THe Geneva Bible

Well, its a debate forum so it is going to be kind of hard to stop debates .

 

I'm KJVsP - King James Versions Preferred believing that the Anglican (Catholic Church of England) KJVs are the closest to the correct translation of the the Textus Receptus (TR) received from our Roman Catholic Brothers in Christ. I am not KJVO because there are other good Translations.

I have stored in my computer the e-sword.com versions of:

1. Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition
2. KJV1611 Edition
3. KJV1769 family of Editions, with Strong's Numbers
(Strong's is in this case an electronic search engine and Strong's Numbers is a relation of the translated text to the original TR (mostly) Greek NT text as well as the the Hebrew (mostly) original OT text

I use the e-sword tool every day because it is easy to use and I can use it even if my internet connection isn't working at a particular given time.

The Geneva Bible contains the Written Word of God: the Holy Bible as of it's date in the English Language of the date (sometimes though, it is obvious that the KJV Translators backtracked using an English earlier than the Geneva English Language of 1560 (the original edition of the Geneva Bible).

 

Good questions Dale-c.If a KJVO thinks the perfectly preserved Word of God did not come onto the scene until 1611 (or 1769) : Did God have sort of a deficiency until that time?

If a KJVO says that the Geneva was substantially the Word of God (in the parts that agree with one of the KJV editions):How much off can a version be from a KJV edition and still be considered sort of the Word of God?

 

comments by KJV-only authors about Geneva



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). Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Ibid.). 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). KJV-only author 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). H. D. Williams listed the Geneva Bible as a “literal, verbal plenary translation” (Word-for-Word, p. 121). Robert Sargent referred to it as “a very good translation” (English Bible, p. 197). Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82). Ruckman wrote: "We will not condemn them [Tyndale and Wycliffe, or the Geneva Bible]. They have substantially the same
Greek and Hebrew text as the King James Bible" (Bible Babel, p. 2). Ruckman also stated: "I recommend Tyndale's version, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, Valera's Spanish version, Martin Luther's German version, and a number of others" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1).

 

more comments about Geneva by 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).

 

Gail Riplinger could be understand to imply that the Geneva Bible was the Word of God in English before 1611. However, most KJV-only advocates would probably not claim or imply perfection for the Geneva Bible.

​

​

Gail Riplinger in effect puts the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot edited by Elias Hutter (1554-1605?) on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles. She maintained that this twelve-language Polyglot “contains the historic and pure Gospels in Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, English, German, Danish, Bohemian, and Polish” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 41). She claimed: “It demonstrates the perfect agreement of the English King James Bible with all pure Bibles from other languages” (p. 1048).



The English translation in this polyglot is one of the three editions of the Geneva Bible, likely the 1560 edition. In the statement quoted from her book, Riplinger described the English translation from the Geneva Bible in this Polyglot as “pure.“ Several times Riplinger in effect suggested that “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” is this English translation from the Geneva (pp. 1052-1108).