Why Do KJVOs Reject the Geneva?

I think the Geneva is good for personal use or study should one choose to do so. It comes from the same texts as the KJV. (According to the above definitions posted by Dr. Bob, I'm a #3 or #4...mainstream KJVO...I don't agree with Ruckman on one hand or BJU on the other hand. Just to give examples of what I mean. I'm in between, I guess. )

 

Actually, the GB is a better candidate to have been the "standard" British Bible all the time the KJV has been. It was made by scholars who were under duress, which caused them to flee to Geneva to start with. Tha main translator, Myles Coverdale, was a veteran Scriptural translator, having been the "main man" behind two existing versions. No one can deny the scholarship of Coverdale, Whittingham, Knox, or Foxe. The GB was written by a small and tight group of men who saw each other every day, and they had the motivation of wanting to provide their families with a Bible they could read, as they didn't knoe how long they'd hafta remain in Switzerland out of Queen Mary's reach.

The GB does not have the incorrect rendering "Easter" in Acts 12:4 or anywhere else in its text. It says "him" in Psalm 12:7. It reads "God" at quite a few verses where the AV reads "Lord".

The GB should AT LEAST be on an equal footing with the AV.

 

I do not reject the Geneva--and I'm most certainly not "KJVO";I'm am however.......well read the moniker.


.And it most certainly does have equal footing with the KJB.

How did you come to the conclusion that ALL who reject Alexandrian "bibles",reject other Bibles that come from the Reformation texts??

 

Like the NKJV?

HankD

 

Do you accept other English translations from the same underlying texts as the KJV such as the 1833 revision of the KJV by Noah Webster, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1982
NKJV, the 1990 Modern KJV, the 1994 KJ21, and the King James 2000 Version?

Do you accept these Geneva Bible renderings as equally valid as those of the KJV:

Gen. 1:28
fill the earth (Geneva)
replenish the earth (KJV)

Ps. 109:6
adversary (Geneva)
Satan (KJV)

Isa. 34:5
Edom (Geneva)
Idumea (KJV)

Amos 5:26
Siccuth your king (Geneva)
tabernacle of your Moloch (KJV)

Amos 6:12
wormwood (Geneva)
hemlock (KJV)

Zeph. 2:14
pelican (Geneva)
cormorant (KJV)

Luke 17:6
mulberry tree (Geneva)
sycamine tree (KJV)

John 3:36
and he that obeyeth not the Son (Geneva)
and he that believeth not the Son (KJV)

John 14:2
dwelling places (Geneva)
mansions (KJV)

Acts 1:20
Let another take his charge (Geneva)
his bishoprick let another take (KJV)

Acts 12:4
the passover (Geneva)
Easter (KJV)

Acts 14:23
ordained them elders by election in every church (Geneva)
ordained them elders in every church (KJV)

Rom. 9:5
who is God over all, blessed forever (Geneva)
who is over all, God blessed forever (KJV)

Titus 1:8
one that loveth goodness (Geneva)
a lover of good men (KJV)

Heb. 10:23
profession of our hope (Geneva)
profession of our faith (KJV)

 

Logos, I don't see any difference there. What in the WORLD are you talking about. Just because a "slight" doctrinal change appears---

John 3:36
and he that obeyeth not the Son (Geneva)
and he that believeth not the Son (KJV)

Why would anybody think that the two are not EXACTLY the same.

Anti-Alex, please answer the question about the NKJV. It is definitely a translation that used the TR. .....says so rat there on da front pages.

In reality, I actually wonder if part of the KJVo problem with the NKJV is the fact that the KJV used many other documents including the Vulgate and the KJVo group has trouble justifying that with the TR?

 

The issue isn't your rejection of any translation. The issue is the reason you reject them. You apply the "guilt by association" and "double standard fallacies" in your rejection. The reason you do this is because, according to you the preservation of the Alexandrian texttype by the Catholic church "taints" the entire texttype and thus all derivative translations. However, you ignore that the KJV and the other Reformation Scriptures, in your particular case, are derivative of the Byzantine texttype, and display your double standard in doing so, because you ignore the theological issues in the Byzantine Church itself, particularly its soteriology, which is further from the Protestant Reformation than Rome itself is or ever has been, as well as its Christology.

It is one thing to be Byzantine preferred for solid textual critical reasons, which are acceptable. Logical fallacies like guilt by association and double standards (and Catholiphobia) are not solid reasons.

 

Peter Ruckman wrote: "I recommend Tyndale's version, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, Valera's Spanish version, Martin Luther's German version, and a number of others" (SCHOLARSHIP ONLY CONTROVERSY, p. 1).

However, even though Ruckman recommended the Geneva Bible and so may other KJV-only authors who place it on their good stream or line of Bibles, they do not seem to accept it as the word of God in the same sense as the KJV.

They will gladly cite it as strong evidence when it supports or agrees with a KJV rendering, but they completely ignore or discount it when it supports or disagrees with a KJV rendering.

 

"They will gladly cite it as strong evidence when it supports or agrees with a KJV rendering, but they completely ignore or discount it when it supports or disagrees with a KJV rendering."-Logos1560

There you have KJVOism only defense! Every thing KJVOist say about other bibles can be applied to the KJV thus producing the ever shifting sands that KJVOism must dwell upon! KJVOism rest upon fiction and double standards. How do I know this? I was a KJVO for over 7 years until the day that I thought for myself and studied the well documented facts about the history of the English bible.

You will get no answers because KJVOist have no answers. The old head in the sand defense seems to rule the KJVO Camp

Why did the KJV change the Geneva?

 

Hypocracy?

 

How can it be that both the GB and the KJV are the Word of God?

 

Could it possibly be that God is bigger
than His Written Word?
Could it possibly be that God's Written Word
is bigger than the language used to
present it?
Could it possibly be that God's Written
Word in English can be said using different
Symbols?

IMHO Jesus, the Living Word of God,
is superior to and the subject of
the Bible, the Written Word of God.
They are different from each other
and you can always tell which is which.

 

Even though Ruckman and some KJV-only advocates claim to recommend or accept the Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles, they do not put them on the same plane with the KJV.

The fact remains that the KJV is a revision of the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops']. The KJV is more of a revision than it is an original new translation. The inherent qualities or essential constitution of the KJV must be of the same nature as that of the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision. Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not "holy," "accurate," "correct,"
"good," "valid," "acceptable," "legitimate," or "true" Bibles? The guiding or leading of the Holy Spirit in the translating of the KJV was of the same nature as the guiding or leading of the Holy Spirit in the translating of these other early English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops').

These early pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible provide sound evidence that refutes several important claims of the man-made KJV-only view.