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

[ASongOfDegrees]

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 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.

 

 

 

 

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.

Rick Norris was backed into a corner because he said that not only was only the KJV full of errors (in Rick's mind every jot and tittle in the KJV is an error) but also the new versions. Once he realized that he was left with no bible and nOBody would listen to a word he said if that was his position he panicked and blurted out that the Geneva was the version to go with. We know he really doesn't believe this just like you don't.

[ASongOfDegrees]

The Anglican chucch was Calvinist when the KJB was translated.

But King James specifically did not want a Calvin bible. This is why he very watched carefully over it's translation.

[Genevanpreacher]

What is a Calvin bible'? If the notes were the Calvinistic part, (which 98% of them are not), what does it matter if they are? The notes are not the text of the scriptures, are they? I do not say I agree with all the notes, and I don't, but to say what you say and when someone states something about the notes in the KJV, what do you say? That the notes are not inspired? Yes.

This is not about King James 1, also known as King James the 6th of Scotland who authorised the first printing of the Geneva Bible in Scotland in 1579. The first AV. Nor is it about Calvin.

It IS about the text saying it right in the Geneva and saying it wrong in the KJV.

[ASongOfDegrees]

What is a Calvin bible'? If the notes were the Calvinistic part, (which 98% of them are not), what does it matter if they are? The notes are not the text of the scriptures, are they? I do not say I agree with all the notes, and I don't, but to say what you say and when someone states something about the notes in the KJV, what do you say? That the notes are not inspired? Yes.

This is not about King James 1, also known as King James the 6th of Scotland who authorised the first printing of the Geneva Bible in Scotland in 1579. The first AV. Nor is it about Calvin.

It IS about the text saying it right in the Geneva and saying it wrong in the KJV.

A bible that supported Calvin's theology.

 

You are wasting your time here. NOBody, and I mean NOBODY, is going to toss their KJV, or any other version of the bible for that matter, for the Geneva Bible.

[DaveW]

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.

I'm not coming on.....

I was measured and concise in pointing put some facts that you are choosing to ignore.

I was not "slamming" but revealing.

The reason why I have not engaged is simply that I have looked at the issues and find that the Geneva is not superior to the KJV.
I read the vast majority of your posts and find the differences you point at to be trivial or to lend weight to the KJV.
I certainly have not seen you present anything close to a smoking gun argument.

I have largely left you alone but the occasional comment I have made has had no response from you.

I am fine with that by the way - but check even the title of this thread - it has an anti KJV inherent in its wording.

And when I point out that it is not just "some members" but in fact the stated position of the forum, you claim attack

You ARE anti-KJV, and you ARE here to sway people away from the KJV.

And that is not "knowing your heart" but reading your direct statements - if that offends you, then that is not my prOBlem.
They are your own words that tell this story.

[Genevanpreacher]

Still no response about the original post? Wow. This site is getting to be SO just like the people out there that believe in the 'perversions'.

 

First I have a 'nut' who calls himself a 'doctor', that reads my 'mind' and tells me I have an 'agenda', like I'm some sort of spy for the people out there that pervert the word of God. Then I have a 'preacher woman' tell me I have an agenda and she reads my 'hearts intent'. Now I have you to tell me that I don't really mean what I am saying? You read minds too?

 

WOW!!!

 

This place is filled with witches! You all are over reacting to a bunch of hooplah that you have been fed by someone pretending to be a 'person' of god. Well they are, the little ' g' god, otherwise known as the devil.

 

This is not a conspiracy!!!!!!

 

You are not (and I must be reading your mind now!) true IFB's! You all hang together and support each others agenda's by lying just enough to make it look like I am in the wrong. And just enough to support each other out of fear of what the 'brethren' might think if you DO look into what I am saying.

 

I am through. You can go and slam me to your 'friends' and move on with life. I expect that here.

[Genevanpreacher]

By the way, learn to spell check your posts.

[Miss Daisy]

WOW...good riddance.

[Genevanpreacher]

oh my!

[DaveW]

Still no response about the original post? Wow. This site is getting to be SO just like the people out there that believe in the 'perversions'.

First I have a 'nut' who calls himself a 'doctor', that reads my 'mind' and tells me I have an 'agenda', like I'm some sort of spy for the people out there that pervert the word of God. Then I have a 'preacher woman' tell me I have an agenda and she reads my 'hearts intent'. Now I have you to tell me that I don't really mean what I am saying? You read minds too?

WOW!!!

This place is filled with witches! You all are over reacting to a bunch of hooplah that you have been fed by someone pretending to be a 'person' of god. Well they are, the little ' g' god, otherwise known as the devil.

This is not a conspiracy!!!!!!

You are not (and I must be reading your mind now!) true IFB's! You all hang together and support each others agenda's by lying just enough to make it look like I am in the wrong. And just enough to support each other out of fear of what the 'brethren' might think if you DO look into what I am saying.

I am through. You can go and slam me to your 'friends' and move on with life. I expect that here.

I find this simply astounding.

Nothing I have said here is incorrect or untruthful.

I was not going to respond after my last post, but this is so spiteful and vitriolic that it can not be allowed to pass by.

You have in one fell swoop defamed two posters here with unfounded accusations and language that whilst containing no profanity at least, is about as insulting as a person could be.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[EKSmith]

You have stated on other post you come here to proclaim the Geneva bible, by doing this you open the door for questions by others here.

Now ,I feel that when God's Word is in question, I have the right to respond to whom has placed the question upon God's Word.

Now my response is that I have two questions to ask.                                                                                                                                                                    

 

 1. do you believe that the JKB is the preserved inspired Word of God for the last 400 years - yes or no 

 

 2. do you believe the Geneva bible is the preserved inspired word of God. 

[John81]

Genevanpreacher,

 

You complain about some of your questions going unanswered yet you don't answer questions put forth to you. When you bring things up and questions are asked but you refuse to respond that gives the impression you are uninterested in an actual discussion.

 

There is much to be thankful for the Geneva Bible, and most of the GB is the same as the KJB. Yet it's a fact the notes within were a major prOBlem among many. Just as many people do today, they read the notes as if they are authoritative and act upon them. Even if most of the GB notes are fine, that doesn't make up for prOBlems with the others which is why King James (among many others) wanted a Bible written for all to be able to read, without notes, that could be the THE English Bible for all Englishmen to grow and be united in.

[Guest]

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?

I've never read the 'Geneva or Tyndale' Bible. I've always taken the "if I go" in the KJV as rhetorical in the 'form' of the Old English; I've never lacked encouragement, knowing Jesus Christ did in fact return to God the Father to prepare a place for me. It's never been a prOBlem because of the preponderance (exam. Romans 8:34) of scripture supporting Jesus Christ ascending into heaven. I don't know Christ's exact words but, I have faith he is there making intersession for my weak flesh.

[EKSmith]

John I agree with you, the Geneva Bible has much to be thankful for, I studied the 1599 and the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1560 annotations were distinctly Calvinist.

 

Proverbs 6:19  

[Genevanpreacher]

You have stated on other post you come here to proclaim the Geneva bible, by doing this you open the door for questions by others here.

Now ,I feel that when God's Word is in question, I have the right to respond to whom has placed the question upon God's Word.

Now my response is that I have two questions to ask.                                                                                                                                                                    

 

 1. do you believe that the JKB is the preserved inspired Word of God for the last 400 years - yes or no 

 

 2. do you believe the Geneva bible is the preserved inspired word of God. 

 

1. No.

 

2. Yes.