Featured When translations are older...

I see your use of incorrect reasoning. Your assumed opinion that the English translation teaches the right doctrine is not sound evidence that it actually does. You have not demonstrated that the 1560 Geneva Bible was translated from any perfect texts nor that it was translated perfectly.

You make positive claims [positive criticism] for the Geneva Bible so you have the burden of proof to prove your positive claims to be true. Your assuming or asserting a claim does not make it true. You do not demonstrate your claims to be sound, true, or scriptural. You make demands on believers who disagree with your unproven claims, but you do not practice what you preach and provide what you demand of others.

I accept the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV as what they actually are--overall accurate English translations with some imperfections.

Just as KJV-only advocates do with the KJV, you do with the Geneva Bible, try to assume that it is something that it is not--perfect.

You did not answer my questions to you so I will provide them again for you.

Are you suggesting that you have to know and identify what specific sources the Geneva Bible translators actually used before you are entitled to recommend positively their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions since your own demands of others apply equally to you yourself?

Would you be suggesting that actual use of multiple, textually-varying and even conflicting sources in the making of the Geneva Bible without any stated, identified just measures favors it?

Are you in effect asserting your own guesses and own subjective opinions concerning the Geneva Bible are to be blindly accepted?
Where is your clear proof that all the sources used in the making of the Geneva Bible do not still exist today?

 

He would be claiming for them the same as KJVO do, that the translators were inspired by God and not able to make any mistakes!

 

Tobe the perfect version, either Geneva/Kjv would have to have a standard perfect source text to translate off from, and only the Originals qualified for that!

 

That is not what I state. I accept the proper derived authority of Bible translations.

Bible translations are not independent and underived. The translation's proper authority depends upon its accuracy in presenting the meaning of its underlying texts from which it is translated.

Do you accept or reject the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?