Comparing the KJV and the Geneva

So God violated Psalm 12 because He did not preserve His words for the English speaking people for the first 1000 years of the English language?

Think Michelle. With the mind of Christ and not the wisdom of the world.

 

Michelle,
Are you really that blinded by the lies started by a SDA? Does the KJVO lie make you lie about the Geneva Bible?

I used to think Ruckman was the worse of the KJVO Camp, but congrats on taking his place in my opinion! Your form of "advanced revelations" goes beyond Pope Ruckman's strange theories.

I have been asking for something new from the KJVO Camp and you did deliver! A mixture of RCCism, Ruckmanism, and new age thinking have produced your new heresy to defend the modernism known as KJVOIsm!

By the way, where is you evidence about the Geneva Bible?

You really should step back and read what you have wrote.

Then again you did try to address the subject unlike our other KJVO defenders....

 

Regarding the Geneva Bible and the Christians who before 1611 actually read and believed such:

Michelle: "At that time, it wasn't an error, because they didn't yet have the complete and perfect word in their language yet."

What?! They "didn't yet have the complete and perfect word in their language yet"?!

But Michelle, dear, in another thread you clearly affirmed that at *all* times, in *all* places, and in *every* language.*all* true believers have possessed *the* one, true, accurate and inerrant word of God:

Michelle: “I believe by faith that they do and have had and will be based upon the same greek and Hebrew texts, that our KJB is based upon."

Michelle: "By faith, I believe those ... who are faithful followers of Jesus Christ, will have been provided the true and accurate word of God in their language without error."

Dear Michelle, all your statements cannot be correct, since they contradict each other. Something most definitely is wrong, and I think it involves the law of non-contradiction.

Those poor Geneva Bible users "didn't yet have the complete and perfect word in their language," even while you "believe those who are faithful followers of Jesus Christ, will have been provided the true and accurate word of God in their language without error."

Were those Geneva Bible users (the Puritans) perhaps not "faithful followers of Jesus Christ"? In any case, those pre-1610 believers were poorly served by God and his failure to provide them with the "true and accurate word of God in their language without error." Those Geneva Bible believers knew nothing about "Easter", nor "straining at a gnat"; also, their text clearly lacked whole words and phrases, thus the only Bible they knew and used was inaccurate and untrustworthy. What a shame.

Perhaps what needs revising is a certain faith presupposition....

 

So God lied when He said He would preserve His Word? You believe that the English speaking Christians for 400 years before 1611 didn't have the perfect Word of God? So you would make God a respector of persons in order to cling to your false belief?

 

Please provide scripture that says that the truth of God ever changes.

I think I can build an overwhelming scriptural case that truth does not change.

 

--------------------------------------------------
But Michelle, dear, in another thread you clearly affirmed that at *all* times, in *all* places, and in *every* language.*all* true believers have possessed *the* one, true, accurate and inerrant word of God:

--------------------------------------------------


You got it. They most assuredly did, in their langauge in that time. Amen and praise the Lord. We however today, and for generations have been given an improvement upon what was already available, and therefore have no excuse today. Can't take away, or change what God has refined, in accordance the the language being refined, and put his stamp of approval on, unless of course it is made evident He has. He has made it evident, HE hasn't done this yet. The opposite of this is happening, and then you all refer back to when God was refining his word into our language, and finalizing it to excuse away and compromise with apparent and obvious error/alterations. How wonderful for you to hide behind this, and then claim it is the same today. There is no excuse for anyone today. God's word of truth is evident and has been evident for generations in the churches, and the truth ALWAYS exposes the false/lie/counterfit.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Interesting word choices, Michelle, revealing your doctrinal position.

We have an "improvement" to what was. (assuming you mean the AV)
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, the 1611 was the improvement of God's word into the English language from what was already available.

--------------------------------------------------
We have God's "refinement" to what was. (assuming again the AV)
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, the Lord refined his word according to the changing language of English throughout its history such as grammar, idioms, words, word usages, printing errors, spelling changes, typeface changes, etc.


--------------------------------------------------
We have the originals, then copies of the originals, then translations of these copies, then the AV1611.

HOW was this an "improvement" of God's original inspired Word? HOW did the AV "refine" God's original Word?
--------------------------------------------------


I never said it was an improvemnt or refinement from the origionals. I have said it equals the same. Although, of course this is by faith, because no one has had or seen for centuries the origionals to go by. What I have said is that God improved and refined His word of truth in our English language.


--------------------------------------------------
Tanks!
--------------------------------------------------


Your welcs!


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle said "Yes, the 1611 was the improvement of God's word into the English language from what was already available."

How can God's word be "improved"? You said the KJV did not change or alter the Geneva, now you're saying it improved it. How can it improve it without changing it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When you have given a written a report on something, is there always the ability to improve it, to make it more accurate, without changing the written report from what it initially said? Would it still be considered the same report?

improve: 1. to make better 2. to make (real estate) more valuable by cultivation, construction, etc. - to become better - improve on (or upon) to do or make better than


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I, for one, don't believe that God is some kind of bumbling incompetent who needed more than one attempt to get His Word "right". The idea that God's Word was at one time subject to "improvement" is laughable.

 

Michelle posted the following:

Gee, does this mean that the KJV can be improved on, Michelle? You said the KJV was an improvement, and that something could be improved without changing what it says.

And that is exactly what many other translations do! Hello?!!!

Now I know I need to call the guys in the white jackets. The KJV equals the originals?!!! Someone please tell me I read that wrong the first twenty times I read it!!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Arguing with Michelle =

 

Could you please explain that logically? Can you prove that these other words were in the manuscript evidence, Michelle? If the Geneva Bible was the Word of God for people in that day, and you say that God kept the Bible word for Word, then you are having a double standard here. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that the Geneva Bible was the Word of God (preserved word for word....PERFECT, INERRANT) and then say the same thing about the KJV which is very plainly different. Your conclusion is not only unacceptable, it's not logical. Nor, by the way is it scriptural.

AVL1984

 

Thank you for your clear defintion of "improve."

With your succint explaination, why do you contend it is any more impossible to improve (1. to make better 2. to make (real estate) more valuable by cultivation, construction, etc. - to become better - improve on (or upon) to do or make better than) on the KJV than it was to improve (1. to make better 2. to make (real estate) more valuable by cultivation, construction, etc. - to become better - improve on (or upon) to do or make better than ) the Geneva Bible?

 

No! Things which are different are not the same.

HankD

 

Major B said:

Well, one of the main objections to the Geneva by the King's men was its calvinistic footnotes.

True, but KJV-onlyists don't care what notes or prefaces say, since they are merely the uninspired opinions of men, and therefore have absolutely no bearing on the text, ever, nohow, whatsoever.



[Update: Ack, I should really read the month in addition to the date. ]