Featured Fact that 1560 Geneva Bible is better than 1611 edition in some places

The fact that the 1560 Geneva Bible is better and more accurate than the 1611 edition of the KJV in at least some places would be a serious problem for typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

Typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching tends to imply, suggest, or sometimes directly claim that God translated the KJV or that God so controlled the translation decisions of its Church of England makers that its every English word was perfect and inspired and could not be improved. Typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching seeks to imply that the KJV is at least equally inspired with the original languages Scriptures or even in some cases according to some KJV-only advocates that the KJV is superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

KJV-only advocates seem to close their eyes or stick their heads in the sand and avoid every verifiable fact that would contradict and even refute typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

If God completely controlled or directed every translation decision or word choice in the 1611 edition of the KJV, how would it be possible for the 1560 Geneva Bible to be better and more accurate than the 1611 edition in at least some places?

If God completely controlled the process for the making of the KJV, why would that control not include the printing? Any errors made or introduced by printers would still be errors just like any errors made by translators. Any errors in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible that were kept in the 1611 edition of the KJV could soundly be considered the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves since they failed to make sure that those errors were corrected. If God completely controlled the process for the making of the KJV, it is certain according to the Scriptures that God would not have overlooked any errors in the 1602 Bishops' Bible and left them uncorrected in the 1611 edition and in later editions for over 15 years.

 

In another thread,

Would a consistent, just application of your very own statements condemn the Church of England makers of the KJV when they condensed or omitted any words of Scripture?

At 1 Kings 17:16, the 1560 Geneva Bible has the full, literal rendering of the Hebrew
"by the hand of Eliah" which is in agreement with the literal meaning of the Hebrew in the 1611 marginal note: "Heb. by the hand of."

The 1611 KJV condensed this to "by Elijah," giving no English rendering for the Hebrew noun for "hand."

At 2 Kings 13:25, for two Hebrew verbs the 1560 Geneva Bible has "returned, and took", which is in agreement with the literal meaning of the Hebrew according to 1611 marginal note: "Heb. returned and took."

Did the KJV paraphrase or use a dynamic equivalent rendering when it substituted an adverb in English for a Hebrew verb? At this verse, "took again" is the KJV rendering where the Geneva Bible has "returned, and took."

 

At 1 Kings 11:5, a factual error [the name of the wrong group of people--"Amorites"] was found in the 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible, and this error was kept uncorrected in the 1611 edition of the KJV. This same error remained in London editions of the KJV printed in 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1631, 1633, 1634, and 1640.

On the other hand, the 1560 Geneva Bible already had the correct accurate rendering "Ammonites" at 1 Kings 11:5. The 1629 Cambridge edition of the KJV corrected the error in the 1611 edition, in effect adopting the same rendering as the Geneva Bible or retranslating the Hebrew.

The 1560 Geneva Bible was more accurate in its rendering "Ammonites" at 1 Kings 11:5 than the 1611 edition of the KJV was with its rendering "Amorites".

According to what the Scriptures teach concerning God, would God, the God of truth, (if He was the translator of the KJV or if He completely controlled every translation decision in the 1611) fail to correct an error in the 1602 Bishops' Bible and leave it uncorrected in the KJV for years?

 

At 2 Kings 24:19, a factual error [the name of the wrong king--"Joachin"] was found in the 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible, and this error "Jehoiachin" was kept uncorrected in the 1611 edition of the KJV. The fact that the spelling of the error in the 1602 Bishops' Bible had to be changed in the 1611 edition to how the king's name was spelled in it would suggest that the KJV translators had not noticed and corrected this error. This same error remained in London editions of the KJV printed in 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1652, and 1655.

On the other hand, the 1560 Geneva Bible already had the correct accurate rendering "Jehoiakim" at 2 Kings 24:19. The 1629 Cambridge edition of the KJV corrected the error in the 1611 edition, either adopting the same rendering as the Geneva Bible or retranslating the Hebrew noun.

The 1560 Geneva Bible was more accurate in its rendering "Jehoiakim" at 2 Kings 24:19 than the 1611 edition of the KJV was with its rendering "Jehoiachin".

According to what the Scriptures teach concerning God, would God, the God of truth, (if He completely controlled every translation decision in the 1611) fail to correct an error in the 1602 Bishops' Bible and leave it uncorrected in the KJV for years?

If God completely controlled or directed every translation decision or word choice in the 1611 edition of the KJV as some KJV-only advocates try to imply and if the 1611 KJV was equally inspired with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, how would it be possible for the 1560 Geneva Bible to be better and more accurate than the 1611 edition in at least some places?

 

Why should I agree with your incorrect, biased opinion?

Since the 1560 Geneva Bible had a major impact on the KJV and since many good renderings in the KJV come from it, the Geneva Bible at least had an impact on English-speaking believers through the KJV. Besides its influence through means of the KJV, the Geneva Bible had its own impact for around 100 years.

The Geneva Bible had a very important influence on America and its founding. Jack P. Lewis maintained that “the Mayflower Compact was signed on the Geneva Bible, and the Geneva played an important role in the history of early America” (The English Bible from KJV to NIV, p. 26). Robert McCrum asserted that “the first New England settlements always championed the use of the Geneva Bible” (Globish: How the English Language, p. 90). David Daniell noted: “The Geneva Bible was at the heart of the founding of those colonies, as will be seen, in a greater way than even [the] KJV” (Bible in English, p. 221). Daniell contended: “This evidence of the regular use of the Geneva Bible can be supported by many documents from the colonies” (p. 425). Cotton Mather (1663-1729) in his history of Harvard referred to “the notes in the Geneva Bible (which were considered authoritative)” (Hall, Genevan Reformation and the American Founding, p. 313). David Cloud maintained that “the Bible brought to America by its first settlers in the early 1600’s was the Geneva Bible” (Rome and the Bible, p. 106). Steve Green and Todd Hillard asserted: “Throughout the 1600’s as people fled the religious persecution of England by crossing the Atlantic, they brought with them their precious Geneva Bibles rather than the ‘King’s Bible.’ The Geneva Bible was more popular than the King James Version for several decades” (The Bible in America, p. 33). G. S. Wegener maintained that the Geneva Bible “was to become equally popular in America, where it accompanied many who exiled themselves from Britain for conscience’s sake” (6000 Years, p. 237). Jack Lewis also confirmed that “the Geneva played an important role in the history of early America” (English Bible, p. 26). James P. Stobaugh asserted: “American was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible” (Studies in World History, Vol. 2, p. 120). J. Paul Foster wrote: “It can truthfully be said that this version shaped America. For it was the Geneva Bible that the Pilgrims brought over with them to America, and, as all their laws and institutions were founded on that Book, and their Bible was the Geneva version, was not America’s childhood shaped by that version?” (The Christian Nation, Vol. 54, June 7, 1911, p. 5). David Hall asserted: “Primary documents confirm the thesis we have been documenting: the Declaration of Independence, acts of the Continental Congress between 1776 and 1787, and the United States Constitution all bear the impress of two centuries of Calvinistic thinking” (Genevan Reformation, p, 420).

In response to your second statement quoted above, it could be noted that there was a poster at this forum a few years ago who reads the Geneva Bible, who regarded the Geneva Bible to be his favorite translation, who I think taught and preached from an edition of the Geneva Bible, and who may even have been a Geneva Bible-only advocate.

 

Even some KJV-only authors would not seem to agree with your opinion. Along with indicating acceptance of its underlying text and its translating, several KJV-only authors also acknowledge the popularity and wide use of the Geneva Bible. KJV-only author 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, from its initial printing in 1560, fifty years before the King James Bible, until the 1660‘s" (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Steven White asserted: “When the Geneva Bible was first printed, it quickly became the ‘Bible of choice’ by conservative scholars, preachers, evangelists, and pastors” (White’s Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 19). White added: “Overall, the Geneva Bible is a fine English Bible that was used by many great old preachers and churches alike” (p. 20). 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). Michael Bates also maintained that “the Geneva Bible became the Bible of the people, dearly beloved by all” (Inspiration, Preservation, and the KJV, p. 291). Phil Stringer referred to the Geneva as “the people’s Book“ and as “the Bible of the common man” (History of the English Bible, p. 13). William Bradley 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 L. Brown wrote: “The Geneva Version quickly became very popular in England” (Indestructible Book, p. 324). Michael Bates claimed: “The Geneva Bible retained its dominance even after the publication of the KJV. It would be more than a hundred years before the Geneva Bible would finally give way to the KJV” (Inspiration, Preservation, and the KJV, p. 291). James Kahler wrote: “Much of England would use the Geneva Bible until the middle of the 1600’s” (Charted History of the Bible, p. 16). J. W. Sawyer maintained that the Geneva “was the most read Bible in Great Britain, even years after the Authorized Version was published in 1611” (Legacy of our English Bible, pp. 8-9). David Cloud asserted: "The Geneva quickly became the most popular English Bible and wielded a powerful influence for almost 100 years" (Rome and the Bible, p. 108, Glorious History, p. 123).

Likewise, other authors also point out the fact of the wide acceptance and popularity of the Geneva Bible. Robert Girdlestone asserted that the Geneva Bible “from 1560 to 1640 was practically the authorized version of the English people” (How to Study the English Bible, p. 11). Leland Ryken maintained that “the Geneva Bible was ‘the King James Bible’ of its day” (Legacy of the KJB, ebook without page numbers). Benson Bobrick claimed that “the Geneva enjoyed de facto official status, and some of its bindings in folio even had ‘Queen Elizabeth Bible’ stamped on their bindings” (Wide as the Waters, p. 215). Ronald Cammenga wrote: “Without question, the Bible that was of greatest influence among English-speaking people prior to the King James Bible was the Geneva Bible” (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, November, 2011, p. 48). David Norton maintained that the Geneva Bible “was by far the most successful English Bible for at least eighty years, going through about 140 editions up to 1644” (KJB: A Short History, p. 19).

John Kerr maintained that “the Geneva translators strove for a version that everyone could read” (Ancient Texts, p. 91). John Kerr asserted: “With the Geneva Bible we have a true ‘people’s Bible’—written in vigorous English, exhibiting careful scholarship without sounding pedantic, and widely available” (p. 93). Leland Ryken observed that “this Bible quickly became the household Bible of English-speaking Protestants” (Word of God in English, p. 49). Gustavus Paine noted that "the household Bible of the English people was the one which was produced at Geneva" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 9). Alan Macgregor observed: “The book of the people was undoubtedly the Geneva Bible” (400 Years On, p. 286). Ira Price asserted that “the Geneva Bible immediately sprang into full-grown popularity” (Ancestory of our English Bible, p. 265). In an introductory article to a 2006 modern-spelling edition of a 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible, Marshall Foster asserted: “The Geneva Bible was an instant success that captures the hearts of the people with its powerful, uncompromising prose” (p. xxiv). Marshall Foster maintained that “for generations after its first printing, the Geneva Bible remained the Bible of personal study in England, Scotland, and then in America” (p. xxiv). Ismar Peritz wrote: “The success of the Geneva Bible was unprecedented. It was hailed with delight by the common people” (The Christian Advocate, April 13, 1911, p. 486). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that the Geneva Bible "was the Bible on which most Englishmen in Elizabethan England were brought up" (Vol. XXI, p. 152). Vishal Mangalwadi asserted: “For more than a hundred years, the Geneva Bible dominated the English-speaking world” (Book That Made Your World, p. 155). Alison Jack wrote: “During the Elizabethan and much of the Jacobite era, it was the Geneva Bible that was the most widely read Bible in the English-speaking world” (Bible and Literature, p. 2). Jacobus Naude asserted that “the Puritan’s Geneva Version (in print 1560-1644) enjoyed broad popularity as the most widely read Bible of the Elizabethan era and subsequently of the Jacobean era” (Burke, KJV at 400, p. 160). Derek Wilson noted: “During the Queen’s reign alone it went through forty impressions, and for at least two generations thereafter it was to be the most popular Bible for family reading and private devotional use” (People’s Bible, p. 68). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible indicated that the Geneva Bible “enjoyed great popularity among English Protestants for the rest of the century and to the end of the next” (p. 117). Paul Olson referred to the Geneva Bible as “the most widely used Bible in England and the Bible that Shakespeare used most often” (Beyond a Common Joy, p. 126). In an introductory essay in a reprint of the 1602 edition of the Geneva New Testament, Gerald Sheppard observed: "The Geneva Bible became the most popular Bible in England and America and remained so until about 1640" (p. 1). Ed Hindson acknowledged that the Geneva Bible “was the most popular Bible of its day” (Popular Encyclopedia of Church History, p. 156). Gerald Bray confirmed that "the Geneva Bible became and remained the popular text, read and studied by all classes of the population" (Documents of the English Reformation, p. 355). Diarmaid MacCulloch maintained that the Geneva Bible “proved a best-seller in the English-speaking world” (The Reformation, p. 240). James Stobaugh wrote: “The Geneva Bible became English-speaking Christians’ Bible of choice for over 100 years” (Studies in World History, Vol. 2, p. 119). Concerning the Geneva, H. D. M. Spence wrote: “It became the most popular of all versions, and was largely read in England” (The Church of England: A History, Vol. III, p. 370).

 

What kind of biblical sense would it make for someone to seem to attempt to speak directly for God or assert for Him something that He did not say in Scripture?

Are you claiming new direct revelation for your non-scriptural assertion concerning what God has done? Are you questioning the wisdom of God concerning the languages He in which He choose to give the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles?

You present no scripture that states that God would transfer the preservation of the actual exact specific words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles to a different language. The very definition and meaning of the term preservation would suggest preservation of the same words, not preservation of different words. Do you claim that the translators of the KJV did not have good sense since they accepted that preservation concerned the original-language Scriptures?

There are people who can read Biblical Hebrew and New Testament Greek so your claim that no one on earth can read them would be incorrect. You make assertions that are not factually true.

The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to "the things that are written by the prophets" (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them to inspiration to the prophets.

 

Charles Spurgeon asserted: “I became a Baptist through reading the New Testament,--especially in the Greek” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. I, p. 150).

Spurgeon stated: “Our fullest revelation of God’s will is in that tongue [Greek], and so are our noblest names for Jesus. The standard of our faith is Greek. . . . Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist’s tongue; we may be beaten in our own version, sometimes; but in the Greek, never” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. II, p. 327)

In his publication The Sword and the Trowel, Spurgeon commented: “The more reading of the Scriptures the better, and it is best of all when that reading occupies itself with the original. Every member of our churches, who has a fair English education, should aim to acquire sufficient Greek to read the New Testament” (August, 1885, p. 431).

 

The majority of the Church of England makers of the KJV were Calvinists, and yet according to your KJV-only reasoning you would blindly trust their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions.

Charles Spurgeon was more sound in doctrine than the Church of England makers of the KJV were.