Why did the Calvinists abandon the Geneva Bible?

William Tyndale's notes were more Calvinistic than the Geneva Version. He largely translated Martin Luther's Prefaces to the various books of the New Testament.I'm not speaking of marginal notes.

 

The Authorized Version was never officially authorized, although some take the order for translation to be that. I do not. It is protected by the crown, but was never actually, officially authorized as far as I can tell.

As far as the margin references and alternate renderings, those are preserved in english printed KJBs (Cambridge, Oxford, etc). I consider them extremely useful.

One thing I've learned about history from sources outside the bible is that they rarely, if ever agree, and they certainly are not above scrutiny.

 

History channel

The history channel had an interesting story that due to the restrictions of English copyright it was illegal to print KJVs in America. The Mayflower was filled with Geneva Bibles except for one KJV that was given to the captain as a gift and he brought it over in his cabin under lock and key.

Many KJV's were printed and the English tried (before the revolt) to stop this illegal printing, but the question was whether or not the Americans believed they were under English control. So, many printed the KJV and sold it locally with some going to court to fight it, but eventually when America obtained its independence, they started printing the KJV without question and told England to get over it because their law only covered English territory and still does to this day. This is the only reason it was referred to as the Authorized Bible. A printer would print "The Authorized King Jame's Version" on the front of the Bible to make sure the buyer was aware they were buying a legitimate English accepted printing.

Actually, the KJV was supposedly more accurate than the earlier versions such as the Bishop's and other pre-KJV versions. This is explained in the original 1611 in the front where it discusses that the translators were not trying to replace other versions, but only to improve what was already available and I think that is a lot of what we see today. It is an improvement when the Bible version you pick up is much easier to read because it uses the same language we are used to reading.

I have read the KJV all of my life and can understand it, but still enjoy reading an ESV, NASB or other modern version. I will also read a lot more in one sitting because I don't have to keep words straight in my head. The KJV's problem is primarily its later day 1611 English or even Oxford 1769 which is the typical KJV sold today.

I never could understand why fundamentalist churches, one my daughter attends has KJV 1611 marked all across the front of the front on a big sign with a cross between. I have a big problem visiting, but I am glad my daughter is in church. I have told her that I never could get along there because it is a fundamental theological issue that irks me when the pastor says "MY" Bible (whatever it is besides a KJV 1611 -- which he is not using) is written by Satan. I think that is walking under a tree in a thunderstorm.