ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 498
Apr 20 09 5:26 PM
This Codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits GENESIS 1:1 through GENESIS 46:28; PSALM 106 through 138; MATTHEW 16:2-3; ROMANS 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; REVELATION; and everything in HEBREWS after 9:14. It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic Church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the "mass" as totally useless. (Please read HEBREWS 10:10-12). The "mass" in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money-making machine for Rome. It also omits portions of Scripture telling of the creation (GENESIS), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (PSALM 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great #%#*% of REVELATION chapter 17.
Posts: 3154
Apr 20 09 6:27 PM
Posts: 323
Apr 21 09 7:23 PM
Posts: 7270
Apr 22 09 7:16 AM
Apr 26 09 1:58 PM
dcforrey wrote: The verses you quoted existed in the Geneva Bible in 1599, before the KJV existed. When people read their Geneva Bibles in 1599 to what version of the Bible were those passages referring? What was God's perfectly preserved Word in 1599?
William Bradley wrote: "The translators changed virtually nothing from William Tyndale's New Testament in the New Testament of the Geneva Bible" (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva "differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts" (Things That Are Different, p. 48). Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Ibid.). In addition, Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible "is from the same manuscripts as the King James" (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17). Murray claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger stated that the Geneva "follows the traditional text that underlies the King James Version" (Which Bible, p. 51). David Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible "differed only slightly from the King James Bible" (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: "The Geneva Bible is a true 'version' having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout" (Bible Versions, p. 11). H. D. Williams listed the Geneva Bible as a "literal, verbal plenary translation" (Word-for-Word, p. 121). Robert Sargent referred to it as "a very good translation" (English Bible, p. 197). Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as "the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible" (Bible Babel, p. 82).
One-perfect-translation-only reasoning may be borrowed and applied to the Geneva Bible in order to see if it is valid. If Bible believers really believe that the Geneva Bible was the Word of God in English in 1560 and believe their own claims concerning the word of God, should they have been unwilling to have one word or even one syllable of it changed? Do Ruckman and other Bible believers take the English translation "given by inspiration" at 2 Timothy 3:16 in the 1560 Geneva Bible "to be the truth" and to mean that the Geneva Bible was given by inspiration of God [for example, see Ruckman's Biblical Scholarship, p. 355]? Do English-speaking Bible believers maintain that the Geneva Bible, which was the translation accepted, believed, and used by English-speaking believers before 1611, was "given by inspiration" or "divinely inspired" by definition of Scripture or the Word of God? Should English-speaking believers in 1560 have accepted the Geneva Bible as their final authority? Were English-speaking believers in 1560 supposed to accept every word of the English Bible that God had provided them as pure and perfect? According to the consistent application of Ruckman's reasoning, his view in effect permits Church of England scholars in 1611 to sit in judgment on the Protestant Reformation Text and the Holy Bible in English [the Geneva Bible] and to alter and introduce changes in it. Were any of the changes that the KJV translators made in the Geneva Bible simply for the sake of variety? Were any of the changes that the KJV translators made in the Geneva Bible the result of doctrinal bias or the result of an effort to promote Episcopal church government? According to a consistent application of some of Ruckman's reasoning, did those Church of England scholars usurp the authority of the Book of the English-speaking believers in their day [the Geneva Bible] in order to assert their own authority [for example, see p. 34 in Ruckman's Biblical Scholarship]? Ruckman asserted that "our practice will match our profession" (p. 64).
Share This