Featured Fact that 1560 Geneva Bible is better than 1611 edition in some places

Supreme irony here is that the Kjv 1611 translators were NOT Kjvo!

 

Translating a bible no more makes a man a Christian than walking into a garage makes him a car. You have a flawed philosophy, it seems to me.

 

The Kjv translators had no more "aid from God" then the ones on the Nkjv, or Nas teams!

 

Since when do the scriptures call themselves the word of the translators? My KJV calls itself the word of God. This is not a command for you to believe but a testimony of God that you may confidently believe and if you believe the words he says he again testifies that he will justify you because of it. It is the way I was justified and now you are telling me it ain't so? Notice this "IF" in the KJV.

21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him (God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

 

Does it trouble you that all these different bibles in English are calling themselves the word of God? You and I both are smart enough to know it cannot be true. It would be really interesting to know where you get your understanding of the biblical doctrine of translation because you speak as if you are speaking for God. There is an endless parade of English translations over the last hundred and fifty years. Who told you to make them and where?

Another consideration is that the doctrine of "tradition," in my opinion, is violated by the modern practice of continual translation of the same source text into the same language with the caveat that it does not have any real teeth. You say the KJV is a nice translation but it cannot be believed unless compared to the original language for authenticity. Remember I quoted Psalm 119 to show you that the whole revelation of the word of God has seven divisions. The traditions are the precepts. Paul admonished us to keep the traditions that were delivered to us.

So far, in this thread, I have touched on 1) commandments, 2) testimonies, and now with the traditions, 3) precepts.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

 

Who are Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson and who cares what they say? Everyone should understand by now that prophets, apostles, scribes, and translators are not inspired and I am sure not claiming they are. The words are inspired and we are asked by God to believe his words and his record. The modern philosophy that you push here includes paraphrasing and condensing, which certainly is not translating. Your approval is confirmed by your being silent about those practices. People who applaud you here are generally those who love the critical text bibles and paraphrases and liberal politically correct bibles like the NIV.

In my view you do not glorify the word of the Lord by your philosophy.

Here is a judgement of the word of God, one of the seven categories of Psa 119, that proves the apostles are not inspired, but the words in the record are.

Matt 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

They are two of the many people who translated your Bible JD731. Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson.

 

You completely missed the point. Translators are not inspired. The words of God are inspired. Here is an example of a man who we both will probably agree wrote inspired words and was an apostle at the time of the following incident, thus proving my point.

Mt 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

L1560 argues as if I believe the translators were inspired men. I don't.

 

I accused you of having nothing to say about the modern practice of paraphrasing. The only threads you post on are those about the KJV. It has occurred to me that you have too much to lose to address those threads.

 

But if you treat the KJV as perfect then you do. If the kJV were perfect then they would have to be inspired men, but you are right they were not.

 

You again jump to a wrong conclusion and attempt to divert away from the truth that you are consumed with one subject and have no interest in anything else, teaching that a belief in the words of scripture is something that God has called you to condemn.

 

In 1611 God did not give his scriptures, he translated them into English for a people who would believe them and preach them to an unsaved world that he claims in those same scriptures that he so loved that he gave his only begotten son. He did not need apostles and prophets for translation, he needed men who knew all the languages. Souls are at stake. There is a real devil who cannot destroy the word of God but he can pollute it and deny it. He has done it in the past. Remember Balaam.

Look at the present topics on this forum and the comments of the people who read and promote these various bibles. Do you think they have been helpful to them in promoting unity in doctrine and a love for Jesus Christ. I say no. Most of them do not believe what they believe because of anything their bibles actually says. They push their denominational views mostly.

It is my view that we have many new translations because the English speakers believe in Jehovah and this is where the money is. Other people do not have to worry so much about many translations of the Hebrew and Greek language bibles in their tongue.