WHY Not use the geneva Bible Instead of KJV?

[Phillip]

You misread MexDeaf. He's not the one putting limitations on the Almighty God.

MexDeaf, it was late last night considering I get up at about 4 AM and I completely misread your quote. I was wrong, you were right. I thought you were limiting God to one translation. I now see where I went wrong and I humbly appologize.
Rippon how come you are always catching me in these stupid mistakes. Sorry to you too. Thanks for correcting me. :wavey:

 

[Phillip]

Good morning Phillip

You said..........


In reality noone in this thread is “limiting” God. This is just a game they play.
This “old charge”, being put out by Maxdeaf and others, is an act of desperation on their part. (They all know that I am talking about English Bibles only.)

They simply have no recourse to the “facts”, that I have posted, yet they will never back away from their pseudointellectual views, so all they can do is attack me personally.

I have a lot of recourse to YOUR "Facts". If the King James were perfect to the letter there would be no accurate Bible in the English language prior to 1611; duh!

Whether you want to discuss the TR, which one? The one I have is a reverse engineered copy.

I owe the appology to Mexdeaf and Rippon and do NOT agree with what you thought I said. Go back and read what I said, doesn't make sense based on the statements I'm responding to. Where in the world did you get your stories on the Alexandrian documents that were written by diaspora Jews who were staying away from the hot-bed of war in their homeland. Do you think they were any less "Religious" than the ones who were in Israel and why would they be different?

For everybody, I am going to research the board rules and see if advertising one's website all the time is allowed.

 

[Phillip]

Here is a quick answer..............

The "Received Text"
Down through history, long before the advent of the printing press, men made copies of the Scriptures by hand. However, they did not all do so with the same attitude toward the Scriptures. Many made their copies with a sense of spiritual awe, not daring to change a word, because it was the Word of God. Archaeologists have found thousands of these copies from all over the ancient world, and been amazed at how they agree! Truly God did preserve His Word in His church. The text they give us is often called by one of the following names:
Textus Receptus (Latin for "Received Text")
Byzantine Text - because of the part of the world in which we find it
Antiochan Text - the church at Antioch used it

The "Alexandrian Text"
However in Alexandria, Egypt, a group of "scholars" thought they could do better. When they made their copies, they made "corrections" that they thought better presented what the Scriptures should say. Some of their errors were gross blunders (like quoting Malachi and calling it Isaiah) but others were more subtle (slight word changes to take away the deity of Christ). They removed verses they didn't like. The Alexandrian copyists had one more characteristic … they couldn't agree with each other! Their copies differ not only from the vast majority of existing Scripture texts, but even from each other. A very small number of these manuscripts exist today. This is called the Alexandrian Text.

Give me one iota of truth to your accusation and slander of the Alexandrian copyists. Provide the exact OT they were quoting since there were obviously more than one and the LXX is even questionable. How do you know anybody copied from it? I don't see anything in the Alexandrian that does not fit our theology. If it preaches Jesus is the Son of God I doubt it was a derivative of Satan (which I hear a lot when making these debates.)

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Phillip

You said...........

“I have a lot of recourse to YOUR "Facts". If the King James were perfect to the letter there would be no accurate Bible in the English language prior to 1611; duh!”

Have I ever said, that the King James were perfect to the letter? No!
Have I ever said, that it was the only accurate Bible in the English language? No!
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said..........

“Whether you want to discuss the TR, which one? The one I have is a reverse engineered copy.”

I don’t know about your copy, but the TR is the TR, regardless of what year it is!
The TR is talking about the “Textus Receptus”(received text), and it is always the same, because it is simply a pile of manuscripts that agree with each other.

It doesn’t matter if it stared out as a pile of 5000 documents and grew over the years to a pile of 5,000,000; It is always the same thing!?!
--------------------------------------------------
Then you said.........

“Go back and read what I said, doesn't make sense based on the statements I'm responding to.”

You said.......

“I honestly don't think God would limit Himself to ANYTHING. You are the one putting limits on an all-powerful being who created this wonderful universe.”

And you were attacking KJVO folks, by saying that we are limiting God, by believing that He preserved His Word for us.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........

“Where in the world did you get your stories on the Alexandrian documents that were written by diaspora Jews who were staying away from the hot-bed of war in their homeland. Do you think they were any less "Religious" than the ones who were in Israel and why would they be different?”

You must still be confusing me with someone else; I have never said this.
By the way, what is a “diaspora Jew”?
--------------------------------------------------
Also you said..........

“For everybody, I am going to research the board rules and see if advertising one's website all the time is allowed.”

I don’t even have a website!?!
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said..........

“Give me one iota of truth to your accusation and slander of the Alexandrian copyists. Provide the exact OT they were quoting since there were obviously more than one and the LXX is even questionable. How do you know anybody copied from it? I don't see anything in the Alexandrian that does not fit our theology. If it preaches Jesus is the Son of God I doubt it was a derivative of Satan (which I hear a lot when making these debates.)”

It’s like looking for hay, in a haystack.

The paragraph that I posted, was copied from the first site that opened up, when I searched “Alexandrian texts”: (I was in a hurry).

But it agrees with 99% of what I have always read about the Alexandrian texts.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

stilllearning, you need to learn the truth about the TR. There were several versions by different men over the course of many years. To say that they are all the same is akin to saying that all modern Bible versions are the same. You've just run into the TR wall that so many KJVO's cannot get around. When they fail on the KJV1611 is the only true Word debate, they jump to the "the TR is the only true Word" argument. The problem is that there are multiple TR's. How can you know that your translation is inerrantly superior to all others when you don't even know the history of the texts from which it was translated? Please chose a TR version & defend it on its own merits.

 

[stilllearning]

stilllearning, you need to learn the truth about the TR. There were several versions by different men over the course of many years. To say that they are all the same is akin to saying that all modern Bible versions are the same. You've just run into the TR wall that so many KJVO's cannot get around. When they fail on the KJV1611 is the only true Word debate, they jump to the "the TR is the only true Word" argument. The problem is that there are multiple TR's. How can you know that your translation is inerrantly superior to all others when you don't even know the history of the texts from which it was translated? Please chose a TR version & defend it on its own merits.

The "Textus Receptus” (received text) or (Majority Text), is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others.

Now, if someone chooses to create a Greek manuscript from these texts, that’s fine:
But these individual documents, that all agree with each other, will ALWAYS agree with each other.
(Or they wouldn’t be pare of the received text!)

 

[michael-acts17:11]

The "Textus Receptus” (received text) or (Majority Text), is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others.

Now, if someone chooses to create a Greek manuscript from these texts, that’s fine:
But these individual documents, that all agree with each other, will ALWAYS agree with each other.
(Or they wouldn’t be pare of the received text!)

That is vague double-talk. The first TR was compiled by Erasmus & published in 1516. There were other editions & variations printed until the mid to late 1800's. You may not have a document in your hand, but it certainly was a set of documents. According to your view, the TR is a living document that must change when new manuscripts are discovered & added to the list of "known manuscripts". It's interesting that you claim to hold to the TR in one post while claiming that there is no such document in another. I can only assume that you own all of the manuscripts & derive the TR for yourself from them. Correct?

 

[stilllearning]

That is vague double-talk. The first TR was compiled by Erasmus & published in 1516. There were other editions & variations printed until the mid to late 1800's. You may not have a document in your hand, but it certainly was a set of documents. According to your view, the TR is a living document that must change when new manuscripts are discovered & added to the list of "known manuscripts". It's interesting that you claim to hold to the TR in one post while claiming that there is no such document in another. I can only assume that you own all of the manuscripts & derive the TR for yourself from them. Correct?

It’s kind of like collecting rocks.

In one pile you put all the “round” rocks. All these rocks are just alike, they are round, although they are not carbon copies of each other.
Sure you find new rocks as time goes by, and some of them are odd shaped rocks, but most of them are “round”.
An Odd shaped rock, would never be put with the round rocks, because it’s not “round”.
--------------------------------------------------
Big deal, if Erasmus started this collection of round rocks, that doesn’t effect the fact they are all the same shape.
Calling these round rocks “a living document”, because they are not all identical to each other, is "double-talk", because they all agree with each other(they are all round).

Yes I hold to the TR, because the vast majority(c.95%) of the rocks that are found are round. They do exist, but they are never called “one rock”: They are a class of rocks.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, back in 1881, Wescott & Hort(who hated the Bible made from the round rocks), decided to create a brand new Greek manuscript using the few odd shaped rocks that had been found, to replace the Bible’s New Testament that was a product of looking at all of the round rocks, to make sure that it was right.

Now today, lots more round rocks have been discovered, but that doesn’t change a thing, because they are all still “round” and God has given us a Bible in English already: why would He give us a new one? The Bible doesn’t change!

 

[Rippon]

The "Alexandrian Text"
However in Alexandria, Egypt, a group of "scholars" thought they could do better.

Since the Alexandrian texts were earlier than the those of the TR and Majority Text how could the Alexandrians think they could do better?

Some of their errors were more subtle (slight word changes to take away the deity of Christ).

A stupid charge with no foundation in fact.

They removed verses they didn't like.

Better back things up Bud.

 

[Rippon]

There is solid historical evidence, that for years it was well known that the Alexandrian texts were unreliable.
(They weren't new discoveries; They had been left alone for a reason!)

I had asked in my post # 11 to furnish documentation for the bogus info above.

 

[Jerome]

K[ing] J[ames], and his financial advisor, Sir. Robert Cecil, had some profit in mind when KJ authorized the making of the AV. The early copies of the AV had the king's TAX STAMP in it, which significantly added to its price.

I asked Robycop3 in my post #20 to furnish documentation for his bogus info above.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Rippon

I apologize for not responding more quickly; But I didn’t realize your request was serious.

I said........

“There is solid historical evidence, that for years it was well known that the Alexandrian texts were unreliable.
(They weren't new discoveries; They had been left alone for a reason!)”

And you asked for documentation of this statement.
No documentation is needed, because the facts are in your face.

In fact, you provided your own documentation, in your previous post;
You said.........

“Since the Alexandrian texts were earlier than the those of the TR and Majority Text how could the Alexandrians think they could do better?”

As you see, I don’t need to give you documentation, to the fact that the Alexandrian texts have been around longer than the TR, because this is a “known fact”.

And my statement, answers itself.......

“There is solid historical evidence, that for years it was well known that the Alexandrian texts were unreliable.”

Now the solid historical evidence, is the fact that...........

“They weren't new discoveries; They had been left alone for a reason!”

They were discovered in 1481, yet no reputable scholar really used them, until 1881.
Now why is this. Being the oldest and in such good shape, certainly they would have been invaluable, to scholars.

But alas, they were not touched for 400 years, because EVERYBODY KNEW THEY WERE UNRELIABLE!
---------------------------------
The things that I have been saying in this thread are “common knowledge”;
But, because nobody wants to rock the boat, they “pretend”, that all these facts, are some kind of a KJVO conspiracy!

But they aren't; They are the facts.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I would have closed this a long time ago if I had been around. Yet another thread has been dragged off topic by an agenda driven poster. I would be happy to entertain another thread on why we don't use the Geneva Bible. I have a couple of light days so will try to moderate it better.

I will delete posts that are off topic and issue penalty points to any poster who tries to drive the thread off topic with their personal hobby horse.