1599 Geneva Bible

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by BruceB, Oct 26, 2007.

  1. BruceB

    BruceB
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.tollelegepress.com/gb/geneva.php

    Has anyone here ordered this Bible yet? It is advertised on the back cover of the October issue of the American Family Association Journal (one version can be had as cheaply as $35.95). I looked over the download (you have to register to get the free download of Romans). It is set in modern type, but is supposed to be the 1599 Geneva Bible text and notes. Was wondering about quality and accuracy from someone who purchased one. Thanks.
     
  2. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    44
    Notice on the first pages of Matthew reproduced on the webpage, the "Restored 2006 Edition!" has cross reference "c" as Genesis 25:14. The actual 1599 edition's reference is hard to make out, but Genesis 25:14 is obviously not correct.

    Genesis 25:14
    And Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa,
     
    #2 Jerome, Oct 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2007
  3. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    44
    Also, the cross references "n" and "o" are not correct.
    Their reprinting policy seems inconsistent.
    "Tension arises when we want to see a historical document in the way that it was first published. How can we do that if we are also making alterations to it? We must decide to publish the authentic document just as it was, or decide to publish an edited version of it. If we start to change things, regardless of how justified we feel they are, we will no longer have the same Bible the Pilgrims brought to this country."
    Yet they did "start to change things" by modernizing and standardizing spelling. That is not "just as it was".
    However they are unwilling to note or correct obvious cross reference misprints, because that would imply that “John Calvin, et al, made a typo”
    So it is OK to edit the scripture part of the Geneva Bible, but we dare not correct Calvin's references? INCREDIBLE
     
    #3 Jerome, Oct 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2007
  4. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Geneva Bible

    Too pricey for me. It has an interesting history--particularly relating to King James I's aversion to it also it's use by a New Testament Church which was on the Mayflower(yep, Pilgrims, without Roger Williams) somewhat floundering off the New England Coast, circa Nov. 1620. Some say the KJV is a revised Geneva. I still think there are "two streams" of Bibles, one of them being seriously adulterated by the Holy? See?

    What say you?

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
    #4 Bro. James, Oct 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2007
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes, I have a copy of the hardcover edition of the modern-spelling 1599 Geneva Bible.

    In their preface, it is noted that their source copy was the reprint of the 1599 Geneva Bible by L. L. Brown Publishing.

    The preface claimed: "Every word, as well as exact sentence structure, of the source edition is retained. We carefully have preserved the use of italics, by the which the original translators indicated that they had supplied words not found in the original manuscripts. We have retained captizalization of words, even at the risk of presenting anomalies to contemporary eyes."

    The preface stated: "We added apostrophes for possessives (which were not used in the English of that day) because these were determined not to be changes in meaning."

    The preface stated: "We have also changed the spelling of the proper names in the Bible to that of the NKJV, since this can greatly help the contemporary reader, and does not compromise the meaning of the original edition. If, however, the NKJV used a completely different word than the source text, we have retained the word from the source text."
     

Share This Page

Loading...