Comparing the KJV and the Geneva

I apologize to all for the 'rabbit trail'.

I must confess that I do not own a Geneva Bible; however, I am familiar with its history. It is my understanding that one of the reasons the KJV was undertaken is because that ol' King James did not like the Geneva's calvanistic leanings. I do not know how widely the Geneva Bible is still being used today; however, it seems that it did not, nor has not, enjoyed the same popularity as the KJV. I believe that we all can agree that God's Word will be preserved. We do not necessarily agree on how. Strictly from a layman's standpoint (I have or formal theology or bible training), which version seems to have been able to hold up the longest, have the farthest reaching impact, etc.

 

Since this is GB/KJV thread I assume you mean of the two?

That being the case it is clearly the KJV.

 

It's true that the KJV has experienced more popularity, longevity of use, etc. I don't think anyone can deny that fact.

AVL1984

 

Of course, the KJV's popularity was given a boost over the Geneva Bible when the monarchy issued a decree in 1616 that forbade the printing of the Geneva Bible on British soil. The Geneva, which at that time still enjoyed widespread usage, suddenly became much more difficult to obtain. Some devotees resorted to importing copies which had been printed in the Netherlands, but this act was viewed as a mark of disloyalty to the King.

Here's a brief excerpt from the web that offers a furthur description:

 

I wonder if God was ordaining governments in the 1600s? Since God never changes, he probably was. So to whom do we attribute the going-ons of the authorities in 1642? Is it really one of history's great mysteries?

The OP illustrated the differences in the Geneva and KJV Bibles. Which one is wrong, and which one is right? Can there be 2 rights, or will the Holy Spirit guide us to perfect truth?

I look at the present, and I know what the future holds for me, and although I'm by no means an expert, I will have to place my trust in the KJV.

All of you (well, maybe not all) are really good at educating this old country boy. I really appreciate the posts, especially those pertaining to Christian history. I am really considering some online or correspondence bible classes. Of course, you do not get the one-on-one interaction that you get here.

 

So, let me see, willie, are you saying that the Geneva Bible isn't the Word of God, nor was it the Word of God?

AVL1984

 

Nope, would never be so brazen to say that the Geneva Bible was not the Word of God, and I do believe that it was ordained by God, especially considering the circumstances under which it was written. However, for what purpose? Obviously, as is the case today, there were multiple Word of God (I do not know how to make Word Of God plural in this case). For some reason, the KJV is the prevalent version (relative to the Geneva) today. Your original post illustrated the differences in the text of the two versions. It comes down to a decision on which one we personally believe contains errors, or others may simply call them omissions. My belief, based upon the ensuing circumstances, is that the KJV best represented, and represents today, the inerrant Word of God. Do you believe the Geneva Bible was the 'Word of God'?

 

Sorry AVL1984. Didn't mean to attribute the OP to you. I know that you didn't post it, but was trying to type my reply too fast.

 

Not a problem, williemakeit.

AVL1984

 

williemakeit
"I wonder if God was ordaining governments in the 1600s?"
"
One supposes so. A number of government authorized translations of the bible were made in that period. My country has one that used a better edition of the TR than the one used for the English AV of 1611.
And God still does (a completely new translation of the Bible in Dutch authorized by the Dutch monarch will be published late oktober this year).

" which version seems to have been able to hold up the longest, have the farthest reaching impact, etc."
''
The Vulgate translation of the Bible is still in widespread use after more than 1500 years.

 

Thanks, mioque.

My statements were relative to the comparison between the Geneva and the KJV bibles. You did peak my interest, though, so I would like to know the name of the Bible that you referenced in your statement "My country has one that used a better edition of the TR than the one used for the English AV of 1611."

I would venture that the Vulgate enjoys a popularity in scholarly research circles (in which I have never been qualified to participate), but for sheer numbers distributed, I believe that the numbers may be on the side of the KJV.

God bless.

 

williemakeit
The Bible I referred to is the Statenbijbel (or statenvertaling) of 1637.
http://www.coas.nl/bijbel/

"I would venture that the Vulgate enjoys a popularity in scholarly research circles, but for sheer numbers distributed, I believe that the numbers may be on the side of the KJV."
"
The Vulgate (or direct translations of it) is still the source of the Bible texts used during the liturgy of the Catholic Church. There are +/- 1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide at the moment. Most of them don't use it (or any other Bible) for in depth Bible study, but there are millions of Vulgatebibles around.

 

Here is a verse from the Geneva:
Psalm 12:6-7 (Geneva)

Psa 12:6 The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes, as the siluer, tried in a fornace of earth, fined seuen folde.
Psa 12:7 Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer.

Obviously the "them" in verse 7 refers
to the The wordes of the Lord in verse 6.
Likewise the "him" in verse 7 probably
refers (NOT!) to the same wordes of the Lord.
This is proof positive that the Geneva Bible
is God's Holy Worde and contains The wordes of the Lord.

 

I've been to many KJVO churches, but I have yet to see a Geneva only church.

 

And I've read many KJVO books and tracks and I have yet to see scripture that supports KJVOism and tell me which KJV is perfect.

Your point is?

 

What VALID reason did anyone have for replacing the GB with the AV? I don't consider KJ's dislike of the GB to be a valid reason.

 

And that's a real shame, Terry...It might do you some good.

 

Your logical error is "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam". Just because you are
ignorant (don't know) of any Geneva Onlyism
doesn't mean that there is not any
Geneva Onlyism. As a matter of fact, the
Bishop's Bible was much more popular than
the Geneva Bible.