Geneva Bible

[IM4given]

This tract says it all..

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Gipp/gipp_answer_02.html

[kevinmiller]

Vince, you may believe that there is only one way to interpret it. And there is. But you are going to have to face the fact that many people will disagree with you on what the verse means. And you aren't always going to be right.

You have never given a valid reason to back up your claims about the KJV yet you expect us to believe them like they are gospel. We aren't going to do that.

Logic has its place, just like faith does. Truth out of balance leads to heresy. Have I said that before? :roll:

[John81]

Thank you Janet! :)

[Guest Guest]

Vince, you may believe that there is only one way to interpret it. And there is. But you are going to have to face the fact that many people will disagree with you on what the verse means. And you aren't always going to be right.

I said there is no room for interpretation. I said that you must believe the WORDS of the Bible. Not the message, or the meaning, or the interpretation, the WORDS. That's what It says, that's what It means.

Of course there's always going to be someone who disagrees with me, because there's always people who will disagree with the Bible. You can't have one without the other. Kinda' like I find myself agreeing with Dr. Ruckman many times. I don't find that strange: we both believe the same Book. If you believe the Book, I mean truly and honestly BELIEVE the Book, then you'll find yourself agreeing with him a lot more than you'd imagine.

[IM4given]

You're welcome John.

If you like that tract, then you may also enjoy these...

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Gipp/answ ... index.html

[Will]

I said there is no room for interpretation. I said that you must believe the WORDS of the Bible. Not the message, or the meaning, or the interpretation, the WORDS. That's what It says, that's what It means.

Of course there's always going to be someone who disagrees with me, because there's always people who will disagree with the Bible. You can't have one without the other. Kinda' like I find myself agreeing with Dr. Ruckman many times. I don't find that strange: we both believe the same Book. If you believe the Book, I mean truly and honestly BELIEVE the Book, then you'll find yourself agreeing with him a lot more than you'd imagine.

So I don't have to believe the message? If I believe everything on a totally literal basis, I'm gonna have some screwed up theology.

[kevinmiller]

I said there is no room for interpretation. I said that you must believe the WORDS of the Bible. Not the message, or the meaning, or the interpretation, the WORDS. That's what It says, that's what It means.

Of course there's always going to be someone who disagrees with me, because there's always people who will disagree with the Bible. You can't have one without the other. Kinda' like I find myself agreeing with Dr. Ruckman many times. I don't find that strange: we both believe the same Book. If you believe the Book, I mean truly and honestly BELIEVE the Book, then you'll find yourself agreeing with him a lot more than you'd imagine.

Ohh....I feel so good knowing that you know it all. I'm sorry I doubted you Vince. It's amazing how you have it all figured out. :o

[ltl]

The original Geneva Bibles have a lot of anti-RC imagery and footnotes in it.

[Tim]

how come the Geneva is always called "The Geneva Bible," whereas the KJB is always referred to as the "King James Version"?

Well mine says KJV on the outside and inside. If you really want to get technical why not call it the same thing the translator said it was.

From the Epistle dedicatory for the Authorized King James Version

For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue;

Maybe KJT would be more appropriate :saint

[John81]

Actually Tim, I would much prefer "translation" over "version."

It's just that so many view the "versions" as being equally good, just somewhat different for personal taste.

Kind of like what "version" of hamburger you get from McDonalds. They are all the same burgers, but you can get "versions" with cheese, two burgers, larger or smaller, etc.

Most of us here probably understand what "version" should mean, but many professing Christians don't get it, and a great many non-Christians view it as a point of weakness in Christianity.

[Tim]

I actually think the argument over the name is silly and a distraction. As long as everyone know what you are referring to does it really matter what the "title" is ? KJB, KJV, or KJT. Disputes like this are one reason so many people are leery of the KJonlyism.

[kevinmiller]

I actually think the argument over the name is silly and a distraction. As long as everyone know what you are referring to does it really matter what the "title" is ? KJB, KJV, or KJT. Disputes like this are one reason so many people are leery of the KJonlyism.

We make something huge out of something that shouldn't even be an issue.

[John81]

Like I said, it's not a big issue with us because we know what we mean. However, to many non-Christians it's a major chink in the Christian armour.

In my university days I encountered many Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims who would assail Christianity based upon the abundance of "versions" that don't agree with one another.

These people are very adept at using the meaning of the term "version" against Christianity. While it's true enemies of Christ will use whatever is available, it's just a shame that this has been made available to them.

I learned to be very careful not to use the term "version" when witnessing to or discussing "religion" with these people. That was a major step in getting some of them to see beyond that and to actually consider the Word of God.

And no, I don't believe we should make this a major issue among ourselves, or divide into camps over this, or any such thing. I do believe we should be aware of how the term "version" is used and viewed by non-Christians and to take such into consideration where appropriate.

[Alen]

Catholics have multiple versions too, don't let them lie to you.

Muslims have multiple translations of the Koran as well.

'Tis all hypocrisy.

Muslims have only one version of the Quran, that is the Arabic one, they believe all translations to be simply 'study aids' since they believe no translation can 100% translate all meaning across from one language to another

-Alen

[Randy]

Muslims have only one version of the Quran

They will claim the