What If...

[Genevanpreacher]

Also 'brother' Garry, when the Geneva Bible says the text more accurately than the KJV, how is it savoring the things of man?

 

Sounds like the usual baptist thinking, if it clashes with 'our truth' then it can't be truth.

[DaveW]

Some of us have actually looked into the issues and come to a different conclusion to you.

This site is set out as a KJV site - arguing for a different version will gain you few friends and even less traction - even from those who have actually looked into it - let alone those who haven't....

[Genevanpreacher]

And, by the way, that was not Satan that questioned what God said.

 

The verse says 'serpent', which was cursed by God later to eat the dust of the ground.

As well as in the end of time when the new heaven and earth are formed in Isaiah 65:25,

it is the same creature, a serpent, that STILL eats dirt for his meat.

 

Hmm.

[Genevanpreacher]

So... I guess nobody wants to know that the things we believe as Baptists have actual 'words' to prove what we teach as doctrine?

 

I know, I know, the KJV says so already.

 

Did you read the above question that started this discussion? 

 

Just askin'.

 

If the text is available, and is precisely teaching the doctrines of Baptists, I do not understand why someone would choose otherwise than the 1560 Geneva Bible, UNLESS it is the fear of 'brothers' not understanding why you would do so.

 

Which is the love of man not the love of God and his word.

[Ukulelemike]

And, by the way, that was not Satan that questioned what God said.

 

The verse says 'serpent', which was cursed by God later to eat the dust of the ground.

As well as in the end of time when the new heaven and earth are formed in Isaiah 65:25,

it is the same creature, a serpent, that STILL eats dirt for his meat.

 

Hmm.

 

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, Rev 20:2

 

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Rev 12:9

 

And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood" Rev 12:14, 15

 

There is a reason that Satan is called 'that old serpent'. He is clearly being identified with the serpent in the garden.

[Dr James Ach]

The OP has some of the most unfounded arguments I've ever heard against the KJV. I'll be back in a little bit to address those arguments as well as tell you some of the problems with the Geneva if they don't kick you off first for trolling.

In the meantime, chew on these differences in the Geneva.

 

Job 34:31 - KJB - "Surely it is meet TO BE SAID UNTO GOD, I HAVE BORNE CHASTISEMENT, I WILL NOT OFFEND ANY MORE."

Geneva, "Surely it appertaineth UNTO GOD TO SAY, I HAVE PARDONED, I WILL NOT DESTROY."

 

Proverbs 21:4 - KJB - "An high look, and a proud heart, and the PLOWING of the wicked, is sin.

Geneva - "A hautie looke, and a proude heart, WHICH IS THE LIGHT of the wicked, is sinne."

 

Proverbs 22:20 - KJB - "Have not I written to thee EXCELLENT THINGS in counsels and knowledge."

Geneva - "Haue not I written vnto thee THREE TIMES in counsels and knowledge."

 

Proverbs 26:7 - KJB - "THE LEGS OF THE LAME ARE NOT EQUAL: so is a parable in the mouth of fools

Geneva - "AS THEY THAT LIFT UP THE LEGS OF THE LAME, so is a parable in a fooles mouth."

 

Job 16:20 - KJB - "My friends SCORN ME: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God."

Geneva - "My friends SPEAK ELOQUENTLY against me: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God."

 

Job 11:6 KJB - "And that he would shew thee the secrets of wisdom, that they are double to that which is! Know therefore that GOD EXACTETH OF THEE LESS THAN THINE INIQUITY DESERVETH."

Geneva - "That he might shewe thee the secretes of wisedome, howe thou hast deserued double, according to right: know therefore that GOD HATH FORGOTTEN THEE FOR THINE INIQUITIE."

 

Deuteronomy 23:17 KJB - "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor A SODOMITE of the sons of Israel."

Geneva - "There shalbe no whore of the daughters of Israel, neither shal there be A WHORE KEEPER of the sonnes of Israel."

 

Job 13:15 KJB - "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will MAINTAIN mine own ways before him."

Geneva- "Loe, though he slay me, yet will I trust in him, and I will REPROVE my wayes in his sight."

[Dr James Ach]

1 Peter 3:20 "saved BY water".

 

This is a rather silly objection, considering that if one uses a simple English dictionary that the preposition "by" (dia) also means "through", and dia is translated over 500 times in the KJB as "by" as well as several hundred times as by in the Geneva.

 

Now consider the translation, "saved IN water". Kind of hard to be saved IN water when you are IN an ark.

 

The Textus Receptus has "dia". The Greek preposition for "IN" the water would be "eis".

 

Wycliffe (before the Geneva), "which were sometime unbelieveful, when they abided the patience of God in the days of Noah, when the ship was made [when the ark, or ship, was made], in which a few, that is to say, eight souls were made safe by water"

 

Jewish Bible: " to those who were disobedient long ago, in the days of Noach, when God waited patiently during the building of the ark, in which a few people — to be specific, eight — were delivered by means of water."

[Dr James Ach]

Look also in Acts 22:16, and read the one word missing from the KJV, that is in the Tyndale 1526, as well as the Matthews 1537, and 1560 Geneva Bible - "in".

 

                                                                             "...in calling on the Name of the Lord."

 

Another silly objection.

 

Here's the Textus Receptus:

 

"καὶ νῦν τί μέλλεις ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίαςσου ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου"

 

Notice that there is no prepositions or articles in between amartiassou (your sins) and epikalesamenos to onoma (calling on the name). The way it is rendered in the KJV shows that ones sins are washed away BY CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD. Adding "in" does not improve nor does it alter the syntax of the verse.

 

But, hey, while we knocking the KJV for not including an unnecessary word, what does the Geneva say about baptism in Mark 1:4?

"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of amendment of life, for remission of sins."

[Dr James Ach]

Now lest I get 'deported' from this site - please take notice: the Original KJV had, according to Scrivner , quoted in Edward F. Hill's book "The King James Version Defended", states there were 2738 alternative verse translations in the 1611's gloss, the side column where notes and references were, (2156 in the O.T., 582 in the N.T.) 

Alternative verse translations do not amount to mistakes, it simply means that there are other words that can be used that mean the same thing. Furthermore, the "gloss" was not PART of the Bibical text. A gloss is a suggested correction sheet or alternative suggestions, has nothing to do with the actual printed text of the Bible.

 

8422 marginal notes, 4111 literal meanings in original Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament, as well as 67 variant readings.

With 112 literal renderings of Greek, and 37 variant readings, in the New Testament.

The KJV is not a literal word for word translation. Never has been. The reason for that is obvious in that there are some words that simply can not be translated literally from one language to another which is why a translator has to find the best meaning from one language to another because that's what language is, the transmission of thoughts.

 

Now if you are going to quote Edward Hills on Scrivener, quote what Hills said in context, 
 

(d) How the Translators Were Providentially Guided —The Marginal Notes 

 

The marginal notes which the translators attached to the King James Version indicate how 

God guided their labors providentially. According to Scrivener (1884), there are 8,422 marginal 

notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, including the Apocrypha. In the Old 

Testament, Scrivener goes on to say, 4,111 of the marginal notes give the more literal meaning of 

the original Hebrew or Aramaic, 2,156 give alternative translations, and 67 give variant readings. 

In the New Testament 112 of the marginal notes give literal rendering of the Greek, 582 give 

alternative translations, and 37 give variant readings. These marginal notes show us that the 

translators were guided providentially through their thought processes, through weighing every 

possibility and choosing that which seemed to them best.

 

Edward Hills, King James Version Defended, page 168.

 

And by the way, the Geneva INCLUDED the Apocrypha as PART OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT as well as included cross references in the text to Apocryphal books. In the 1560 edition, the Geneva listed Psalm 22 and Wisdom 2:18 as a cross reference for Matthew 27:43. The Geneva  cross referenced James 3:2 with the book of Sirach 14:1, 19:16, and 25:11,and it cross references Hebrews 1:3 with Wisdom 7:26.

 

So unless I misunderstood my 'teachers' about the KJV, they were serious about knowing what God said, enough to clarify it in the gloss of the publication of 1611

 

You have obviously attempted to re-word someone elses argument, and in the process made a statement that makes absolutely no sense.

 

I'll finish up when I get back.

[John81]

This could be a great thread for study and growth if the personal invectives and jabs were left out. Otherwise, not so edifying and especially so for onlookers.

[allen32]

lets look at the verse psalm 13:7 shalt keep (shamar) to keep. guard a flock. shalt preserve(natsar) to guard, protect, maintain;to obey,to observe,behold;watch inspect;to keep;preserve; to besiege a city. generation(dhor) the period of men's life generation,age,race,class of men. forever(olam) eternity. hope at help  

[AVBibleBeliever]

No offense, but being lazy and unconcerned about the accuracy of God and his words is just... lazy.

GP, slow down on the accusation parts there.  We are not called to study to show the differences and to approve of one version over a more accurate one, and to rightly divide the versions and their doctrines that men held and carried over from the Roman Catholic church.

[Genevanpreacher]

Wee! What a rush! Dr. J, you obviously have been reading up on someone else's info pretty good, but make the same mistakes as he. I forget his name, but he had the same list as you. He was also a 'Dr.', of which the Geneva says to call 'no man', where the KJV says 'master'. His list as well as yours... you do need to read the gloss in the 1611. The gloss in some, not all, say the same or close to, the Geneva.

Where does the verses you quote make any difference on God, Jesus being God, any type of damage to real salvation, etc. You know, things that matter? Why pick out the books of Job, and Proverbs? I could reverse the same verses back and ask you the same questions. That goes no where.

 

Meanwhile anti-God, anti-Jesus-being-God in human form, people from 'other' faiths stand back and laugh at IFB's because they are using a text that does not say what we teach IN WORDS.

The examples in Acts 22 and 1 Peter 3, are just a couple of the verses that support what THEY believe. And as for 'amendment of life'? What do you think repent means? crying about you sins? Look in the gloss at Matthew 3:8, evidently the translators knew this.

 

What about, say, the divinity of Christ? Romans 9:5, or who IS God, Philipians 2:11, maybe? Those are verses of 'content'.

 

 

Yet the battle goes on with THEM telling the world we are a non-biblical sect that are so crazy about being 'proKJV' and not really caring about the truth and accuracy of the holy Scriptures.

 

By the way, EVERY English Bible in the 'Tyndale tradition', including the KJV, had the Apocrypha in them. So what? And the 1611 KJV did also cross reference the Apocryphal books. So?

 

By the way thank you for the reference from Proverbs 22:20, a good verse to finish this subject. It continues in verse 21:  

 

                        "That I might shew thee the assurance of the words of truth to answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?"

[Genevanpreacher]

"GP, slow down on the accusation parts there.  We are not called to study to show the differences and to approve of one version over a more accurate one, and to rightly divide the versions and their doctrines that men held and carried over from the Roman Catholic church."

 

1 Peter 3:15 is a good verse to say in answer to AVBibleBeliever, "..be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of the hope that is in you,..."

[Dr James Ach]

You came in here not only slandering the KJV, but "IFB's" specifically.

 

1) It's obvious you haven't a clue what you're talking about

2) When you can construct arguments in some kind of logical order with some semblance of halfway decent grammatical structure, then you can come back with attempts to convert us stupid Baptists. 

 

Now when someone comes here with a difference of opinion and seeks an honest and cordial dialogue, I have no problem with that kind of genuine debate. But when some TROLL comes here for the sole purpose of peddling pejorative James White-Rick Norris type hack-job antics, and then parades his pompousness to other Baptists as if they are morons for defending the KJV,  I lose my patience and my sympathy.