King James or the Geneva?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Walls, Feb 2, 2004.

  1. Walls

    Walls
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible enraged the Catholic Church, since the notes deemed the act of confession to men – the Catholic Bishops – as unjustified by Holy Script. Man should confess to God only; man’s private life was man’s private life. The notes also infuriated King James, since they allowed disobedience to tyrannical kings. King James went so far as to make ownership of the Geneva Bible a felony. He then proceeded to make his own version of the Bible, but without the marginal notes that had so disturbed him. Consequently, during King James’s reign, and into the reign of Charles I, the Geneva Bible was gradually replaced by the King James Bible.

    To read entire article: http://www.globalcorp.com/geneva-bible/
     
  2. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Walls.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    I often ask the KJVOs, "Is the Geneva Bible the word of God or not?" After all, God promised to preserve His words unto all generations, right? And in order to have PRESERVED His words to every generation after that generation which first received them, He would have PRESENTED it to them, right? OK, let's assume that the Tyndale Bible was the first presentation of God's words in English. It was followed by versions such as Coverdale's Bible, through the GB, each version different from the others.Well, the GB was the "standard" English-language Bible for almost a hundred years, and it is different from the AV 1611 which followed it, right?(Example: The AV, in Psalm 12:7, reads, "...thou shalt preserve *THEM*..." while the GB reads, "...thou shalt preserve *HIM*...". Which rendering is correct, O KJVOs?)

    Wonder why the KJVOs won't simply answer those two simple little questions-"Is the Geneva Bible the word of God? Which rendering of Psalm 12:7 is correct-the GB's or the AV's?" Do they think more of their myth than they do of the truth of how God actually has chosen to preserve/present His word in English?
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,176
    Likes Received:
    324
    The RCC has its Douay-Rheims with notes as well.
    The war of the Worlds!

    The DR English NT was published in 1582.

    The KJV agrees in MANY passages of the NT word-for-word with the DR. Far too many to be a coincidence.

    Go figure.

    HankD
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
  6. Walls

    Walls
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sure wouldn't use a RCC Bible. :eek:
     
  7. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    You guys haven't yet said anything about the other contemporary version, the Bishop's Bible. Why not? :confused:
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,176
    Likes Received:
    324
    Why not johnv?

    Surprise yourself and compare the John 1:1-14 passages.

    Douay-Rheims
    John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
    2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
    4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.
    5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.
    6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
    7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.
    8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.
    9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.
    10 He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.
    11 He came unto his own: and his own received him not.
    12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.
    13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
    14 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

    KJV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
    5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
    6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
    7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
    8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
    9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
    10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
    11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
    12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
    13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
    14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    The Douay-Rheims is great for witnessing to Catholics. I have been in many Catholic homes on visitation and used it.

    Like any translation it has its weaknesses. It has the Apocrypha but so then so did the 1611 KJB. In fact, I recently bought a KJB with the Apocrypha included.

    HankD
     
  9. Walls

    Walls
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why not johnv?

    </font>[/QUOTE]I think you misquoted. I am the one that said that. Even if the KJV was word for word with the RCC I would have a problem.
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,176
    Likes Received:
    324
    oops, right walls, sorry.

    But Walls many of the scribes and keepers of the Word were of the RCC.

    Also, some of the first English translations of the Scripture were the Latin Vulgate to English.

    But I understand your mistrust being a former Catholic.

    HankD
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Craig, I recall reading somewhere that in 1610, the Tyndale, Matthews, Cranmer, & Great Bibles were all also still in use in various parts of the realm, but that the GB was the most popular because of its low price, Roman font, & the eminence of its translators(Coverdale, Whittingham, Foxe of Foxe's Book of Martyrs fame, to name a few).
     

Share This Page

Loading...