The Geneva Bible is Superior to the KJV

[praise_yeshua]

The Geneva Bible revolutionized the way English Bibles are used. In fact, the KJV plagiarized the Geneva Bible in word and in style.

1. It was the Geneva Bible that FIRST used chapter and verse distinctions. NOT the KJV.
2. The Geneva Bible was the work of Reformers. The reign of "Queen Mary" drove the Protestant scholars from England to Geneva. Those scholars worked to produce a Bible that was not authorized by the "crown of England" like the "Great Bible" and later "Bishops" bible.
3. The "Church of England" was controlled by the monarch in England throughout English history. This "relationship" undisputably "flavored" the "authorized" version from the crown of England in 1611.
4. The English empire often used "its" influence to assure the KJV was successful. Even banning the printing of Geneva Bible to eliminate competition and "driving" later edition of the KJV from Cambridge and Oxford.
5. If the Geneva Bible would have been allowed to flourish and receive revisions such as the KJV, then the Geneva Bible would have been the English translation of choice throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th century.

 

[ChristB4us]

The Geneva Bible revolutionized the way English Bibles are used. In fact, the KJV plagiarized the Geneva Bible in word and in style.

1. It was the Geneva Bible that FIRST used chapter and verse distinctions. NOT the KJV.
2. The Geneva Bible was the work of Reformers. The reign of "Queen Mary" drove the Protestant scholars from England to Geneva. Those scholars worked to produce a Bible that was not authorized by the "crown of England" like the "Great Bible" and later "Bishops" bible.
3. The "Church of England" was controlled by the monarch in England throughout English history. This "relationship" undisputably "flavored" the "authorized" version from the crown of England in 1611.

No comment as of yet.

4. The English empire often used "its" influence to assure the KJV was successful. Even banning the printing of Geneva Bible to eliminate competition and "driving" later edition of the KJV from Cambridge and Oxford.

Source? Any evidence to that effect?

5. If the Geneva Bible would have been allowed to flourish and receive revisions such as the KJV, then the Geneva Bible would have been the English translation of choice throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th century.

The Geneva Bible made it to American with the Puritans and so out of the realm of control of England. So why did it not flourish then?

Seeing how the Puritans had made the request to King James for another Bible version because of those errant marginal notes that were running against scripture like defying those in authorities and Jesus also being Michael the archangel, I would say that may be the reason that it eventually fell out of favor, because I cannot see how the Geneva Bible would be held back in American colonies established by those Puritans.

If you have more information, feel free to share.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No comment as of yet.

So you accept the first 3 points?

Source? Any evidence to that effect?

The idea that the monarchy in England wasn't in full control of the country unit the 21st century is preposterous. It still controls it now. Are you a subject of England? Is the monarch your ruler?

It is well known fact that the Geneva Bible was banned from being printed in England. Which is WHERE the printing presses were. In fact, American printing of Bible didn't take place until the late 19th century.

Have you ever researched any of this? You ask me for evidence when these are well known facts of history that you can discover with just a "little" research.

The Geneva Bible made it to American with the Puritans and so out of the realm of control of England. So why did it not flourish then?

Printings came from England. The Geneva Bible was banned from being printed. Even though some were printed contrary to the crown. The monarchy UPDATED the KJV with editions from Cambridge and Oxford.

Did you not know the monarch still owns the copyright? You haven't been told the truth and you've listened instead of researching yourself.

Seeing how the Puritans had made the request to King James for another Bible version because of those errant marginal notes that were running against scripture like defying those in authorities and Jesus also being Michael the archangel, I would say that may be the reason that it eventually fell out of favor, because I cannot see how the Geneva Bible would be held back in American colonies established by those Puritans.

If you have more information, feel free to share.

You keep repeating yourself when I have already dealt with this. The Puritans brought the Geneva Bible to America. Not the KJV. They could NOT get new Geneva Bibles from England. Which was the primary trading partner for supplies in the new colonies.

You know so very little about English or American history. Why do you expect me to spend endless time supply you information when you don't know the simplest of things such as printers not printing Bibles in America until the late 19th century. There is a reason that new Bibles began to be produced in America in the early 20th century.

Ever heard of the American Standard Version? When was this produced in America?

Ever heard of the Revision Standard Version? Who created that edition and was it "Authorized"?

 

[David1701]

The Geneva Bible revolutionized the way English Bibles are used. In fact, the KJV plagiarized the Geneva Bible in word and in style.

1. It was the Geneva Bible that FIRST used chapter and verse distinctions. NOT the KJV.
2. The Geneva Bible was the work of Reformers. The reign of "Queen Mary" drove the Protestant scholars from England to Geneva. Those scholars worked to produce a Bible that was not authorized by the "crown of England" like the "Great Bible" and later "Bishops" bible.
3. The "Church of England" was controlled by the monarch in England throughout English history. This "relationship" undisputably "flavored" the "authorized" version from the crown of England in 1611.
4. The English empire often used "its" influence to assure the KJV was successful. Even banning the printing of Geneva Bible to eliminate competition and "driving" later edition of the KJV from Cambridge and Oxford.
5. If the Geneva Bible would have been allowed to flourish and receive revisions such as the KJV, then the Geneva Bible would have been the English translation of choice throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th century.

Your presentation, whilst it contains some truth, is somewhat slanted.

The Authorised Version (the correct title of what Americans call the King James Version) did copy sections of the Geneva Bible. That was, I think, a testimony to the respect in which at least some of the translators held the Geneva Bible (some were Puritans, who generally used the Geneva Bible).

1) Yes, the Geneva Bible was the first to use chapters and verses.
2) Your second point is also correct.
3) It's true that King James (who was Scottish) had a little influence on the A.V.. He insisted on the usage of "church" (rather than congregation or assembly) as a translation of "ekklesia", that the A.V. should be based on the Bishop's Bible, the retention of "bishop" and other ecclesiastical terms, that it should have no notes, and a few other stipulations.
4) There was no such thing as the "English Empire". The Union of Parliaments did not happen until 1707, until which time Scotland and England were separate countries, although they shared a monarch from 1603 (the Union of Crowns). The British Empire also did not exist when the A.V. was translated.
Your comment about the banning of the printing of the Geneva Bible and pushing the A.V. is correct.
5) Your comment here is speculation. Who knows what would have happened?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Your presentation, whilst it contains some truth, is somewhat slanted.

The Authorised Version (the correct title of what Americans call the King James Version) did copy sections of the Geneva Bible. That was, I think, a testimony to the respect in which at least some of the translators held the Geneva Bible (some were Puritans, who generally used the Geneva Bible).

More than copy. They copied the "style" of the Geneva Bible. Many KJOist insist that the KJV was the first to use chapter/verse distinctions to better understand the grammatical construct of the Scriptures. Which is not true. The Reformers in the Geneva Bible did.....

3) It's true that King James (who was Scottish) had a little influence on the A.V.. He insisted on the usage of "church" (rather than congregation or assembly) as a translation of "ekklesia", that the A.V. should be based on the Bishop's Bible, the retention of "bishop" and other ecclesiastical terms, that it should have no notes, and a few other stipulations.

We've discussed the use of "ruler" and the absence of "tyranny" before. Add that to the list of influences from James through his Archbishop of choice. You're witnessing the fact that KING JAMES had control over the translation. Not the Puritans.

4) There was no such thing as the "English Empire". The Union of Parliaments did not happen until 1707, until which time Scotland and England were separate countries, although they shared a monarch from 1603 (the Union of Crowns). The British Empire also did not exist when the A.V. was translated.

Sure the "British" (Brits are sensitive. I know. I'm over 80 percent "English".) .....Empire expanded over time but the origins were built in the 15th century. James sought to expand its influence. Which is why he started with seeking to destroy the Bible of the Reformers. The men that resisted the crown of England. Men who gave their lives to defend the Scriptures.

Your comment about the banning of the printing of Geneva Bible and pushing the A.V. is correct.
5) Your comment here is speculation. Who knows what would have happened?.

I don't see how the influence of the monarchy can be ignored here. By the time the "A.V" was revised, England controlled/influenced much of the world. Both Cambridge and Oxford sought to "cash in" on the need to update the "A.V" for there expansion. How many times do you think the "crown/those loyal " used Hebrews 13 use of "ruler" to their advantage? The monarchy literally did exactly what Rome did with their "popes". They just did it through the monarchy and the archbishops of England. England's popes.

Like I said in the OP. The Geneva Bible is Superior to the KJV.

 

[David1701]

More than copy. They copied the "style" of the Geneva Bible. Many KJOist insist that the KJV was the first to use chapter/verse distinctions to better understand the grammatical construct of the Scriptures. Which is not true. The Reformers in the Geneva Bible did.....

Overall, the style of the A.V is markedly different from the Geneva (except in the portions the A.V. translators copied over). The A.V. is more flowery, because it was based on the Bishop's Bible; while the Geneva is more straightforward and slightly more modern in style (even though it was translated earlier). I have both and I can attest that the style is noticeably different (I prefer the Geneva's style, at least in some places).

We've discussed the use of "ruler" and the absence of "tyranny" before. Add that to the list of influences from James through his Archbishop of choice. You're witnessing the fact that KING JAMES had control over the translation. Not the Puritans.

I agree with you about the use of "ruler" and the omission of "tyranny".

King James did exert a little control over the actual translation (but only a little). The main control he exerted was later, in banning the printing of the Geneva.

Sure the "British" (Brits are sensitive. I know. I'm over 80 percent "English".) .....Empire expanded over time but the origins were built in the 15th century. James sought to expand its influence. Which is why he started with seeking to destroy the Bible of the Reformers. The men that resisted the crown of England. Men who gave their lives to defend the Scriptures.

I'm Scottish. We don't like being called "English", which Americans tend to do.

I don't see how the influence of the monarchy can be ignored here. By the time the "A.V" was revised, England controlled/influenced much of the world. Both Cambridge and Oxford sought to "cash in" on the need to update the "A.V" for there expansion. How many times do you think the "crown/those loyal " used Hebrews 13 use of "ruler" to their advantage? The monarchy literally did exactly what Rome did with their "popes". They just did it through the monarchy and the archbishops of England. England's popes.

Don't get me wrong, I don't ignore the influence of the Crown; and I'm no supporter of what King James did re. the Geneva Bible.

Like I said in the OP. The Geneva Bible is Superior to the KJV.

In some places the Geneva is better; and in some places the A.V. is better.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Overall, the style of the A.V is markedly different from the Geneva (except in the portions the A.V. translators copied over). The A.V. is more flowery, because it was based on the Bishop's Bible; while the Geneva is more straightforward and slightly more modern in style (even though it was translated earlier). I have both and I can attest that the style is noticeably different (I prefer the Geneva's style, at least in some places).

I can somewhat agree. The "flowery" speech of the KJV is contradictory to what Paul taught....

1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

However, I never said anything about "style". You can add this to the discussion but these facts do not change what I have already stated.

I agree with you about the use of "ruler" and the omission of "tyranny".

King James did exert a little control over the actual translation (but only a little). The main control he exerted was later, in banning the printing of the Geneva.

This is significant David. There is no reason to try and downplay the impact. The Reformers saw themselves as "overseers". Helpers in the purpose of God. Not tyrants. Not "rulers". They "bowed" to Christ. James sought to take His place.

I'm Scottish. We don't like being called "English", which Americans tend to do.

Americans predate the "British" unifications. Which is why we reference the "English Empire".

Don't get me wrong, I don't ignore the influence of the Crown; and I'm no supporter of what King James did re. the Geneva Bible.

In some places the Geneva is better; and in some places the A.V. is better.

I know you're not but you do prefer the TR. That is clear. I believe the Geneva Bible is the best English Edition of the TR. In fact, the recent updates in the "Modernized" and "Revised" Geneva are largely well done.

 

[David1701]

I can somewhat agree. The "flowery" speech of the KJV is contradictory to what Paul taught....

1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

However, I never said anything about "style". You can add this to the discussion but these facts do not change what I have already stated.

No, but you did mention "style", which is why I addressed it!

"They copied the "style" of the Geneva Bible."

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-geneva-bible-is-superior-to-the-kjv.632/post-19364

This is significant David. There is no reason to try and downplay the impact. The Reformers saw themselves as "overseers". Helpers in the purpose of God. Not tyrants. Not "rulers". They "bowed" to Christ. James sought to take His place.

I'm not downplaying the impact; and I don't see why you think that I am.

Americans predate the "British" unifications. Which is why we reference the "English Empire".

Well, there were colonists there earlier; but there was no such country as "America", at that time; and, the colonists were from all over the place, including many French.

I know you're not but you do prefer the TR. That is clear. I believe the Geneva Bible is the best English Edition of the TR. In fact, the recent updates in the "Modernized" and "Revised" Geneva are largely well done.

Yes, I do prefer the TR; although, I also use translations based on the Majority Text and have a couple based on the CT.

I have a modernised spellling edition of the Geneva, and I like it; but I'm not sure that it's the best overall (they are both generally good, but with flaws).

 

[praise_yeshua]

No, but you did mention "style", which is why I addressed it!

I said the "word"... "style" and then commented on the extent of the use of that word as I described. You're extending. Not me.

I'm not downplaying the impact; and I don't see why you think that I am.

You used the word "little". That is "downplaying".

Well, there were colonists there earlier; but there was no such country as "America", at that time; and, the colonists were from all over the place, including many French.

Which does not change why..... we reference the "English Empire". It is common reference in America.

Yes, I do prefer the TR; although, I also use translations based on the Majority Text and have a couple based on the CT.

I have a modernised spellling edition of the Geneva, and I like it; but I'm not sure that it's the best overall (they are both generally good, but with flaws).

Name a significant mistake in the Geneva Bible not shared with the KJV?

 

[ChristB4us]

So you accept the first 3 points?

That third point seems exaggerated.

3. The "Church of England" was controlled by the monarch in England throughout English history. This "relationship" undisputably "flavored" the "authorized" version from the crown of England in 1611.

@David1701 did confirm it more to my understanding that it had little influence by setting guidelines.

The idea that the monarchy in England wasn't in full control of the country unit the 21st century is preposterous. It still controls it now. Are you a subject of England? Is the monarch your ruler?

It is well known fact that the Geneva Bible was banned from being printed in England. Which is WHERE the printing presses were. In fact, American printing of Bible didn't take place until the late 19th century.

That is why when you make a comment like that, you should provide a link to that "fact".

The First Printing Press in America

"On September 25, 1639, the first printing press in America was set up in Cambridge, Massachusetts Bay Colony. The press remained in continuous use for 150 years, printing some of the first books in the New World.

Reverend Joseph Glover had been a fervent supporter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, founded in 1630 by a group of 60 English Puritans.....

.....September 25, 1639 is generally considered the date the press went into operation. It’s believed the first item Daye printed was The Freeman’s Oath, a pledge taken by every man over the age of 20 who owned a house and wanted to be a citizen of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. That first year Daye also printed William Pierce’s Almanack (it’s been suggested he may have printed this first). The following year he printed about 1,700 copies of the Bay Psalm Book. Daye’s Cambridge Press was soon printing catechisms, schoolbooks, legal documents, sermons, and almanacs." ~~ end of quote

What are the chances that he used it also for printing the Geneva Bible but just never reported it or had it be known because of fear of persecution to those loyal to the crown among the colonists?

Have you ever researched any of this? You ask me for evidence when these are well known facts of history that you can discover with just a "little" research.

Well, there is my little research.

Printings came from England. The Geneva Bible was banned from being printed. Even though some were printed contrary to the crown. The monarchy UPDATED the KJV with editions from Cambridge and Oxford.

Did you not know the monarch still owns the copyright? You haven't been told the truth and you've listened instead of researching yourself.

Still, if I was a supporter of the Puritans and that colony, being far from England, I may be tempted to defy the Crown to provide the word of God thinking who is he that can contain the word of God? Is not the crown subject also to the word of God?

You keep repeating yourself when I have already dealt with this. The Puritans brought the Geneva Bible to America. Not the KJV. They could NOT get new Geneva Bibles from England. Which was the primary trading partner for supplies in the new colonies.

You know so very little about English or American history. Why do you expect me to spend endless time supply you information when you don't know the simplest of things such as printers not printing Bibles in America until the late 19th century. There is a reason that new Bibles began to be produced in America in the early 20th century.

Not sure why you seem to think you need to argue that point. I had not contested it.

THE KJV IN EARLY AMERICA

It was much later in the colonial period, in 1782, when the first complete King James Bible was printed in America. Prior to that time, English Bibles were readily available as imports from England and the English Crown owned the "copyright" on the printing of the King James Version. With the coming of the Revolutionary War, the importation of British goods was seriously curtailed, so Robert Aitken, who had started printing the King James New Testament in the Colonies in 1771, gained the support from the United States Congress to print the entire King James Bible, which he did in 1782. His Bible became known as the "Bible of the Revolution," because it was printed in a small size so copies could be distributed to the soldiers in the Colonial army. " ~~ end of quote

The KJV was provided to the colonies by import and they had to have one available for them to copy it for the Revolution.

Ever heard of the American Standard Version? When was this produced in America?

Ever heard of the Revision Standard Version? Who created that edition and was it "Authorized"?

Never researched their backgrounds, but I have found errors as in changed messages in those versions that supports false teachings whereas the KJV does not.

Examples at the link below: KJV has no sound being uttered; not even His groanings whereas the NASB & the NRSV does.

Also in KJV has no grammatical error in Romans 8:27 but the NASB & the NRSV does. Can you spot it with His help?

Romans 8:26-27 KJV VS NASB VS NRSV

In 1 Corinthians 1:18 the message has been changed to infer the process of being saved in the NASB & the NRSV rather than are saved as a result of believing the preaching of the cross per the KJV. All 3 versions has 1 Corinthians 1:21 testifying to that truth as maintained in the KJV.

1 Corinthians 1:18,21 KJV VS NASB VS NRSV

Now comparing that with the 1599 Geneva Bible of those two references, the Geneva Bible maintains the truth in 1 Corinthians 1:18,21 but it is worded differently for Romans 8:26-27. In verse 26, it has sighs that cannot be expressed hence still no sound and verse 27 as meaning instead of mind of the Spirit but still separates this "he" from us that searches our hearts and separates this he from the Spirit in knowing His mind or His meaning.

Romans 8:26-27 & 1 Corinthians 1:18,21 Comparing 3 versions with Geneva

It is interesting how the Geneva is different from the KJV but still kept the message of the truth in His words as far as those 2 examples go.

 

[ChristB4us]

Don't get me wrong, I don't ignore the influence of the Crown; and I'm no supporter of what King James did re. the Geneva Bible.

@praise_yeshua

I believe the errant marginal notes in the Geneva Bible about defying those in authority may have been the cause for such banning since that was also one of the complaints of the Puritans as that can cause problems within the church to those in authority there.

One of the other irks the Puritans had towards the Geneva Bible was the errant marginal note that Jesus was Michael the archangel.

Although King James restricted the use of marginal notes in the KJV, nowadays, the KJV has footnotes that is contrary to scriptures where they assigned the behemoth in Job chapter 40 as being an alligator, a hippo, or an elephant BUT none of them has a tail as long as a cedar tree.

A dinosaur does.

This goes to show how Christian education of our modern day Biblical scholars can be tainted from reading the Bible as it is written.

Which now brings a startling discovery of the differences that the KJV has from the Geneva Bible.

Job Chapter 40 KJV VS 1599 Geneva Bible

One has to be careful comparing the two because Job 40:15 begins the description of the behemoth in the KJV and ends in verse 24 whereas the description of the behemoth begins in Job 40:10 and ends in verse 19 in the 1599 Geneva Bible before beginning on the Leviathan in verse 20.

Not sure why KJV separated the Leviathan into their next chapter, but they did.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That third point seems exaggerated.

3. The "Church of England" was controlled by the monarch in England throughout English history. This "relationship" undisputably "flavored" the "authorized" version from the crown of England in 1611.

@David1701 did confirm it more to my understanding that it had little influence by setting guidelines.

Is it your goal to "downplay" the impact? The KJV removed "tyranny". The KJV added "rule/ruler" in Hebrews 13. The crown set their archbishop over the translation. They controlled the translation in many ways.

That is why when you make a comment like that, you should provide a link to that "fact".

The First Printing Press in America

"On September 25, 1639, the first printing press in America was set up in Cambridge, Massachusetts Bay Colony. The press remained in continuous use for 150 years, printing some of the first books in the New World.

Small books. Not Bibles.

Reverend Joseph Glover had been a fervent supporter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, founded in 1630 by a group of 60 English Puritans.....

.....September 25, 1639 is generally considered the date the press went into operation. It’s believed the first item Daye printed was The Freeman’s Oath, a pledge taken by every man over the age of 20 who owned a house and wanted to be a citizen of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. That first year Daye also printed William Pierce’s Almanack (it’s been suggested he may have printed this first). The following year he printed about 1,700 copies of the Bay Psalm Book. Daye’s Cambridge Press was soon printing catechisms, schoolbooks, legal documents, sermons, and almanacs." ~~ end of quote

Wow... no Bibles.... I wonder why. The Printing an Bible during that period was a difficult task. We have many witnesses to the errors in editions due to printer mistakes.

What are the chances that he used it also for printing the Geneva Bible but just never reported it or had it be known because of fear of persecution to those loyal to the crown among the colonists?

You have no reference to the mass printing of large editions of texts relative to the KJV or Geneva. It is nothing more than a distraction.

Well, there is my little research.

Yes. Little. Did you know this before you just searched? If not, why not? Usually someone that takes to task to actually debate a subject... "doesn't make things up as they go".... They already know the subject. You're learning as you go. Which is good.... but I don't see why you should pretend you know the subject.

Still, if I was a supporter of the Puritans and that colony, being far from England, I may be tempted to defy the Crown to provide the word of God thinking who is he that can contain the word of God? Is not the crown subject also to the word of God?.

History tells us that Puritans were loyal to the King. Might that tell you something about "why"? They rejected the "church of England" and sought to correct the corruption in it. They did these efforts "through the King".

Not sure why you seem to think you need to argue that point. I had not contested it.

THE KJV IN EARLY AMERICA

It was much later in the colonial period, in 1782, when the first complete King James Bible was printed in America. Prior to that time, English Bibles were readily available as imports from England and the English Crown owned the "copyright" on the printing of the King James Version. With the coming of the Revolutionary War, the importation of British goods was seriously curtailed, so Robert Aitken, who had started printing the King James New Testament in the Colonies in 1771, gained the support from the United States Congress to print the entire King James Bible, which he did in 1782. His Bible became known as the "Bible of the Revolution," because it was printed in a small size so copies could be distributed to the soldiers in the Colonial army. " ~~ end of quote

The KJV was provided to the colonies by import and they had to have one available for them to copy it for the Revolution.

An act of Congress with limited distribution. Again. Nothing in mass. Nothing of impact in the context of the discussion.

Never researched their backgrounds, but I have found errors as in changed messages in those versions that supports false teachings whereas the KJV does not.

Examples at the link below: KJV has no sound being uttered; not even His groanings whereas the NASB & the NRSV does.

Also in KJV has no grammatical error in Romans 8:27 but the NASB & the NRSV does. Can you spot it with His help?

Romans 8:26-27 KJV VS NASB VS NRSV

In 1 Corinthians 1:18 the message has been changed to infer the process of being saved in the NASB & the NRSV rather than are saved as a result of believing the preaching of the cross per the KJV. All 3 versions has 1 Corinthians 1:21 testifying to that truth as maintained in the KJV.

1 Corinthians 1:18,21 KJV VS NASB VS NRSV

Now comparing that with the 1599 Geneva Bible of those two references, the Geneva Bible maintains the truth in 1 Corinthians 1:18,21 but it is worded differently for Romans 8:26-27. In verse 26, it has sighs that cannot be expressed hence still no sound and verse 27 as meaning instead of mind of the Spirit but still separates this "he" from us that searches our hearts and separates this he from the Spirit in knowing His mind or His meaning.

Romans 8:26-27 & 1 Corinthians 1:18,21 Comparing 3 versions with Geneva

It is interesting how the Geneva is different from the KJV but still kept the message of the truth in His words as far as those 2 examples go.

Never researched them but you KNOW they are bad. Typical.

You miss my point. I was given you a reason why mass production of Bibles didn't take place until after the revision of the KJV by Cambridge and Oxford. A revision that the Geneva Bible did not receive. The "American Standard" came from where and when?

 

[praise_yeshua]

@praise_yeshua

I believe the errant marginal notes in the Geneva Bible about defying those in authority may have been the cause for such banning since that was also one of the complaints of the Puritans as that can cause problems within the church to those in authority there.

One of the other irks the Puritans had towards the Geneva Bible was the errant marginal note that Jesus was Michael the archangel.

Although King James restricted the use of marginal notes in the KJV, nowadays, the KJV has footnotes that is contrary to scriptures where they assigned the behemoth in Job chapter 40 as being an alligator, a hippo, or an elephant BUT none of them has a tail as long as a cedar tree.

A dinosaur does.

This goes to show how Christian education of our modern day Biblical scholars can be tainted from reading the Bible as it is written.

Which now brings a startling discovery of the differences that the KJV has from the Geneva Bible.

Job Chapter 40 KJV VS 1599 Geneva Bible

One has to be careful comparing the two because Job 40:15 begins the description of the behemoth in the KJV and ends in verse 24 whereas the description of the behemoth begins in Job 40:10 and ends in verse 19 in the 1599 Geneva Bible before beginning on the Leviathan in verse 20.

Not sure why KJV separated the Leviathan into their next chapter, but they did.

Startling? How? It is just different. There is a reason for it. Since this is new to you, you might want to take time to do so more research to know why. Instead of taking the approach "The KJV is always right".....

It is telling how you reject the Geneva Bible because of a "bad" marginal note".... but you accept the KJV with "bad marginal notes"....

Why? Do you just prefer your mistake of choice?

 

[David1701]

Name a significant mistake in the Geneva Bible not shared with the KJV?

It sometimes mistranslates "metanoia" as "amendment of life", which is an implied result, but not the meaning of the word itself. I wouldn't call it a serious mistake though.

Matt. 3:11 (Geneva) In deede I baptize you with water to amendement of life, but he that commeth after me, is mightier then I, whose shoes I am not worthie to beare: hee will baptize you with the holy Ghost, and with fire.

 

[ChristB4us]

Is it your goal to "downplay" the impact? The KJV removed "tyranny". The KJV added "rule/ruler" in Hebrews 13. The crown set their archbishop over the translation. They controlled the translation in many ways.

That is why when you make a comment like that, you should provide a link to that "fact".

@David1701 Pretty much confirmed my suspicions that you were exaggerating since they did have influence but "little".

Small books. Not Bibles.

That you know of. You believe they were fervent for the Geneva Bible, & if you had a printing press in America, what would you do?

Wow... no Bibles.... I wonder why. The Printing an Bible during that period was a difficult task. We have many witnesses to the errors in editions due to printer mistakes.

But printing books is not? Hmm...

You have no reference to the mass printing of large editions of texts relative to the KJV or Geneva. It is nothing more than a distraction.

And vise versa.

Yes. Little. Did you know this before you just searched? If not, why not? Usually someone that takes to task to actually debate a subject... "doesn't make things up as they go".... They already know the subject. You're learning as you go. Which is good.... but I don't see why you should pretend you know the subject.

Pot calling kettle black.

History tells us that Puritans were loyal to the King. Might that tell you something about "why"? They rejected the "church of England" and sought to correct the corruption in it. They did these efforts "through the King".

Not sure why you seem to think you need to argue that point. I had not contested it.

Kind of hard to tell for how you present your prejudices towards the KJV.

An act of Congress with limited distribution. Again. Nothing in mass. Nothing of impact in the context of the discussion.

Does not mean no illegal Bible printing was not being done. it could just mean they were never caught.

Never researched them but you KNOW they are bad. Typical.

And yet you had inquired about them earlier.

Ever heard of the American Standard Version? When was this produced in America?

Ever heard of the Revision Standard Version? Who created that edition and was it "Authorized"?

So pot calling kettle black?

You miss my point. I was given you a reason why mass production of Bibles didn't take place until after the revision of the KJV by Cambridge and Oxford. A revision that the Geneva Bible did not receive. The "American Standard" came from where and when?

I believe your point was that the Puritans brought the Geneva Bible to America and not the KJV but you neglected to mention that in spite of when they first published the KJV in America, England was importing the KJV before that time into America.

I so seem to be getting snarky with you because of your judgments and so I apologized, but I do wish for you to knock it off.

Just address the issue and not berate each other because as you judge, you will be judged by that same standard, albeit, it would be better for me with Christ's love to take the offense and turn the other cheek, but I believe you can provide useful information in this discussions if you can avoid adding opinionated commentaries & bias to that effect.

The KJV is not a perfect Bible as if all bibles before it were bad. The KJV translators even said that in the preface to the KJV Bible.

But I rely on the KJV for the meat of His words as I trust Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd & Friend to give me the wisdom to understand and apply the meat of His words in the KJV to discern good and evil by His words as kept by those who loved Him & His words.

 

[ChristB4us]

Startling? How? It is just different. There is a reason for it. Since this is new to you, you might want to take time to do so more research to know why. Instead of taking the approach "The KJV is always right".....

It is telling how you reject the Geneva Bible because of a "bad" marginal note".... but you accept the KJV with "bad marginal notes"....

The original KJV did not have marginal notes, but these footnotes in the KJV we have now does have errors in it. I still use it just as I am sure you still use the Geneva Bible but ignore he errant marginal notes as I do the errant footnotes.

Why? Do you just prefer your mistake of choice?

@David1701

I prefer as I hope you do too, to trust Jesus Christ as our Good Shepherd to discern and prove everything by Him.

If there was no King James bible, & using the Geneva Bible, by His grace & By His help, I would rely on Him to discern those marginal notes as being in error and running against scripture.

So rely on Him to discern everything; even the hymns in the churches, because they are not always aligned with scripture, especially when a hymanl verse or the hymn itself is focusing on the Holy Spirit or addressing the Holy Spirit in worship when the indwelling Holy Spirit would be leading us to testify of the son in order to glorify the son in ministry & that has to also include worship.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

John 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

This is the standard of judgment raised over every believer and many Christians today are missing that standard.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
If the latter part of that verse was not written, then no one can say it was wrong to honor the holy Spirit, but because it is written, is why we are led by the Spirit to do otherwise and just honor the Son if we wish to honor the Father.
There is no other way to honor the Father by.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The Geneva Bible revolutionized the way English Bibles are used. In fact, the KJV plagiarized the Geneva Bible in word and in style.

1. It was the Geneva Bible that FIRST used chapter and verse distinctions. NOT the KJV.
2. The Geneva Bible was the work of Reformers. The reign of "Queen Mary" drove the Protestant scholars from England to Geneva. Those scholars worked to produce a Bible that was not authorized by the "crown of England" like the "Great Bible" and later "Bishops" bible.
3. The "Church of England" was controlled by the monarch in England throughout English history. This "relationship" undisputably "flavored" the "authorized" version from the crown of England in 1611.
4. The English empire often used "its" influence to assure the KJV was successful. Even banning the printing of Geneva Bible to eliminate competition and "driving" later edition of the KJV from Cambridge and Oxford.
5. If the Geneva Bible would have been allowed to flourish and receive revisions such as the KJV, then the Geneva Bible would have been the English translation of choice throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th century.

It wasn't plagiarism. They purposely used the Geneva, and Tyndale's, and a couple of others. They even referenced Jerome's Latin and the Septuagint.
1. Correct.
2. I gotta look into that one.
3. Not quite sure what you mean by "flavor."
4. The purpose was a translation to improve upon the other authorized versions and to have one unifying bible for the people.
5. The KJV was a revision of the Geneva.

 

[David1701]

It wasn't plagiarism. They purposely used the Geneva, and Tyndale's, and a couple of others. They even referenced Jerome's Latin and the Septuagint.
1. Correct.
2. I gotta look into that one.
3. Not quite sure what you mean by "flavor."
4. The purpose was a translation to improve upon the other authorized versions and to have one unifying bible for the people.
5. The KJV was a revision of the Geneva.

The KJV was a revision of the Bishop's Bible, not the Geneva.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The KJV was a revision of the Bishop's Bible, not the Geneva.

All four previous English translations were used (Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops, Geneva).
Tyndale's was used but a great volume was from the Geneva.

 

[Fred]

The Geneva Bible

I do like how it capitalizes the "Name".