1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Comparing the KJV and the Geneva

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by natters, Aug 21, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 5
  1. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    About the Geneva and the KJV, Michelle said "There were no errors in either one."

    Here's some comparisons to consider. This list is not exhaustive, but just a sampling:

    Mark 15:3 (Gnv) "And the high Priests accused him of many things."
    Mark 15:3 (KJV) "And the chief Priests accused him of many things : but he answered nothing."

    Luke 17:36 (Gnv) (not present)
    Luke 17:36 (KJV) "Two men shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left[/b]"

    John 8:6b (Gnv) "...but Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground."
    John 8:6b (KJV) "...But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground as though he heard them not."

    2 Cor 2:17 (Gnv) "For we are not as many, which make merchandise of the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
    2 Cor 2:17 (Gnv) "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

    Hebrews 10:23 (Gnv) "Let us keep the profession of our hope without wavering (for he is faithful that promised)."
    Hebrews 10:23 (KJV) "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)"

    James 4:6 (Gnv) "But the Scripture offereth more grace and therefore saith, God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the afflicted."
    James 4:6 (KJV) "But he giveth more grace, wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble."

    1 John 2:23 (Gnv) "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."
    1 John 2:23 (KJV) "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father : but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also."


    And everyone's favorites:
    Psalm 12:7 (Gnv) "Thou will keep them, o Lord : thou wilt preserve him from this generation for ever."
    Psalm 12:7 (KJV) "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

    Acts 12:4 (Gnv) "And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after the Passeover to bring him forth to the people."
    Acts 12:4 (KJV) "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

    Matt 23:24 (Gnv) "Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel."
    Matt 23:24 (KJV) "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

    Why are these differences not errors in the Geneva, but they are errors in other Bibles? The contradictions and double standards are amazing.
     
    #1 natters, Aug 21, 2004
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Excellent post. Will not hold my breath . .
     
    #2 Dr. Bob, Aug 21, 2004
  3. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've asked KJVOist questions about the Geneva Bible only to get silence in return! Don't expect our local KJVOist to answer these hard questions! If they do answer they will use KJVO Pope Ruckman's advanced revelation theory to back up whatever claim they present as fact.

    The Geneva bible is a hush hush subject within the KJVO Camp. :(
     
    #3 David J, Aug 21, 2004
  4. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Looks like the Geneva Bible was a great one I need to see if I can purchase one. Just goes to prove how many things the KJV added.

    1cross+3nails=4given
     
    #4 DeclareHim, Aug 21, 2004
  5. Major B

    Major B <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, one of the main objections to the Geneva by the King's men was its calvinistic footnotes. Now, before the arminians jump on this, "Calvinistic" in the context of 1604 when the Hampton Court Conference took place, was talking about a whole host of issues, not just predestination. Most evangelical arminians would agree with calvinistic ideas in all of those issues.

    [In fact, Bob, an interesting thread would be to point out all of the aspects of doctrine where ALL evangelicals are indebted to Bro John.]
     
    #5 Major B, Aug 21, 2004
  6. Major B

    Major B <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have posted a new thread on the Baptist Theology board which addresses the issue I dealt with above.
     
    #6 Major B, Aug 22, 2004
  7. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Where is Michelle? She evades real issues like the plague.
     
    #7 Scott J, Aug 22, 2004
  8. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bump, and a ditto of Scott J's post.
     
    #8 natters, Aug 22, 2004
  9. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is obvious that whoever translated those passages missed them. Were they the word of God for that day? Yes. Like I said, the KJB made better what was already available and as under the providence and care of God. Are those omittions today acceptable? ABSOLUTELY NOT because God has provided and preserved them perfectlyl for generations in our language. He has made this EVIDENT. You refuse to acknowledge, nor consider the EVIDENCE. The King James translators didn't just pull those verses and words out of thin air. They were in the manuscript evidence.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #9 michelle, Aug 22, 2004
  10. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you sure you don't believe in Advanced Revelation?
     
    #10 Orvie, Aug 22, 2004
  11. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle said "Were they the word of God for that day? Yes."

    Ah, so God's word changes and becomes error. The readings in the Geneva were the word of God in 1610, yet became errors later even though those readings themselves are still in the Geneva today.

    In another thread, you said "Passover" in Acts 12:4 is an error. The Geneva has "Passover in Acts 12:4.

    Come on Michelle.
     
    #11 natters, Aug 22, 2004
  12. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    It appears to me, that the Geneva Bible was one of the "meanest", or poorly translated Bibles that they referred to.


    God obviously thought so too, because He saw to it to provide the whole counsel of God in our language. Now you desire me and others to believe He is doing the opposite today? Nay, God made better what was currently available, not to make it worse 400 years later. You now have the whole councel of God, or you have a plethora of versions that only contain part of God's words. God isn't going backwards. He already provided it for us perfectly.

    Please also show me how this compares to changing doctrine as to the same extent that the mv's have done/evidenced? Oh, that is right, you don't acknowledge the proof/evidence of those things. You excuse them away. Doctrines have been omitted from the mv's. The KJB has not.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #12 michelle, Aug 22, 2004
  13. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle said "Were they the word of God for that day? Yes. Like I said, the KJB made better what was already available"

    How do you make God's word "better"? Does God need correction? Why didn't the Translators simply believe the word of God that they had, instead of correcting and replacing it?
     
    #13 natters, Aug 22, 2004
  14. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Ah, so God's word changes and becomes error. The readings in the Geneva were the word of God in 1610, yet became errors later even though those readings themselves are still in the Geneva today.

    In another thread, you said "Passover" in Acts 12:4 is an error. The Geneva has "Passover in Acts 12:4.

    Come on Michelle.
    --------------------------------------------------

    They obviously did not yet have the perfect word of God yet. God eventually provided it for them and us.


    Geneva translated that word wrong. It is correctly rendered Easter. Otherwise, God would have seen to correct it alot sooner than 400 years later. Think Natters. With the mind of Christ, and not the wisdom of the world.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #14 michelle, Aug 22, 2004
  15. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle said "They obviously did not yet have the perfect word of God yet."

    Earlier you said God preserved his word perfectly for all generations.

    Michelle said "God eventually provided it for them and us."

    Not for people who died in 1610 though. ;)

    Michelle said "Geneva translated that word wrong."

    Earlier you said there were no errors in the Geneva. You said it was the word of God. Now you're saying the word of God has errors in it?
     
    #15 natters, Aug 22, 2004
  16. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Waffles, anyone?
     
    #16 StefanM, Aug 22, 2004
  17. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    How do you make God's word "better"? Does God need correction? Why didn't the Translators simply believe the word of God that they had, instead of correcting and replacing it?
    --------------------------------------------------


    In our language better. Better translation, better translators, better/more accurate words.

    If you read the preface of the 1611, they explain this very well why.

    http://members.aol.com/AVBibleTAB/av/KJVpre.htm#s1

    I know you said you have read it. I ask you again to really read it, comprehend it, and then you will understand. It appears to me, you have not done this.


    Argue with HISTORY and God, not me.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #17 michelle, Aug 22, 2004
  18. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    Earlier you said there were no errors in the Geneva. You said it was the word of God. Now you're saying the word of God has errors in it?
    --------------------------------------------------

    At that time, it wasn't an error, because they didn't yet have the complete and perfect word in their language yet. They didn't know any different. We today do. God provided it to us perfectly, therefore, we have today no excuse.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
    #18 michelle, Aug 22, 2004
  19. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Michelle,

    "At that time, it wasn't an error..."

    I don't think you really want to argue that!!!!! :confused:
     
    #19 Charles Meadows, Aug 22, 2004
  20. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    At that time it wasn't an error??? You just said they translated it wrong! "God's word" becomes "error" with the passing of a day, from the day before the first KJV was printed to the day after?

    You have just surpassed Ruckman. Not even he believes that God's word becomes error. Congratulations on creating a brand new heresy.
     
    #20 natters, Aug 22, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 5
Loading...