Questions of Geneva Bible use.

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by agedman, May 5, 2012.

  1. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    I am not certain this is the forum for this discussion. I wanted some incite from Biblical scholars on their own views on the Geneva (or Breeches) Bible.


    1) Does anyone rely upon the Geneva Bible for their final authority and bible study?

    2) The Separatists and Puritans used the Geneva Bible exclusively and refused to have a KJV even if given one. Why then is the KJV the standard bearing (and most trashed) of all versions?

    3) Some would view the only reason King James desired to supplant the King's Version was to do away with the margin notes that were in the Geneva. Would this thinking be valid in both his and our day?

    4) Why couldn't the king merely reprint the Geneva Bible without the margin notes if he were so very concerned with them?

    5) Is there a "life style" claim about KJ and the KJV that modern "only and preferred" ignore and would rather not address in which the Geneva Bible has no agenda or translation has no such stain?

    6) Do you own a Geneva Bible, or do you use online resources such as The Geneva-Bible.com Link here
     
  2. glazer1972

    glazer1972
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2010
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. I don't.
    2. I guess cause it was the one in common circulation when someone decided to make a big deal about which one we should be using.
    3. I have heard that that was the reasoning.
    4. Probably so that he could save face. You know not having anything to do with those pesky reformers.
    5. Not sure since I am not an only but if God did only give us one "pure" Word then I believe the KJO crowd got it wrong.
    6. I have the Geneva on my E-Sword program but I am considering the purchase of a facsimile copy.
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I own a geneva Bible, 1599 version. Have read very little in it but reminds me of KJV. The Geneva Bible I have uses current shape of letters, not those of the 16th Century.
     
  4. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    I have been reading the link that I posted.

    It is my understanding that approx. 80% of the KJV is like the Geneva Bible.

    The more I read it, the more I like.
     
  5. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    44
    Here you go, Agedman:


    Here's John Robinson, pastor to the Pilgrims, using the KJB:
     
  6. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    44
    Hilarious quote from the website of the Calvinist/Reconstructionist movement's own Tolle Lege Press, which put out an edition of 1599 Geneva Bible several years ago—they had no problem altering the Geneva Bible scripture text into "modern spelling", but refused to correct cross reference errors found in the notes because:
    Gasp! Parish the thought! LOL
     
  7. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    With respect to this question: I responded to a somewhat similar question about "why" in a previous thread: Hope you think it helps...

     
  8. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0

    Sorry, that is plain wrong. (No offence intended :)). The U.K. or United Kingdom (full name: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) did not come into existence until 1801. Indeed, even the unification of England with Scotland, with a single parliament at Westminster, only took place in 1707. King James I had died in 1625!

    So during his reign there was no UK (so no "Capital of the U.K."), and he did not perform your Step 2.

    Concerning the various parts of your Step 3, possibly the following excerpt from a Banner of Truth article may be pertinent (emphasis mine):
    As James was travelling south to London to 1603 to inherit the English crown, the Puritan party in the Church of England presented him with the 'Millenary Petition',4 appealing for a more complete reformation of Anglicanism. That Petition was followed by the Hampton Court Conference in 1604. At that Conference there were only four Puritan delegates. They were heavily outnumbered by the Bishops who, along with James, slapped them down in no uncertain terms. Bishop Richard Bancroft even described some aspects of Puritan belief as being those of 'infidels'. From a Puritan point of view Hampton Court was a failure except that - and here was massive unintended consequence as well as the sovereignty of God - one of the Puritans threw into the discussion the possibility of a new translation of the Bible. James enthusiastically agreed and said that he had '. . . never seen a Bible well translated into English'. Thus began the seven-year work on the King James Bible.
    The complete article may be read at: http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?1939
     
  9. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow or there's that :laugh: Did I get my history so wrong??? UGGHH, I know it came from somewhere...Guess I'll brush up on it some :thumbsup: But there was some political benefit no? He WAS a Scot right? He did relocate his capital to England yes?? I have obviously read too much into this...But with respect to your article...were there not scholars from numerous factions involved in Translation, including Puritans?? Thanks for the correction :wavey:
     
    #9 HeirofSalvation, May 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2012
  10. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Open mouth, insert foot. Been there, done that! :laugh:
     
  11. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    What makes the KJV the better of the two in comparison to the Geneva bible? Does the KJV use the TR and the GB use the CT? What is it?
     
  12. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, NOT the BEST feeling ever...strictly speaking...:tonofbricks: he he Well, I could benefit from the humbling....And I had worked so long and hard on that initial post too!!!! Only to get smacked down by some friggin "bisquit-eating" limey Brit!!! what does HE KNOW :tongue3:

    YORKTOWN David, just remember YORKTOWN!!! grumble grumble :mad:
     
    #12 HeirofSalvation, May 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2012
  13. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    44
    Take a look at the official website of the British Monarchy. It might make you feel better.:wavey:

    http://www.royal.gov.uk/Historyofth...oftheUnitedKingdom/TheStuarts/TheStuarts.aspx

     
  14. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    YUP!!SEEE.....I knew...even if I took my historical understanding too far...it was based on something!!! Yes, take that limey...:D

    So...as I said:
     
    #14 HeirofSalvation, May 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2012
  15. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Apologies for the delay in replying – I've had a minor illness – nothing at all to worry about, but enough to keep me from the computer!)

    Don't worry, HeirofSalvation. I am sure that your knowledge of my country's history is better than my knowledge of yours! :laugh:

    I think part of the problem may be caused by the difference between "a united kingdom" (meaning any two monarchies united under one monarch), and "the United Kingdom", the short form (now usually shortened even more to "the U.K.") of the name of our nation, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". (I admit that I cannot explain the use of the upper case U and K on what Jerome calls "the official website of the British Monarchy", particularly as according to the on-line etymological dictionary assures me that the phrase "United Kingdom" only came into use in the mid-18th century).

    As for your questions, yes, James (cousin of the previous monarch, Elizabeth I) was a Scot, but he didn't move a capital; London already was the capital of England. Why did he rule from London rather than Edinburgh? I don't know. It could be something as simple as the fact that England is larger than Scotland, and for that reason alone, more prestigious. The scholars involved in translation were not from numerous factions. As far as I am aware, they were all members of the Church of England, most from the bishops' faction and some from the Puritan faction.

    But I am am sure that someone like Steve (Martin Marprelate) would be able to answer all this far more accurately and clearly than I. :laugh:
     
  16. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    I wanted some incite (should have been spelled insight - not an argument but some responsible views and thinking - though argument seems to be the norm of the BB) from Biblical scholars on their own views on the Geneva (or Breeches) Bible.

    Dave, from your own perspective could you provide a bit of your wisdom to the OP questions?


    1) Does anyone rely upon the Geneva Bible for their final authority and bible study?

    2) The Separatists and Puritans used the Geneva Bible exclusively and refused to have a KJV even if given one. Why then is the KJV the standard bearing (and most trashed) of all versions?

    3) Some would view the only reason King James desired to supplant the King's Version was to do away with the margin notes that were in the Geneva. Would this thinking be valid in both his and our day?

    4) Why couldn't the king merely reprint the Geneva Bible without the margin notes if he were so very concerned with them?

    5) Is there a "life style" claim about KJ and the KJV that modern "only and preferred" ignore and would rather not address in which the Geneva Bible has no agenda or translation has no such stain?

    6) Do you own a Geneva Bible, or do you use online resources such as The Geneva-Bible.com.
     
  17. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    My wisdom? Are you sure? :laugh: Well, I'll give it a go, but don't expect anything too "scholarly":

    I don't know of anyone who does, but there could be people who do so.

    I can't answer that one, because I don't believe that the KJV is the standard-bearer. I believe that the original Greek and Hebrew are the touchstone against which any translation of the bible into any language should be measured.

    I don't really understand. Why would the King want to supplant, that is replace, the king's version? Maybe you didn't mean "supplant", or perhaps that word has a different meaning in "American English". Regarding marginal notes, in our day, many English translations, including KJV and NKJV, are available either with or without any additional notes.

    See above. Also, as I understand it, James didn't think to himself one day, "I don't like the Geneva bible of the Puritans, or the Bishops' Bible. I know what I'll do: I'll order the best Greek and Hebrew scholars in the land to make a new translation!" Rather, it was proposed by John Reynolds, one of the Puritan delegates at the Hampton Conference. Here is a paragraph from The Authorised Version - A Wonderful and Unfinished Story by C. P. Hallihan, published last year to mark the 400th anniversary of the 1611 translation (emphases mine):
    The second day saw the leading Puritans, John Reynolds, Laurence Chaderton, John Knewstubs and Thomas Sparke, presenting their case for reform in the preaching, the liturgy and the Bible of the English church. John Reynolds was hugely concerned `that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of King Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the original:" To the dismay of the bishops, James seemed only too willing to hear, showing a great deal of understanding and accord. A programme to provide able preachers was as agreeable to the king as to Reynolds. A new translation of the Bible, framed from the Hebrew and Greek and to be published without notes, suggested by Reynolds, was quite acceptable to His Majesty....​



    I'm not KJVO or KJVP, so I wouldn't know. It's not something I have discussed with good Christian friends for whom the KJV is their preferred or only choice.

    I use on-line sources if I wish to refer to a translation other than those I have in printed form (KJV, NKJV, NRSV, NIV).

    I don't know if that helps at all, or even if it is the sort of thing you meant. :)
     
  18. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    Thanks for your response.
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    All the translators of the KJV were members of the Church of England and were in good standing with that Church.

    A few of the KJV translators had once belonged to the Puritan party in the Church of England, but they had to conform to Archbishop Bancroft's 1604 canons to avoid persecution.

    Gustavus Paine observed that by 1606 "all the Puritan translators had conformed enough to escape being banished or direly punished in other ways" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 97).
    Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108). Lee wrote: "The canons of 1604 demanded that every benefice-holder subscribe to a statement that the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles were entirely agreeable to the word of God" (Great Britain's Solomon, p. 172). Fisher observed that Bancroft “procured from Convocation, with the King’s approval, the passage of a series of canons which forbade, under penalty of excommunication, the least deviation from the Prayer Book, or any disparagement of the established system of government and worship in the Church” (History, p. 398).
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). Bernard Levinson and Joshua Berman pointed out that the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible “contained some interpretations that were sympathetic to the right of the oppressed to resist a tyrant, and that raised questions about ‘the divine right of kings’” (KJB at 400, p. 4). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10). Vance maintained that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21).


    Pastor John Mincy affirmed: "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131). Ward Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people" (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3). KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206). In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97). Kenneth Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87). Stephen Miller and Robert Huber affirmed that King James “hated the Geneva Bible” (The Bible, p. 178). In the introduction to his Condensed Commentary, Ingram Cobbin wrote: “King James bore it [Geneva Bible] an inveterate hatred on account of the notes” (p. ix). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). Ronald Cammenga asserted that “the king objected to certain notes that he interpreted to deny the divine right of kings, notes that justified disobedience to the king under certain circumstances” (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, Nov., 2011, p. 56). The Local Preachers’ Magazine maintained that “King James disliked the notes of the Geneva Bible, because they were unfriendly to the despotic policy on which he acted after ascending the throne of England” (March, 1853, p. 112). Alister McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147). Do KJV-only advocates agree with King James's thinking?


    What did those marginal notes say that upset King James I? At Daniel 6:22, the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible has this marginal note: "For he did disobey the king's wicked commandment to obey God, and so did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing whereby God should be dishonoured." At Exodus 1:19, it has this note: "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil." The note at Exodus 1:22 is as follows: "When tyrants can not prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage." In his article in a modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Marshall Foster observed: “The marginal note in the Geneva Bible at Exodus 1:19 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian rulers. King James called such interpretations ‘seditious.‘ The tyrant knew that if the people could hold him accountable to God’s Word, his days as a king ruling by ‘Divine Right’ were numbered” (p. xxv). At Matthew 2:19, the marginal note has the word tyrant [“Christ is brought up in Nazareth, after the death of the tyrant, by God’s providence”]. Its note at Matthew 10:28 stated: “Though tyrants be never so raging and cruel, yet we may not fear them.“ At Acts 12:2, its note again referred to tyrants [“It is an old fashion of tyrants to procure the favour of the wicked with the blood of the godly”]. McGrath maintained that "the Geneva notes regularly use the word 'tyrant' to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word" (In the Beginning, p. 143). Long after King James’ death, these notes were in a few editions of the KJV, such as one in 1672. At the top of the page that has Isaiah 14, the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has this heading: “The fall of the tyrant.“ At the top of the page that has Ezekiel 32, the 1560 Geneva Bible has this heading: “The end of tyrants.“ The 1611 KJV did have the word “tyrant” in the Apocrypha [Wisdom of Solomon 12:14, 2 Maccabees 4:25, 7:27].


    Perhaps it was not only the marginal notes that caused King James to dislike the Geneva Bible. If it was only the notes that bothered the king, why didn’t he have the text printed without those notes? Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”


    Concerning Genesis 10:8-9, Ovid Need wrote: “Both the text wording and the notes of the Geneva speak harshly against oppressors and tyrants, such as we have today. As I have used the Geneva and compared it with the KJV, I understand why King James wanted to rid Christians of the Geneva” (Biblical Examiner, January, 2007, p. 2). Ovid Need added: “An example is found in Matthew 2:6, KJV says a governor, where the Geneva says, the governor. The strong wording that demands that only one Sovereign, Jehovah God in the form of Jesus Christ was removed from the KJV” (Ibid.).



    Edwin Bissell commented: “Whatever else James I might tolerate he would not allow any weakening of the doctrine of the supremacy of kings. And no other version of the English Bible betrayed such definite leanings toward that tenet as the one made under his own direction” (Historic Origin, p. 78). Donald Brake commented: “James was particularly concerned about keeping the Puritans from gaining any direct influence on his favorite kingship doctrines” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 120). Adam Nicolson referred to the KJV as a “monarchist Bible” (God’s Secretaries, p. 60). In an article entitled “Whose ‘majesty’ were the KJV translators exalting?“ by Ken Camp, Laura Knoppers maintained that the KJV translators “had an agenda--to provide scriptural support for the divine right of kings” (Baptist Standard, April 21, 2011). Knoppers asserted that “the translation blurred distinctions between the attributes of God and attributes of the earthly king” (Ibid.). The 1611 KJV’s contents chapter heading at Ecclesiastes 10 for verse 20 is “Men’s thoughts of kings ought to be reverend.“ That comment was still found in a KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 although it has one spelling change of “reverend” to “reverent.“ The same form of this comment as found in the 1769 Cambridge was still found in editions of the KJV printed at Cambridge in 1872 and 1887 and at Oxford in 1868, 1876, and 1885. In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson referred to him as “the Most High and Mighty Prince.“ Jonathan Stonis asserted: “We completely and fully reject the blasphemy of referring to King James as “The Most High” (Juror’s Verdict, p. 130).
     

Share This Page

Loading...