehovah Witness Bible (New Age Bible Versions, p. 255). The 1560 Geneva Bible has "disobedience" at Hebrews 4:11 and "disobedient" at Romans 15:31, and the KJV translators even listed it in the margin of the 1611 as an acceptable translation. Were the KJV translators recommending a Jehovah Witnesses' reading as an acceptable alternative translation? Whittingham's New Testament also has "disobedient" at Romans 15:31 but has "stubbornness" at Hebrews 4:11.

At John 3:36, Whittingham's and Geneva Bible have "obeyeth not" where the KJV has "believeth not." KJV-only author Barry Burton claimed that the NASB rendering "does not obey the Son" at John 3:36 teaches "salvation is by obedience" (Let's Weigh the Evidence, p. 30). KJV-only author Robert Baker implied that translations which have "disobedient" or similar words at Romans 11:30-32 and Hebrews 3:18 "change justification by faith to salvation through works" (Another Bible, p. 9).

At Romans 11:30-31, the margin of the 1611 KJV has "Or, obeyed" as an acceptable alternative translation for "believed." At Hebrews 3:18, the Great and Bishops' Bibles have "that were not obedient" while Whittingham's and the Geneva Bible have "that obeyed not."

On the other hand, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, and Bishops' Bibles have "believeth not" at Romans 10:21 while the Geneva and KJV have "disobedient." In addition, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Coverdale's Duoglott have "children of unbelief" at Colossians 3:6c while the KJV has "children of disobedience." "Children of unbelief" was also the rendering at Ephesians 2:2 in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's and Great and the rendering at Ephesians 5:6 in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's. The KJV has "children of disobedience" at both verses. Wycliffe's Bible had "sons of unbelief" (Eph. 2:2, 5:6). Romans 15:31 and Romans 10:21 have the same Greek word while Hebrews 4:11, Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6 have the same Greek word with both of these words coming from the same Greek word. At Acts 5:37, Tyndale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "believed" where the KJV has "obeyed." "Believe" is the rendering of Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Whittingham's at Galatians 3:1. "Obey" is the KJV's rendering for this verse. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles have "believe not" at 1 Peter 2:7 while the KJV has "be disobedient." At 1 Peter 3:1, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's have "believe not" while the KJV has "obey not."

Would the claim of Riplinger consistently applied suggest that the Geneva Bible and the KJV may have changed the good renderings of the good earlier Bibles to Jehovah Witnesses' renderings at Romans 10:21, Ephesians 2:2, Colossians 3:6, 1 Peter 2:7, and other verses? Would Geneva Bible-only and KJV-only advocates claim that the Geneva Bible or the KJV teaches salvation by obedience in these verses?

Gail Riplinger claimed: "All new versions, in their attempt to present a 'works' based salvation mistranslate pistis as 'faithfulness'" in Galatians 5:22 (New Age Bible Versions, p. 257). Riplinger suggested or implied that the NKJV supported "works salvation" because of its rendering "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22 (Language of KJB, p. 149). Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles all had "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22. Is Riplinger suggesting that William Tyndale, in effect the primary translator of the Geneva Bible and of the KJV, and Miles Coverdale were attempting to present a works-based salvation?

Were the Geneva Bible and the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that supported "works salvation?"

 

[Yeshua1]

That is an unhelpful play on words.
Strong numbers every word in the Hebrew & Greek, so we can look up the definition, the etmology & see the words are translated.

e.g. land/earth
Strong's G1093 - gē
The KJV translates Strong's G1093 in the following manner:
earth (188x), land (42x), ground (18x), country (2x), world (1x),
See https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1093&t=KJV

When you see alternative translations in their context, alternative interpretations are possible.

MUCH better using a good greek Lexicon instead of Strongs definitions!

 

[Yeshua1]

There may be more textual variations and textual corruptions in Latin Vulgate New Testament manuscripts and also in Old Latin New Testament manuscripts than there are in Greek New Testament manuscripts so how does that make Latin a reliable source supposedly to correct more reliable Greek New Testament manuscripts?

You have not demonstrated that the textual critics such as Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza followed any consistent, just textual measures in their making changes or emendations to the preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Did the early English translators actually assert that they followed 100% perfect textual sources?

They could not assert that, as there was NO standard agreed upon greek text source, and there was used additions form the Latin Vulgate at times also!

 

[Yeshua1]

KJV-only advocates accuse the NKJV and other present English Bibles of teaching works for salvation.
A number of their accusations would apply to the Geneva Bible which has the same English renderings in several verses as the NKJV has.

Could you answer the KJV-only allegation that verses with obey in the Geneva Bible and the NKJV would supposedly teach obedience or works are necessary for salvation?

In her book, Gail Riplinger suggested that the rendering "disobedience" at Romans 15:31 and Hebrews 4:11 and the rendering "obey" at John 3:36 are doctrinal errors from the Jehovah Witness Bible (New Age Bible Versions, p. 255). The 1560 Geneva Bible has "disobedience" at Hebrews 4:11 and "disobedient" at Romans 15:31, and the KJV translators even listed it in the margin of the 1611 as an acceptable translation. Were the KJV translators recommending a Jehovah Witnesses' reading as an acceptable alternative translation? Whittingham's New Testament also has "disobedient" at Romans 15:31 but has "stubbornness" at Hebrews 4:11.

At John 3:36, Whittingham's and Geneva Bible have "obeyeth not" where the KJV has "believeth not." KJV-only author Barry Burton claimed that the NASB rendering "does not obey the Son" at John 3:36 teaches "salvation is by obedience" (Let's Weigh the Evidence, p. 30). KJV-only author Robert Baker implied that translations which have "disobedient" or similar words at Romans 11:30-32 and Hebrews 3:18 "change justification by faith to salvation through works" (Another Bible, p. 9).

At Romans 11:30-31, the margin of the 1611 KJV has "Or, obeyed" as an acceptable alternative translation for "believed." At Hebrews 3:18, the Great and Bishops' Bibles have "that were not obedient" while Whittingham's and the Geneva Bible have "that obeyed not."

On the other hand, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, and Bishops' Bibles have "believeth not" at Romans 10:21 while the Geneva and KJV have "disobedient." In addition, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Coverdale's Duoglott have "children of unbelief" at Colossians 3:6c while the KJV has "children of disobedience." "Children of unbelief" was also the rendering at Ephesians 2:2 in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's and Great and the rendering at Ephesians 5:6 in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's. The KJV has "children of disobedience" at both verses. Wycliffe's Bible had "sons of unbelief" (Eph. 2:2, 5:6). Romans 15:31 and Romans 10:21 have the same Greek word while Hebrews 4:11, Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6 have the same Greek word with both of these words coming from the same Greek word. At Acts 5:37, Tyndale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "believed" where the KJV has "obeyed." "Believe" is the rendering of Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Whittingham's at Galatians 3:1. "Obey" is the KJV's rendering for this verse. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles have "believe not" at 1 Peter 2:7 while the KJV has "be disobedient." At 1 Peter 3:1, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's have "believe not" while the KJV has "obey not."

Would the claim of Riplinger consistently applied suggest that the Geneva Bible and the KJV may have changed the good renderings of the good earlier Bibles to Jehovah Witnesses' renderings at Romans 10:21, Ephesians 2:2, Colossians 3:6, 1 Peter 2:7, and other verses? Would Geneva Bible-only and KJV-only advocates claim that the Geneva Bible or the KJV teaches salvation by obedience in these verses?

Gail Riplinger claimed: "All new versions, in their attempt to present a 'works' based salvation mistranslate pistis as 'faithfulness'" in Galatians 5:22 (New Age Bible Versions, p. 257). Riplinger suggested or implied that the NKJV supported "works salvation" because of its rendering "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22 (Language of KJB, p. 149). Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles all had "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22. Is Riplinger suggesting that William Tyndale, in effect the primary translator of the Geneva Bible and of the KJV, and Miles Coverdale were attempting to present a works-based salvation?

Were the Geneva Bible and the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that supported "works salvation?"

The Nasb actually calls Jesus Lord/Christ more often than the Kjv/Geneva, so how could that be?
Does the Geneva still call the Holy Spirit an "IT", as the KJv did in 4 passages, and did it also separate Gread God and saviour out as 2 persons, as Kjv did?