Geneva vs King James

I have a copy of the Geneva on my E-Sword, and can tell you that there are numerous places where the readings differ. Even the KJV had numerous footnotes when it came out as well. I don't know about the artwork though. It is my understanding that the Geneva was a new translation from the original tongues whereas the KJV was almost a "best of" of the English versions already existing, although they did use available Greek, Hebrew, and Latin manuscripts. There are many verses that are verbatim between the versions though.

One thing that is strange to me is that there are those who leave out the Geneva when recounting the major English versions. It was an extremely important translation and was most definitely the one that the Pilgrims had, the Baptists used, and certainly the one John Bunyan read.

I'm sure someone has more detailed information. So we'll just wait for them to chime in.

Jason

 

I have the Geneva 1599 facsimile. There are title page woodcuts depicting the 12 apostles and standards of the 12 tribes, as well as depictions of the 4 evangelists. Nothing that could be considered idolatrous IMO. But then again a sun with a face on it doesn't particularly bother me either.

Psalms 148:1-14 (KJV) Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. {Praise ye the LORD. Praise: Heb. Hallelujah, etc} Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that [be] above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

While the 1611 KJV has only translational footnotes and scripture cross references, the Geneva also has almost verse-by-verse interpretative study notes. There are also a number of woodcut pictures (for example, showing the tabernacle, temple and their furniture) and maps. In the back there's even a small topical index! It's a nice study bible.

One drawback - it's rather hard to read, being a facsimile and not re-typset edition like the Nelson 1611 KJV. With the notes, which are smaller than the main text, it can take a little while to puzzle out what's there sometimes. I would welcome an edition with updated spelling and typography.

 

The library here at school has several copies of the Geneva. The two that are photographic reproductions of the 1560 and 1599 both have pictorial representation on the coverleaf. The 1560 simply has a line drawing of the Egyptians chasing Israel beside the Red Sea. The 1599 has drawing representing the men for whom the 12 tribes of Israel were named, and drawings representing the 12 Apostles. There are some other drawing a bit more cryptic such as the lamb with the sword in the shape of a cross through it, and the bird (a dove) flying upward, but none of it is as cryptic as the coverleaf of the KJV.

 

I have a facsimile reprint of the 1560. I'll scan some of the pics and post them later this evening, but for now here is the title page and two pages from Revelation from a real 1560 (not a reprint):

http://www.tegarttech.com/kjv/oldscans/more/gencover.jpg
http://www.tegarttech.com/kjv/oldscans/geneva.jpg
http://www.tegarttech.com/kjv/oldscans/geneva2.jpg

Note those images are copyrighted, but I have obtained permission from the owner to put them on my website.

God bless,
Brian

 

Then there's this little FACT purposely ignored by the KJVOs:

In the KJV, Psalm 12:7 reads,"...thou shalt preserve THEM..." while the same verse reads, in the Geneva,"...thou shalt preserve *HIM*...".

 

Look 6 words back:

PSAL. XII. 7 Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord; thou wilt preserve him from this generation for ever. (Geneva 1599)

God preserves his Word and faithful, godly men. But as BrainT has pointed out, one cannot determine from the Geneva notes that the translators applied this verse to God's words.

 

The marginal note on "them" in verse 7 says "That is, thine, though he were but one man". This is a "people" preservation verse in the Geneva. But the note on verse 5 indicates that people are preserved because God's word and promise is true and unchanging - in other words, God will do what he says, he will keep his promise to preserve the people.

Walls, the KJV is a different translation, not just the same translation without the marginal notes. See my previous scans from Revelation, which you can compare to the KJV to find differences.

William Whittingham is considered to be the one who produced the Geneva Bible, although he mentions that a few others were at least associated with the project, including Miles Coverdale and John Knox. Westcott says the Old Testament was mostly a revision from the Great Bible, and the New Testament is "little more than the record of the application of Beza's translation and commentary to Tindales's Testament". There were approximately 60 editions of the Geneva printed between 1560 and 1644. The Pilgrims who arrived in America in 1620 on the Mayflower came because of persecution from the Church of England, and carried their Puritan/Calvinistic Geneva Bible instead of the Church of England's KJV.

You can also find the Geneva online at several sites, but I've yet to find one that is a "true" 1560 - the ones I've found have changed some wording, especially in the marginal notes, although this may reflect what was updated beteen 1560 and 1599, I'm not sure.

God bless,
Brian

 

I've said for years that if these verses applied strictly to God's preservation of His words, then it not only drives a great big nail into the coffin lid of KJVO, it sets the coffin ablaze, as it would mean that there would've been editions of God's preserved words in English before 1611, and we could question the authority of the AV translators to have departed from the wording of any earlier version such as the Geneva Bible. Therefore I generally sit back & watch as the KJVOs shoot their own myth in the foot.

 

Could be-or the dreaded SBS! (Selective Blindness Syndrome)

 

or yet, foot-in-mouth?

 

or yet, foot-in-mouth?

</font>[/QUOTE]Nope: at least not yet.........

 

I cannot find in any of my encyclopediae exactly when the KJV replaced the GB as the everyday Bible of the Colonies, but it seems to have paralleled that replacement in England. There were two reasons for this: First, it was much more cost-effective to import Bibles from England as there was not yet any massive printing facility in North America, and the KJV was just about the only English version available for import. Second, as English citizens, they knew the KJV was under British copyright, and they wouldn't lightly violate it.

As time passed, the power of the Puritans faded, and with it, the use of the GB, as Protestants of other denoms almost all used the KJV. Far as I can find, the GB was not printed in early America at all, and had gone out of print in England around 1644. I'd say that, beginning about 1630, the GB was rarely imported to this continent any more.

BTW, the first large-scale printing of a complete English Bible in the USA was done by Robt. Aitken in late 1782. Before that, there may have been some private printings of a few copies, but the only large-scale Bible printings here were Eliot's Algonquin-language version of 1663, & Christopher Saur's German version of 1743.