The Geneva 1560
 

I like the KJV. I use it to study but for the most part I use the Geneva 1560 for my daily Bible reading. Do you consider this wrong and/or sinful? I am not presenting a challenge to anyone here but I simply want to see where the people on this site stand. I know people here do not like the newer versions but what about the older ones? I would like to thank everyone in advance for their inputs..

Not one comment?

It is wrong in that the KJB clearly improves upon it, as is also shown doctrinally from the KJBO point of view (i.e. seven purifications of the Reformation English versions); to know the truth, but to reject or resist it becomes a sinful act.

Why do you do that?

Diligent, you made me laugh.:D Good question.

Because I love the Bible and it's history.

Thank you for you honest opinion. As I stated in my first post, I will not try ti debate one way or the other. I simply wanted peoples opinion on this so I could see where the majority of the forum stood on their beliefs of the earlier versions.

Ok. If you're not studying from it because you believe it to be God's unadulterated word, then there is not much I could say about it.

I read and study the KJV because it's God's word. (Period.)

I have the Geneva, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Bishops, and other early English translations. They are certainly history, but why would I "study" those when I have the KJV, which is a purification of all that came before it? I think if God wanted me to study from the Geneva, he would have seen to its proliferation over the course of the last 400 years. He did not.

I must say that I am somewhat jealous of you. I wish to own copies of all those other Bibles too! Do you have any old leafs? I have two both of the Geneva. I orderd one but the company sent me a second one free. One is from 1589 and the other from1615.

Just_a_thought,
If you want the text of these early English versions, check out the trial offer for SwordSearcher on this forum. It contains these texts with very easy comparison tools.

I will have to look into that. Thanks for the idea! :)

Since I do feel there is some tension on this forum over the Geneva I have changed my sig line over to the KJV 1611. I am not out to offend anyone.

I have their texts on my software, SwordSearcher.

The only "original" edition of any old Bible I have is a single page from the first print run in 1611 of the KJV. It is the page with Psalms 138:2.

DROOL! DROOL! I wonder how many of those exist today?

I honestly have no idea. Probably not many. But they are very durable pages, since they were made of clothing fibers. The page I have was removed from an incomplete 1611 printing. (There was a company that specialized in selling these individual pages.) I got mine in barter over eight years ago. It's carefully framed of course.

It must be one of the "originals"! :D

1611 are expensive! If I get one it will be from 1612 or more than likely 1613. There is a big price difference. I think that is awesome that you were able to get one.

I have not framed mine yet but plan to in about 3 months or so.

If you are going to compromise on 1611, and accept a 1612 or 1613, then why not be entirely logical, and accept the King James Bible freed from typographical errors, with standardised spelling, that people have FREE access to today?

What!? How am I compromising? I never said I did not except the current KJV. I personally do not believe there is any perfect Bible in the English Language including the Geneva. I am not out to attack the KJV either. God has blessed the KJV and I would never raise a finger against it. I know the popular opinion on this forum is that the KJV is perfect and thr inspired Word of God. I knew this when I signed up and do not plan on trying to prove my opinion to anyone here. I respect your beliefs and plan on tying not to offend anyone with my belief.

_________________
"I personally do not believe ..."

Please clarify. Are you saying that what you believe determines the objective truth? And just what is "personally", i.e., I here this often re. many moral/theological issues today-mostly politicians. Ever heard the argument:

I am "personally Against abortion, i.e., I "personally" do not believe it is right/moral....., but I don't want to impose my "personal" beliefs on others. By that "argument", let's all go home, pack it in, and if anyone paid a fee to be a member of this board, let's refund the money. For Judges 21:25 has come full circle="All mushrooms are good."


No-Belief and objective truth are independent.

It is irrelevant what I say, what you say, or what I or you "personally" believe.The only issue is: Does what I "personally" believe "line up" with the objective truth of the scriptures?- Isaiah 8:20, "...what saith the scripture?...(Romans 4:3, Galatians 4:30).

So, does the Holy Bible testify, witness that it is perfect, or not? Yes or No? Simple. If yes, it is quite irrelevant if you or I believe it or not, since truth goes on eternally whether you/I/anyone else believes it or not.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

This means you either believe the Word of God is not inspired, and/or that it is not available today in English retaining the power of inspiration (i.e. we do not really have the Word of God in English).

OR

That you are deliberately rejecting the statements of people on this forum who have said that the King James Bible was not made by inspiration from 1604 to 1611.

The originals are gone and the copies do not all agree with each other. So the copies of the originals are no longer perfect.

Also, I do not believe that the KJV1611 was inspired. If it was, why was it the chosen one. Why was not the Geneva, Great Bible (The first authorized version), etc. Where does the belief that the KJV1611 was inspired when even the writers did not know this?

This means you do not believe that the Word of God is perfectly present, let alone in English.

Why are you BLATANTLY ignoring our statements? Over and again, it has been made clear that the KJB was not made by inspiration 1604-1611, yet you still FALSELY IMPLY that this is what is being argued on this forum.

What is being argued is that God has been able to providentially get His inspired Word into English perfectly. Namely, that Scripture is from God. That God is all powerful. Therefore, the Word which He gave originally has not been lost, but is now going forth to all nations, despite of the language being now used.

I am not falsey implying anything. If I missed something I appologize. Take a chill pill buddy! Anyway, what is the difference. How did God give us a perfect Bible if He did not inspire the translators. Plus, how do we know the KJV is perfect? I wish to end this conversation as not to offend anyone. I have stated this several times now. Feel free to answer and I will not even try to counter you.

That would be alright if you made just a mistake, but then this statement:

In other words, yet implying that we do believe that KJB was made by inspiration 1604-1611, because

That is, since we say perfect, and since inspiration was perfect in the day of Moses or Paul, therefore us saying perfect means that the KJB men were inspired. This is a false argument.

The real logic of faith is this: The Scripture is given by God. God is all powerful. Scripture is perfect. Therefore, when God gave the Scripture perfectly, He intended that it should also be perfect before the Second Coming. Therefore, by His power, He has been able to ensure that the Church generally has had His Word, and specifically allowed for men in the Church to be able to discern and present His Word in the last days. This is because in all the copies, there is some correct Scripture there, and in the majority of the majority of them are they correct (in Greek). Selecting the correct words from the Greek to translate into English is not "inspiration". And to understand the bigger picture of readings, possible translations and the like, and to do it rightly is rather providential by God's supply of the right men at the right time and right place with the right things to make the right Bible, which is not "inspiration", but Divine Providence.

Internal evidence: what it says about itself is exactly true and applies fully and exactly to itself (unlike other versions).
External evidence: all the signs are there showing that the KJB is it.
When you take the big picture, it is clear that there can be only one.

One good thing about the Geneva.....the ONLY Bible around that has breeches!:) I don't know why that expression has always amused me....but my wife says I have a weird sense of humor...:D

I love my breeches more do to it! ;):D

It is to cold today for my shorts....I am gonna spilt and put on some warm breeches.:D Pax.

I believe that the KJB iteself is inspired, so some of us do Bibleprotector.

"given by inspiration," the wording is (2 Tim. 3:16). ;)

Yeah that's right Vince *goes to hide*.

haha sorry, I'm a little...picky...about the wording there. :p

See my post # 39 in the preservation thread for continuation of inspiration topic.