Greek or English?

[Ransom]

The problem with taking that position is that the original manuscripts do not exist anywhere on earth.

The problem with that statement is that I never said a word about "original manuscripts." But it's nice that you tried to weaken confidence in our English Bible, like the good little skeptic that you are.

 

[HammondCheese]

The problem with taking that position is that the original manuscripts do not exist anywhere on earth.

The problem with that statement is that I never said a word about "original manuscripts." But it's nice that you tried to weaken confidence in our English Bible, like the good little skeptic that you are.

Quite the contrary...  YOU are the one claiming that Greek is the source, and English is the target.  And if in doubt, take it to the Greek! 

My position is that GOD is the source of His Word, and HE has perfectly preserved it in English in our God-breathed King James Bible just like He preserved it in Greek and Hebrew.

But you always quote one sentence from my posts and take them out of context...  Nothing new.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

The problem with taking that position is that the original manuscripts do not exist anywhere on earth.

The problem with that statement is that I never said a word about "original manuscripts." But it's nice that you tried to weaken confidence in our English Bible, like the good little skeptic that you are.

Quite the contrary...  YOU are the one claiming that Greek is the source, and English is the target.  And if in doubt, take it to the Greek! 

My position is that GOD is the source of His Word, and HE has perfectly preserved it in English in our God-breathed King James Bible just like He preserved it in Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Cool so where was it before 1611? If you say it was in the Greek then why does the 1611 differ from said Greek.

 

[HammondCheese]

The problem with taking that position is that the original manuscripts do not exist anywhere on earth.

The problem with that statement is that I never said a word about "original manuscripts." But it's nice that you tried to weaken confidence in our English Bible, like the good little skeptic that you are.

Quite the contrary...  YOU are the one claiming that Greek is the source, and English is the target.  And if in doubt, take it to the Greek! 

My position is that GOD is the source of His Word, and HE has perfectly preserved it in English in our God-breathed King James Bible just like He preserved it in Greek and Hebrew.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Cool so where was it before 1611? If you say it was in the Greek then why does the 1611 differ from said Greek.

It differs a LOT if said Greek is the version written by Wescott and Hort in the 1880's which gave us every "new" English version thereafter...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

 

[HammondCheese]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

You asked me two questions, and I answered the second.  I do not speak fluent Greek, and I was not alive before 1611...  But God was.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

You asked me two questions, and I answered the second.  I do not speak fluent Greek, and I was not alive before 1611...  But God was.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you don't know. What changed with the 1611? Did it come down from the sky. Did God approve it and demand it so? If you can't read Greek then how do you know it is the best translation of the Greek?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

You asked me two questions, and I answered the second.  I do not speak fluent Greek, and I was not alive before 1611...  But God was.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you don't know. What changed with the 1611? Did it come down from the sky. Did God approve it and demand it so? If you can't read Greek then how do you know it is the best translation of the Greek?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I don't know, and neither does anyone alive today.  The burden of proof is not on me, and I don't care for your snide inferences.  I'll tell you where it came from, Chicken Little... From the mouth of God...  And still does today.  You obviously don't understand Revelation, Inspiration, or Preservation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

My position is that GOD is the source of His Word, and HE has perfectly preserved it in English in our God-breathed King James Bible just like He preserved it in Greek and Hebrew.

Your position is that we can't know the words written by the apostles Jesus chose to convey his words, and so we can't trust them. Yea, hath God said? Good little skeptic!

 

[Anon1379]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

You asked me two questions, and I answered the second.  I do not speak fluent Greek, and I was not alive before 1611...  But God was.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you don't know. What changed with the 1611? Did it come down from the sky. Did God approve it and demand it so? If you can't read Greek then how do you know it is the best translation of the Greek?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I don't know, and neither does anyone alive today.  The burden of proof is not on me, and I don't care for your snide inferences.  I'll tell you where it came from, Chicken Little... From the mouth of God...  And still does today.  You obviously don't understand Revelation, Inspiration, or Preservation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Actually anyone who doesn't believe in the KJVO myth knows exactly where the text was before 1611. The 1611 did not change anything. God didn't prophecy a perfect version. Nobody before 1611 floundered around whining about not having a perfect translation. They used whatever they had whether it was in a Byzantine manuscript, in Coptic, in Syrian, in the vulgate, in the Alexandrian, God used all of it. Please tell me what changed with the 1611. Why is it so special over all other versions? Why is it perfect and not the geneva? My stance says the Geneva is just as much of a Bible as the KJV. Can you show me any quote from before 1611 of people talking a perfect translation? No you wont, cuz you can't. Now please tell me how is the kjv any different from the Geneva.

 

[Ransom]

I don't know, and neither does anyone alive today.

"Knowledge is impossible" is the purest form of skepticism. Your skeptical masters have taught you well. Operational unbelievers is what they are, and you repeat their slogans like a good little disciple.

 

[Anon1379]

I don't know, and neither does anyone alive today.

"Knowledge is impossible" is the purest form of skepticism. Your skeptical masters have taught you well. Operational unbelievers is what they are, and you repeat their slogans like a good little disciple.

I can't wait to see KJVO in heaven trying to tell William tyndale that his Bible was not actually a Bible cuz it wasn't a perfect translation.

 

[HammondCheese]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

You asked me two questions, and I answered the second.  I do not speak fluent Greek, and I was not alive before 1611...  But God was.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you don't know. What changed with the 1611? Did it come down from the sky. Did God approve it and demand it so? If you can't read Greek then how do you know it is the best translation of the Greek?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I don't know, and neither does anyone alive today.  The burden of proof is not on me, and I don't care for your snide inferences.  I'll tell you where it came from, Chicken Little... From the mouth of God...  And still does today.  You obviously don't understand Revelation, Inspiration, or Preservation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Actually anyone who doesn't believe in the KJVO myth knows exactly where the text was before 1611. The 1611 did not change anything. God didn't prophecy a perfect version. Nobody before 1611 floundered around whining about not having a perfect translation. They used whatever they had whether it was in a Byzantine manuscript, in Coptic, in Syrian, in the vulgate, in the Alexandrian, God used all of it. Please tell me what changed with the 1611. Why is it so special over all other versions? Why is it perfect and not the geneva? My stance says the Geneva is just as much of a Bible as the KJV. Can you show me any quote from before 1611 of people talking a perfect translation? No you wont, cuz you can't. Now please tell me how is the kjv any different from the Geneva.

You, like Ransom, assume my position based on others' who believe the KJB is perfect...  As if I've never heard your reactions and assumptions for years ad nauseam.  And if you don't read your Bible enough to know that God promised to preserve His very words to every generation, you have bigger problems than the KJ.

NOTHING "changed" with the 1611...  That's the whole point.  There has always been a perfect Bible, and not just in English.  I'm not "floundering around whining about not having a perfect" Bible, because I have one.  My Bible is just as God-breathed and inerrant as the very manuscripts on which the words were penned by the writers of the Old and New Testament, and I am under no obligation to prove it to skeptics like you and Ransom who don't believe there is a perfect Bible on earth.  And I didn't say "most accurate" - I said "perfect".

And I've studied manuscript evidence for over 20 years, so I already know alllll about it... But the only way you claim to "KNOW exactly where the text was before 1611" is because you read it in a book somewhere, written by man... But you weren't there, and neither was I.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

You asked me two questions, and I answered the second.  I do not speak fluent Greek, and I was not alive before 1611...  But God was.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you don't know. What changed with the 1611? Did it come down from the sky. Did God approve it and demand it so? If you can't read Greek then how do you know it is the best translation of the Greek?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I don't know, and neither does anyone alive today.  The burden of proof is not on me, and I don't care for your snide inferences.  I'll tell you where it came from, Chicken Little... From the mouth of God...  And still does today.  You obviously don't understand Revelation, Inspiration, or Preservation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Actually anyone who doesn't believe in the KJVO myth knows exactly where the text was before 1611. The 1611 did not change anything. God didn't prophecy a perfect version. Nobody before 1611 floundered around whining about not having a perfect translation. They used whatever they had whether it was in a Byzantine manuscript, in Coptic, in Syrian, in the vulgate, in the Alexandrian, God used all of it. Please tell me what changed with the 1611. Why is it so special over all other versions? Why is it perfect and not the geneva? My stance says the Geneva is just as much of a Bible as the KJV. Can you show me any quote from before 1611 of people talking a perfect translation? No you wont, cuz you can't. Now please tell me how is the kjv any different from the Geneva.

You, like Ransom, assume my position based on others' who believe the KJB is perfect...  As if I've never heard your reactions and assumptions for years ad nauseam.  And if you don't read your Bible enough to know that God promised to preserve His very words to every generation, you have bigger problems than the KJ.

NOTHING "changed" with the 1611...  That's the whole point.  There has always been a perfect Bible, and not just in English.  I'm not "floundering around whining about not having a perfect" Bible, because I have one.  My Bible is just as God-breathed and inerrant as the very manuscripts on which the words were penned by the writers of the Old and New Testament, and I am under no obligation to prove it to skeptics.

And I've studied manuscript evidence for over 20 years, so I already know alllll about it... But the only way you claim to "KNOW exactly where the text was before 1611" is because you read it in a book somewhere, written by man... But you weren't there, and neither was I.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You also weren't there when the KJV was translated. How do you know their reasoning behind everything was right? You put me back in 1605, I'll gladly take either tyndales, Coverdale's, the Geneva etc. My position doesn't change with the KJV in 1611. Yours does. Why is that?


Actually studying manuscript evidence and reading Ruckman are two different things. If you said you do not read Greek i doubt you have actually studied the manuscript evidence for 20 years

 

[HammondCheese]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

You asked me two questions, and I answered the second.  I do not speak fluent Greek, and I was not alive before 1611...  But God was.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you don't know. What changed with the 1611? Did it come down from the sky. Did God approve it and demand it so? If you can't read Greek then how do you know it is the best translation of the Greek?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I don't know, and neither does anyone alive today.  The burden of proof is not on me, and I don't care for your snide inferences.  I'll tell you where it came from, Chicken Little... From the mouth of God...  And still does today.  You obviously don't understand Revelation, Inspiration, or Preservation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Actually anyone who doesn't believe in the KJVO myth knows exactly where the text was before 1611. The 1611 did not change anything. God didn't prophecy a perfect version. Nobody before 1611 floundered around whining about not having a perfect translation. They used whatever they had whether it was in a Byzantine manuscript, in Coptic, in Syrian, in the vulgate, in the Alexandrian, God used all of it. Please tell me what changed with the 1611. Why is it so special over all other versions? Why is it perfect and not the geneva? My stance says the Geneva is just as much of a Bible as the KJV. Can you show me any quote from before 1611 of people talking a perfect translation? No you wont, cuz you can't. Now please tell me how is the kjv any different from the Geneva.

You, like Ransom, assume my position based on others' who believe the KJB is perfect...  As if I've never heard your reactions and assumptions for years ad nauseam.  And if you don't read your Bible enough to know that God promised to preserve His very words to every generation, you have bigger problems than the KJ.

NOTHING "changed" with the 1611...  That's the whole point.  There has always been a perfect Bible, and not just in English.  I'm not "floundering around whining about not having a perfect" Bible, because I have one.  My Bible is just as God-breathed and inerrant as the very manuscripts on which the words were penned by the writers of the Old and New Testament, and I am under no obligation to prove it to skeptics.

And I've studied manuscript evidence for over 20 years, so I already know alllll about it... But the only way you claim to "KNOW exactly where the text was before 1611" is because you read it in a book somewhere, written by man... But you weren't there, and neither was I.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You also weren't there when the KJV was translated. How do you know their reasoning behind everything was right? You put me back in 1605, I'll gladly take either tyndales, Coverdale's, the Geneva etc. My position doesn't change with the KJV in 1611. Yours does. Why is that?

My position didn't change with the KJV in 1611...  It changed in 1994.

So you'll pretty much just go along with any version, huh?  Guess that means you don't believe God preserved His Word without error in any of them, right?  And if by the remote chance you do, WHICH ONE IS PERFECT?  I won't hold my breath...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

You asked me two questions, and I answered the second.  I do not speak fluent Greek, and I was not alive before 1611...  But God was.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you don't know. What changed with the 1611? Did it come down from the sky. Did God approve it and demand it so? If you can't read Greek then how do you know it is the best translation of the Greek?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I don't know, and neither does anyone alive today.  The burden of proof is not on me, and I don't care for your snide inferences.  I'll tell you where it came from, Chicken Little... From the mouth of God...  And still does today.  You obviously don't understand Revelation, Inspiration, or Preservation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Actually anyone who doesn't believe in the KJVO myth knows exactly where the text was before 1611. The 1611 did not change anything. God didn't prophecy a perfect version. Nobody before 1611 floundered around whining about not having a perfect translation. They used whatever they had whether it was in a Byzantine manuscript, in Coptic, in Syrian, in the vulgate, in the Alexandrian, God used all of it. Please tell me what changed with the 1611. Why is it so special over all other versions? Why is it perfect and not the geneva? My stance says the Geneva is just as much of a Bible as the KJV. Can you show me any quote from before 1611 of people talking a perfect translation? No you wont, cuz you can't. Now please tell me how is the kjv any different from the Geneva.

You, like Ransom, assume my position based on others' who believe the KJB is perfect...  As if I've never heard your reactions and assumptions for years ad nauseam.  And if you don't read your Bible enough to know that God promised to preserve His very words to every generation, you have bigger problems than the KJ.

NOTHING "changed" with the 1611...  That's the whole point.  There has always been a perfect Bible, and not just in English.  I'm not "floundering around whining about not having a perfect" Bible, because I have one.  My Bible is just as God-breathed and inerrant as the very manuscripts on which the words were penned by the writers of the Old and New Testament, and I am under no obligation to prove it to skeptics.

And I've studied manuscript evidence for over 20 years, so I already know alllll about it... But the only way you claim to "KNOW exactly where the text was before 1611" is because you read it in a book somewhere, written by man... But you weren't there, and neither was I.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You also weren't there when the KJV was translated. How do you know their reasoning behind everything was right? You put me back in 1605, I'll gladly take either tyndales, Coverdale's, the Geneva etc. My position doesn't change with the KJV in 1611. Yours does. Why is that?

My position didn't change with the KJV in 1611...  It changed in 1994.

So you'll pretty much just go along with any version, huh?  Guess that means you don't believe God preserved His Word without error in any of them, right?  And if by the remote chance you do, WHICH ONE IS PERFECT?  I won't hold my breath...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Which one was perfect before 1611? I agree with the KJV translators themselves "Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God." According to you no Bible before 1611 could be used, until the KJV came along and suddenly we got a perfect Bible. For me I'll use any translation that sets out to accurately translate his word. The 1611 changed nothing. Every translation is essentially perfect. Their maybe errors in translation from man's part, but man's failure does not make me doubt the Bible as a whole.

 

[HammondCheese]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

You asked me two questions, and I answered the second.  I do not speak fluent Greek, and I was not alive before 1611...  But God was.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you don't know. What changed with the 1611? Did it come down from the sky. Did God approve it and demand it so? If you can't read Greek then how do you know it is the best translation of the Greek?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I don't know, and neither does anyone alive today.  The burden of proof is not on me, and I don't care for your snide inferences.  I'll tell you where it came from, Chicken Little... From the mouth of God...  And still does today.  You obviously don't understand Revelation, Inspiration, or Preservation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Actually anyone who doesn't believe in the KJVO myth knows exactly where the text was before 1611. The 1611 did not change anything. God didn't prophecy a perfect version. Nobody before 1611 floundered around whining about not having a perfect translation. They used whatever they had whether it was in a Byzantine manuscript, in Coptic, in Syrian, in the vulgate, in the Alexandrian, God used all of it. Please tell me what changed with the 1611. Why is it so special over all other versions? Why is it perfect and not the geneva? My stance says the Geneva is just as much of a Bible as the KJV. Can you show me any quote from before 1611 of people talking a perfect translation? No you wont, cuz you can't. Now please tell me how is the kjv any different from the Geneva.

You, like Ransom, assume my position based on others' who believe the KJB is perfect...  As if I've never heard your reactions and assumptions for years ad nauseam.  And if you don't read your Bible enough to know that God promised to preserve His very words to every generation, you have bigger problems than the KJ.

NOTHING "changed" with the 1611...  That's the whole point.  There has always been a perfect Bible, and not just in English.  I'm not "floundering around whining about not having a perfect" Bible, because I have one.  My Bible is just as God-breathed and inerrant as the very manuscripts on which the words were penned by the writers of the Old and New Testament, and I am under no obligation to prove it to skeptics.

And I've studied manuscript evidence for over 20 years, so I already know alllll about it... But the only way you claim to "KNOW exactly where the text was before 1611" is because you read it in a book somewhere, written by man... But you weren't there, and neither was I.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You also weren't there when the KJV was translated. How do you know their reasoning behind everything was right? You put me back in 1605, I'll gladly take either tyndales, Coverdale's, the Geneva etc. My position doesn't change with the KJV in 1611. Yours does. Why is that?

My position didn't change with the KJV in 1611...  It changed in 1994.

So you'll pretty much just go along with any version, huh?  Guess that means you don't believe God preserved His Word without error in any of them, right?  And if by the remote chance you do, WHICH ONE IS PERFECT?  I won't hold my breath...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Which one was perfect before 1611? I agree with the KJV translators themselves "Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God." According to you no Bible before 1611 could be used, until the KJV came along and suddenly we got a perfect Bible. For me I'll use any translation that sets out to accurately translate his word. The 1611 changed nothing. Every translation is essentially perfect. Their maybe errors in translation from man's part, but man's failure does not make me doubt the Bible as a whole.

"Essentially perfect" and perfect are two entirely different things... As are "errors in translation" and perfect.  There are zero errors in the KJB.  None.

And "man's failure" would only apply to a book not preserved by GOD.  God used men to pen the revelation of His Word; so, were there errors in the "originals" also? 

And the writers were not inspired... God's words are.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

Not what I asked. I asked where did God preserve it before 1611

You asked me two questions, and I answered the second.  I do not speak fluent Greek, and I was not alive before 1611...  But God was.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you don't know. What changed with the 1611? Did it come down from the sky. Did God approve it and demand it so? If you can't read Greek then how do you know it is the best translation of the Greek?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

I don't know, and neither does anyone alive today.  The burden of proof is not on me, and I don't care for your snide inferences.  I'll tell you where it came from, Chicken Little... From the mouth of God...  And still does today.  You obviously don't understand Revelation, Inspiration, or Preservation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Actually anyone who doesn't believe in the KJVO myth knows exactly where the text was before 1611. The 1611 did not change anything. God didn't prophecy a perfect version. Nobody before 1611 floundered around whining about not having a perfect translation. They used whatever they had whether it was in a Byzantine manuscript, in Coptic, in Syrian, in the vulgate, in the Alexandrian, God used all of it. Please tell me what changed with the 1611. Why is it so special over all other versions? Why is it perfect and not the geneva? My stance says the Geneva is just as much of a Bible as the KJV. Can you show me any quote from before 1611 of people talking a perfect translation? No you wont, cuz you can't. Now please tell me how is the kjv any different from the Geneva.

You, like Ransom, assume my position based on others' who believe the KJB is perfect...  As if I've never heard your reactions and assumptions for years ad nauseam.  And if you don't read your Bible enough to know that God promised to preserve His very words to every generation, you have bigger problems than the KJ.

NOTHING "changed" with the 1611...  That's the whole point.  There has always been a perfect Bible, and not just in English.  I'm not "floundering around whining about not having a perfect" Bible, because I have one.  My Bible is just as God-breathed and inerrant as the very manuscripts on which the words were penned by the writers of the Old and New Testament, and I am under no obligation to prove it to skeptics.

And I've studied manuscript evidence for over 20 years, so I already know alllll about it... But the only way you claim to "KNOW exactly where the text was before 1611" is because you read it in a book somewhere, written by man... But you weren't there, and neither was I.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You also weren't there when the KJV was translated. How do you know their reasoning behind everything was right? You put me back in 1605, I'll gladly take either tyndales, Coverdale's, the Geneva etc. My position doesn't change with the KJV in 1611. Yours does. Why is that?

My position didn't change with the KJV in 1611...  It changed in 1994.

So you'll pretty much just go along with any version, huh?  Guess that means you don't believe God preserved His Word without error in any of them, right?  And if by the remote chance you do, WHICH ONE IS PERFECT?  I won't hold my breath...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Which one was perfect before 1611? I agree with the KJV translators themselves "Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God." According to you no Bible before 1611 could be used, until the KJV came along and suddenly we got a perfect Bible. For me I'll use any translation that sets out to accurately translate his word. The 1611 changed nothing. Every translation is essentially perfect. Their maybe errors in translation from man's part, but man's failure does not make me doubt the Bible as a whole.

"Essentially perfect" and perfect are two entirely different things... As are "errors in translation" and perfect.  There are zero errors in the KJB.  None.

And "man's failure" would only apply to a book not preserved by GOD.  God used men to pen the revelation of His Word; so, were there errors in the "originals" also? 

And the writers were not inspired... God's words are.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then please show me why the KJV is perfect and not the Geneva. Tell me why God waited 1600 years for a perfect translation. Why couldn't he have done it earlier with the vulgate. Why does nobody else claim a perfect translation until 1960? Show me a perfect Bible before 1611. Tell me which version of the kjv is perfect. Tell me when the KJV became perfect. Was it the first revision? Second? Third? Why does something perfect need to be improved upon?

 

[Anon1379]

Your position does not deal with history. There was a Bible before 1611. Nobody during that time period complained about not having a perfect translation in their language, and nobody was striving to make one. Why then are you whining about it 400 years later claiming a single version is perfect when you cant even tell me the text it was translated from is perfect. DEAL with history. I certainly can. You can't. You state there was.not a Bible for 1611 that anyone could trust. Try telling that to Luther, Tyndale, Wycliffe and the other thousands of martyrs who died defending their imperfect translations. The errors in the Geneva are the same type of errors in the KJV. The Geneva/coverdale/Matthew's Bible is just as perfect as the KJV today. Prove me wrong.

 

[Ransom]

You, like Ransom, assume my position based on others' who believe the KJB is perfect... 

That's because you have yet to say anything that would distinguish yourself from them.

If it quacks like a duck...