Why not the Geneva Bible?

Amy, good question. One i would like to have an answer to as well.

 

Amy.G:

All I can say is , "Rotsa Ruck!" (As Scooby Doo would say!)

 

Yep, as soon as you make it about 'Ruck'-man the whole
can of worms is totally open

 

I think it was late November 2007 that THE GENEVA BIBLE,
1560 Edition, (Hendrickson, 2007) was released. I have
a copy in the mail as soon as it was realesed.

Back in 1776 when the proto-USofA (13 British colonies in
America) was rebelling against the British Crown.

The Geneva Bible cost less than the new
KJV (King James Version), 1769 Edition (Newly Revised
and Editied for modern spelling and puncutation).
However, the now out of print Geneva Bibles cost
what the KJV did LESS THE CROWN FOR THE KING'S
TAX. Hello! a third of the price of a KJV went to the
King Of England - King George the Third. None
of the price of a Used Geneva Bible went to the King
of England.

If perchance you buy a Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition,
buy a page magnifier and reading glasses to go with it --
you will need them! Those commentary notes are mighty
jumbled together small print. I haven't found the one yet
that says the Pope (Bishop of Rome) is the antichrist.

 

Sadly, the vast majority of Christains have never heard of the Geneva bible, and they never will.

 

No doubt, the Geneva is an influencial text in our English Bible heritage. It was also the first to be printed with a 'roman' typeface, to have versification, and to use italics to identify the inserted words of the translators unsupported by the original language.

There are perhaps many reasons that the Geneva Bible fell out of favor, and until recently it was mostly forgotten. Often the blame is placed upon the English Crown and its state Church establishment. Sometimes it is blamed upon the Calvinistic flavor found in the Geneva volume itself (many editions had a 'catechism' of doctrinal questions and answers bound in).

But here are two little known facts about the Geneva (according to Metzger in a 1960 Theology Today article). First, in the New Testament the margins contain more than a dozen variant readings found in Codex Bezae (which might cause some readers to "doubt" the certainty of the scriptures). Second, it includes the Prayer of Manasseh within the canonical books (after II Chronicles and before Ezra), while the rest of the apocryphal writings were segregated together into a separate section. The Prayer of Manasseh continued to remain in the Geneva after the rest of the Apocrypha was omitted in later editions.

 

William Bradley, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The translators changed virtually nothing from William Tyndale’s New Testament in the New Testament of the Geneva Bible” (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva “differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts” (Things That Are Different, p. 48). In addition, Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible “is from the same manuscripts as the King James” (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17). Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text that underlies the King James Version” (Which Bible, p. 51). After the question "Where was the Bible before the KJV of 1611" at the top of a page, Riplinger indicated that it was found in the English 1599 in the Nuremberg Polyglot Bible [which would have been an edition of the Geneva Bible] (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 1052). David Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout” (Bible Versions, p. 11).

If KJV-only advocates really believe that the Geneva Bible was the Word of God in English in 1560 and believe their own claims concerning the word of God, should they have been unwilling to have one word or even one syllable of it changed?

 

Hi Pop! You might try looking at Revelation 17:4; also Rev. 9:6 or 11:7, but the notes varied in different editions. My paperback Geneva NT is without any notes.

 

The popularity and wide use of the Geneva Bible is even acknowledged by some KJV-only authors. Robert Sargent and Laurence Vance both confirmed that the Geneva Bible "became the Bible of the people" (English Bible, p. 197; Brief History, p. 19). Phil Stringer referred to the Geneva as “the people’s Book“ and as “the Bible of the common man” (History, p. 13). William Bradley wrote: "The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the people, the Bible of the persecuted Christians and martyrs of the faith, the Bible of choice among English-speaking people for over one hundred years" (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Bradley also commented: “The Geneva Bible was the most widespread English Bible for a period of about one hundred years, from the 1560’s to the 1660’s” (To All Generations, p. 64). David Cloud stated: "The Geneva quickly became the most popular English Bible and wielded a powerful influence for almost 100 years" (Rome and the Bible, p. 108).

 

Benson Bobrick maintained that the Geneva Bible "paid meticulous attention to the Greek and Hebrew originals" (Wide as the Waters, p. 175). Charles Butterworth noted: "The Geneva Bible is above all anxious to be accurate; it is clean-cut, honest, and straightforward; it is both scholarly and pious" (Literary Lineage, p. 236). Concerning the Geneva Bible, Glenn Conjurske asserted: “Accuracy was its main concern and its main characteristic” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 86). Ken Connolly suggested that the Geneva Bible translators "painstakingly worked over minute details of the text, giving a faithful translation and achieving agreement between all the collaborators" (Indestructible Book, p. 155). Kenneth Latourette wrote: “Embodying thorough scholarship, it also had an English style which delighted the rank and file of readers, was printed in Roman rather than black letters and in convenient style, and enjoyed a wide circulation” (History of Christianity, II, p. 817). David Daniell reported: “It was a masterpiece of Renaissance scholarship and printing, and Reformation Bible thoroughness” (Bible in English, p. 291). David Lawton asserted: “The Geneva Bible is a superb production in the tradition of Tyndale” (Faith, p. 64). Kerr wrote: “With the Geneva we have a true ‘people’s Bible‘--written in vigorous English, exhibiting careful scholarship without sounding pedantic, and widely available” (Ancient Texts, p. 93). Frank Gaebelein observed: “Whittingham and his co-workers produced a translation of notable scholarship and beauty” (Story, p. 40). P. W. Raidabaugh asserted that “the men who prepared it were scholars acquainted with the original; and, though they derived assistance from other versions, did not follow any of them with servility” (History of the English Bible, p. 45). Blackford Condit maintained that “the language of the Geneva version is remarkable for its Saxon simplicity” (History, p. 252). Charles Butterworth pointed out: "Broadly defined, the Geneva Bible was a sweeping revision of the text of the Great Bible in the Old Testament and a careful revision of the edition of 1557 in the New Testament" (Literary Lineage, p. 165). It was influenced by Olivetan’s French Bible. In an appendix entitled “When and how we get our Bible,” a Sunday School Scholars’ Edition of the KJV stated that the Geneva Bible “is pre-eminently the Protestant Bible” (p. 6).

 

At the back the Geneva 1560 Bible has a list
of Proper Names in the Bible and their
meaning.

Doesn't have 'Ed' though?

Joshua 22:34 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Then the children of Reuben, and the children of Gad
called the altar Ed: for it shall
be a witnesse betweene vs, that the Lord is God.

Well, it only shows up once in the Bible??
and twice in my name

 

Yep, that whore of Revelation 17:1 is compared to the Antichrist
and in a note to Revelation 17:4 to the Pope.

NOTE f (Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition Commentary):

This woman is the Antichrist, that is the Pope,
ye* whole bodie of his filthie creatures, as is expounded.

Ed's note about 'ye' This is actually a thorn ('th' sound,
but looks like a 'y' with an 'e' over it. That makes for
very small print a thorne 'y' with a regular 'y' over it
is the word 'they'.

 

What's all the ruckus ( pun intended ) about then ? From what I have read here and elsewhere the KJVO'ers don't have any complaints about the Geneva Bible . There isn't much difference between the Geneva Bible and the KJV(s) . So , if that is acknowledged , then following the path of logic and sound reasoning why all the hue and cry over those 'accursed changes' that have been made to the Word of God with other versions ?

 

Hence the ridiculous notion that years ago, people in England said things like, "I'm going to yee oldy teashoppy", that has spawned a number of cafes here with names like "Ye Olde English Teashoppe." As Ed says, the y in "ye" is the thorn, and was pronounced just like our "th". There is a brief explaination at: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/ye
There is even a "Ye Olde English Tearoom" in Jerusalem! http://www.israelvisit.co.il/old-english/tea-room.htm
Incidentally, the thorn originally looks more like a p than a y:

I understand the change came about with the introduction of the printing-press, from Germany, which did not use the original p-like form.
(Sorry, I'm straying from ye topic! :laugh: )

 

Was the Geneva Bible more up-to-date or clearer than the later KJV in some of its renderings?


Gen. 1:28 fill (Geneva) replenish (KJV)
Gen. 9:13 sign (Geneva) token (KJV)
Gen. 16:6 dealt roughly (Geneva) dealt hardly (KJV)
Gen. 21:26 know (Geneva) wot (KJV)
Gen. 22:1 prove (Geneva) tempt (KJV)
Gen. 24:5 What if (Geneva) peradventure (KJV)
Gen. 24:21 to know (1599 Geneva) to wit (KJV)
Gen. 24:55 maid (Geneva) damsel (KJV)
Gen. 24:57 ask her consent (Geneva) inquire at her mouth (KJV)
Gen. 24:63 toward the evening (Geneva) at the eventide (KJV)
Gen. 24:64 lighted down from the camel (Geneva) lighted off the camel (KJV)
Gen. 25:7 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (KJV)
Gen. 27:28 wheat (Geneva) corn (KJV)
Gen. 37:22 deliver (Geneva) rid (KJV)
Gen. 39:8 knoweth (Geneva) wotteth (KJV)
Gen. 41:36 provision (Geneva) store (KJV)
Gen. 41:49 wheat (Geneva) corn (KJV)
Gen. 41:54 famine (Geneva) dearth (KJV)
Gen. 42:25 wheat (Geneva) corn (KJV)
Gen. 44:15 Know (Geneva) Wot (KJV)
Gen. 46:27 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (KJV)
Gen. 50:3 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (KJV)
Gen. 50:15 It may be (Geneva) peradventure (KJV)
Exod. 3:22 ask (Geneva) borrow (KJV)
Exod. 5:19 diminish (Geneva) minish (KJV)
Exod. 6:6 deliver (Geneva) rid (KJV)
Exod. 9:9 blisters (Geneva) blains (KJV)
Exod. 9:10 blisters (Geneva) blains (KJV)
Exod. 13:12 womb (Geneva) matrix (KJV)
Exod. 13:15 womb (Geneva) matrix (KJV)
Exod. 13:17 Lest (Geneva) Lest peradventure (KJV)
Exod. 13:18 armed (Geneva) harnessed (KJV)
Exod. 15:27 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (KJV)
Exod. 16:18 measure (Geneva) mete (KJV)
Exod. 29:2 fine wheat flour (Geneva) wheaten flour (KJV)
Exod. 29:40 tenth part (Geneva) tenth deal (KJV)
Exod. 32:1 know (Geneva) wot (KJV)
Exod. 32:19 near (Geneva) nigh (KJV)
Exod. 32:23 know (Geneva) wot (KJV)
Exod. 34:19 womb (Geneva) matrix (KJV)
Exod. 37:9 toward the mercyseat (Geneva) to the mercy seatward (KJV)
Exod. 38:25 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (KJV)
Lev. 5:17 know (Geneva) wist (KJV)
Lev. 10:14 they are (Geneva) they be (KJV)
Lev. 19:35 line (Geneva) meteyard (KJV)
Lev. 21:3 near (Geneva) nigh (KJV)

Lev. 23:5 evening (Geneva) even (KJV)
Num. 2:4 seventy and four (Geneva) threescore and fourteen (KJV)
Num. 3:43 seventy and three (Geneva) threescore and thirteen (KJV)
Num. 3:46 seventy and three (Geneva) threescore and thirteen (KJV)
Num. 6:3 no sour wine (Geneva) no vinegar of wine (KJV)
Num. 22:6 know (Geneva) wot (KJV)
Num. 26:22 seventy and six (Geneva) threescore and sixteen (KJV)
Num. 31:33 seventy and two (Geneva) threescore and twelve (KJV)
Num. 31:37 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (KJV)
Num. 33:6 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (KJV)

 

Does the 1560 Geneva Bible have an advantage over the 1611 KJV in that it was not influenced by the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims N. T. like the KJV was?

Mark 4:12 turn (Geneva) converted (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 6:31 wilderness (Geneva) desert place (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 10:41 disdain (Geneva) displeased (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 13:22 deceive (Geneva) seduce (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 1:80 wilderness (Geneva) deserts (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 6:49 fall of that house (Geneva) ruin of that house (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 9:1 heal (Geneva) cure (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 12:26 remnant (Geneva) rest (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 12:27 royalty (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) glory (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 12:27 clothed (Geneva) arrayed (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 14:28 perform (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) finish (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:4 wild fig (Geneva) sycomore (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:21 strait (Geneva) austere (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:23 vantage (Geneva) usury (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:5 garnished (Geneva) adorned (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:20 besieged (Geneva) compassed (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:20 soldiers (Geneva) army (Rheims) armies (KJV)
Luke 21:34 oppressed (Geneva) overcharged (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 22:30 seats (Geneva) thrones (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:19 insurrection (Geneva) sedition (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:32 evil doers (Geneva) malefactors (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:39 evil doers (Geneva) malefactors (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 24:8 remnant (Geneva) rest (Rheims, KJV)

 

I agree with you on all but that one. Remember, the AV (or KJV, as you call it in America) was translated on this side of the Atlantic, where "corn" is the generic term for grain, and "wheat" is a particular grain, others being oats and barley. So if I am right in thinking that the original Hebrew meant any kind of cereal grain, then "wheat" would not be clearer than "corn".