What To Do About Accuracy And The 'tyndale Tradition' Bible Called The Av?

[Genevanpreacher]

Is John quoting Jesus Christ correctly?
Comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, we can tell the validity of the veracity of a verse by comparing the 1611 KJV to the previously used bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, in places such as this example:
                        
                        John 14:1-3 From the 1560 Geneva Bible:

       "And he said to his disciples, Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Fathers house are many dwelling places: if it were not so, I would have told you: I go to prepare a place for you. And though I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there may ye be also."

                            John 14:1-3 From the 1611 KJV Bible:
       
       "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Fathers house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you: I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto my self, that where I am, there ye may be also."

And looking down the page and seeing multiple times Jesus and Philip referring to "my" Father, in opposition to the 1611 KJV of "the" Father.

In the above verse that says "And though I go..." is the wording I want to point out here. Jesus is in a positively 'clear' moment of revelation to his disciples here, not holding back anything. He refers to "though I go", whereas the KJV says "if I go". How is the KJV helpful in revealing the veracity of Jesus Christ's encouragement of his followers here?

Plain and simple - it is not.

And, the other verses using the term "my" instead of "the", when in reference to God the Father?

Plain and simple, again... the 1560 Geneva Bible is SO much more encouraging to the true believer in Jesus Christ than the traditional 1611 KJV that most conservative Baptist believers follow.

Read the KJV and compare it to the Geneva yourself. Much more truth is revealed in the text of the Geneva.

Trim your lamps brethren!

 

What do you think?

[wretched]

Sir,

I like the Geneva Bible personally but do not believe it is the complete Word. It no doubt contains most of it but is not the perfect and complete Revelation.

It has not stood the test of time nor the attacks of satan. In addition, satan pays no attention to it simply because no one knows it exists.

But if you like it that is your business.

[No Nicolaitans]

Plain and simple, again... the 1560 Geneva Bible is SO much more encouraging to the true believer in Jesus Christ than the traditional 1611 KJV that most conservative Baptist believers follow.
 

 

What do you think?

 

Friend, I think that sounds a lot like the reasoning of folks who like modern versions..."I like the NIV, NASB, The Message, ESV, 1560 Geneva Bible because it just speaks to me better than others."

[Genevanpreacher]

Your opinion is of interest.

 

 

Sir,

I like the Geneva Bible personally but do not believe it is the complete Word. It no doubt contains most of it but is not the perfect and complete Revelation.

It has not stood the test of time nor the attacks of satan. In addition, satan pays no attention to it simply because no one knows it exists.

But if you like it that is your business.

 

Let's look.

It is the 'whole' set of scriptures.

Why would it not be the complete 'revelation'?

And, what test of time are you referring to? As for satans attack... it was wiped out by him (for a time), what could he do more?

The attack on the Geneva Bible is still very much alive, for the very one's who follow the truth of the Gospel slam it up till this very forum.

My ministry is to bring back 'hezekiahs' lost book of God to God's people. NO I am not a 'prophet' but I am a man of God concerned about the accuracy of the very words God intended for his people to know.

 

But that is my business, I guess.

[Genevanpreacher]

Friend, I think that sounds a lot like the reasoning of folks who like modern versions..."I like the NIV, NASB, The Message, ESV, 1560 Geneva Bible because it just speaks to me better than others."

 

Your thought here has no basis of 'fact' in what I said above about the verse comparison.

What are your thoughts on it?

[No Nicolaitans]

Your thought here has no basis of 'fact' in what I said above about the verse comparison.

What are your thoughts on it?

 

I didn't address the verse comparison; I had no need to.  I addressed the fact that you said...

 

... the 1560 Geneva Bible is SO much more encouraging to the true believer in Jesus Christ than the traditional 1611 KJV that most conservative Baptist believers follow.

 

You emphasized that it was SO much more encouraging to ... ahem ... the true believer ... than the 1611 KJV.

 

I'm repeating myself, but that's exactly the reasoning of many modern versionists.  

 

I enjoy perusing the Geneva every now and then, but I'll stick with my KJV.  I don't need a Bible with Calvinist notes in it.

[No Nicolaitans]

I don't need a Bible with Calvinist notes in it.

 

...or the Apocrypha. 

[ASongOfDegrees]

The OP sounds like Rick Norris. Must be a fan of his writings.

[Genevanpreacher]

No I am not a 'fan' of Rick Norris. I do remember reading one of his articles though. And I do know he is not a fan of the KJV, but differently than me. I do not believe the versions since 1881 are anywhere near accurate. 

Please do not equate my ideology with that type of thinking. Please.

As for your above answer:

 

I didn't address the verse comparison; I had no need to.  I addressed the fact that you said...

 

 

You emphasized that it was SO much more encouraging to ... ahem ... the true believer ... than the 1611 KJV.

 

I'm repeating myself, but that's exactly the reasoning of many modern versionists.  

 

I enjoy perusing the Geneva every now and then, but I'll stick with my KJV.  I don't need a Bible with Calvinist notes in it.

 

I did not mean that to do with a KJVer as yourself, I just meant that true believers are amongst the Baptist KJVers, and meant no derogatory insult to you.

There are 'christians' out there that really don't believe in God's word.

 

And why is it wrong to follow a Bible based on the right texts and used by the type of Christians that were dying to give us God's word, by teaching and preaching illegally and being arrested and condemned for that reason?  Besides the fact that Baptist doctrines are more shown in the text than the 1611.

 

The 'Calvinistic' notes? Yes there are a few, but the majority are not, and have nothing to do with Calvinism.  Just clarification of the truth.

 

 

 

...or the Apocrypha. 

 

As for the Apocrypha? The 1611 Bible had it in till 1655. And most printings of larger editions, like family Bibles, even had it in them up till the 20th century. So?

NOBody is saying anything special about it. It is quite different than the 1611 Apocrypha, though.

[DaveW]

You do understand that this is a KJV site, right?

[Invicta]

The Anglican chucch was Calvinist when the KJB was translated.

[Genevanpreacher]

You do understand that this is a KJV site, right?

 

I do understand that there are KJVO believers here, but that doesn't mean all who read this are. I am a GB1560 person, a preacher going on 24 years, and I do not have an issue with this site being KJVO. It gives me pleasure to introduce other believers to the 1560 Geneva Bible. I do not believe in the perversions, but the true lineage of God's word through the Tyndale line of Bibles.

[John81]

Could you expound upon just what Bible's you believe to be God's word through the Tyndale line?

[DaveW]

Now see, there are some inconsistencies.

It is not that "there are KJVO believers here" but that this site is a stated KJV site.

And further to that you have in other places written that you are not here to proselytise to the Geneva, and yet this is precisely what you have just stated above.

This is not a matter of "knowing your heart" as you have accused others here of - this is clearly contradictory statements.

[Genevanpreacher]

Oh, come on! What is wrong with being someone who likes to share information? That is not proselytizing. I enjoy history, and history on the Bible. So what. Everyone that has 'accused' me of being someone that I am not, say basically the same things as you. But you all never answer or comment about 'what' I said, you all just insult my 'character'. Yes this is a KJV site. Who doesn't know that here? Get on with the responses to the original subject and leave out the slamming.