Featured KJV Preface

WoW, so now its really geneva Only?

 

It started with William Tyndale, who was the first to translate both the Original Greek and Original Hebrew into English. His original translations were taken into Coverdales versions (Great Bible), Matthews, Geneva, Bishops, King James Version, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version and beyond.

 

• The Anglican clerics, knowing the British monarch is head of their church, came to QE1 & asked permission to make a new Bible version, to be the standard in all their congregations. She gave permission, but she died before the plan could be finalized. The clerics put their plan on hold, to see who the new monarch would be , as QE1 was childless. That's when KJ VI of Scotland stepped up to the plate & told Parliament he was the closest living relative of QE1. Parliament didn't disagree, & declared him KJi of England & VI of Scotland, which he already was. (Also, Parliament knew this would place Scotland more under its control.) Soon as KJ had settled in to Britain's throne, the clerics asked him about making a new Bible version, & he gave his permission, appointing Archbishop Richard Bancroft as the translators' boss.

KJ didn't dislike the Geneva's text. He despised its footnotes, especially those that questioned the Divine right of kings. Bancroft was KJ's toadie, & he made his rules for the translators in accordance with his boss' likes & dislikes.

 

But mainly Coverdale.

 

William Tyndales 1526 New Testament.
1530 translation of the Pentateuch.
1534 New Testament.
1535 New Testament.

Coverdale 1535. From Tyndale. Translated what Tyndale did not reach from the Latin, German.

Matthews Bible. Containing Tyndale's latest translations including half of the Old Testament from the Original Hebrew. The rest from Coverdale.

Great Bible. Tyndale's and Coverdale's original work.

Geneva Bible. Tyndale's, Coverdale's and Geneva's translators work.

Bishops Bible. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Geneva's and Bishop's translators.

Rheims New Testament. Translated from the Latin Vulgate, but consulting the Original Greek.

King James version. Based on the Bishops, but also used all of the above translations.

 

Your estimate is likely too high. In some places the Geneva Bible and the KJV may be word-for-word the same, but in many places they have differences.

I have compared many places in the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV. I found many pages of examples where the KJV revised the Geneva Bible with the NKJV often in agreement with the KJV. I also found many pages where the KJV differs from the Geneva Bible where the NKJV is in agreement with the Geneva. There are many places where the KJV differs from the Geneva because it followed the Bishops' Bible of which it was officially a revision. There are also the places in the New Testament where the KJV borrowed renderings from the 1582 Rheims and thus differs from both the Geneva and the Bishops'.

I recall at least one study or comparison that maintained that only 60+ per cent of the KJV comes directly from one of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

 

John Eadie noted: “These scholars are usually called Translators, and they appropriate the name to themselves in their Dedication to King James. But it is to be borne in mind that the first rule set before them shows that in the strictest sense they were simply revisers of the Bishops’ Bible, itself a revision of the Great Bible, and it again a revision of Matthew’s Bible—that is, of Tyndale and Coverdale” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 193). John Eadie also observed: “This [fourteenth] rule the translators did not specially regard, for they knew that these versions were a series of revisions, and therefore they revised the Bishops’ by the help of its contemporary, the Genevan” (p. 218).

John Eadie maintained that "in the historical books they [the KJV translators] keep near the Bishops" (p. 218) and that in the prophetic books they "adopt it [the Geneva] as often as they adopt the Bishops" (p. 218)

 

Glenn Conjurske observed: “The revisions come down from William Tyndale in two distinct lines of descent, one through the Great Bible and the Bishops’ Bible, and the other through the Geneva Bible. Added to this was also the influence of the independent Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament published in 1582” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 85).

Glenn Conjurske added: “What may be considered the main line of transmission came through Coverdale, Matthew, the Great Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible, each of these respectively being a revision of the former, and the King James Version being a revision of the last, the Bishops’ Bible” (p. 86). Glenn Conjurske continued: “The other line, through the Geneva Bible, was much more sweeping in its revisions. Accuracy was its main concern and its main characteristic” (Ibid.).

 

KJV defender Laurence M. Vance claimed: "The approximate percentage of the text of the Authorized Version New Testament that basically reads as the Bishops' Bible is 91 percent" (The Making of the King James Bible New Testament, p. 250).

The italicized words were put in the statement by Vance himself. He does not explain how much variation he may be allowing in his use of the adverb "basically" so that his approximate percentage could be high.

 

They should have named it then the new Geneva Version!

 

They listed variants and suggested other acceptable choices then?
Also read that some wanted to translate immersed for baptism, but got overrode?