Were there valid reasons for the Kjv , especially when geneva bible published?

NO....none....the KJV sux and no one likes it...so...let the argument die.

 

In the last years of QE1's reign, there were several English versions in use in various Anglican congregations, with virtually every translation from Tyndale's to the Bishop's Bible in use somewhere. The Anglican clerics wanted a new, modern translation to be made that they could place in every Anglican church, to be the one "standard" version to be used.

However, they were interrupted by the death of QE1, and so waited to go forward until a new monarch could be installed. Once KJ was seated upon the throne, they came to him with their project, which he approved.

Now, I'm not sure if KJ appointed Bancroft as boss of the project, or the Anglican clerics chose him, but he was a tough boss over the translators while being a toadie to KJ. But since the translators were working gratis, they took their good ole time since they still had to earn a living. And, of course, writing materials and indoor lighting were primitive, so they couldn't exactly set a land speed record with their work. But after Banny died in 1610, KJ was getting a little impatient, so they kicked it up a notch and finished the AV.

In summary-the reasons the AV was made was due to the wishes of the officials of the Anglican Church to have but one BV in use in all their congregations, and thus set out to employ the best translators and wordsmiths they could find to make a version acceptable to all, especially the king. And they knew KJ detested the Geneva because of its footnotes, and acted accordingly.

It was certain British clerics/officials who brought about the eventual ban throughout the British Empire of printing any other English BV, and limiting the printing of the AV to Sir Robert Barker, the royal printer. KJ had very little to do with those events.

And, BTW, it seems the AV was called the "King James Version" because of the efforts of Bancroft, KJ's toadie. Although Banny had died in 1610, the name stuck. (I've only HEARD this somewhere; someone please correct me if this is wrong.)

 

The Geneva was and still is the better version. The KJV was written because King James had to get rid of those pesky anti-divine right of kings footnotes.

 

If it was so superior, how come almost nobody uses the Geneva anymore, while tens of millions of people have and continue to use the KJB?

If you personally think the Geneva is superior, then by all means use it. But good luck convincing the masses that. :laugh:

 

I could make the same argument about the AV here. 'Nobody' still uses it. Try convincing the masses to use it.

 

Millions of people use the AV every day, the AV is the KJB.

 

I am, believe it or not, fully aware of what the AV is. Try to find more than a handful who use it here.

If usage is your standard then the AV fails miserably here. The vast majority here use the NLT, the NIV, or the rapidly increasing ESV. The AV is way down the list. It is even hard to find it in Christian book stores.

 

It was the efforts of the British govt. at the time to suppress the GB that led to the AV's eventual rise. At first, the AV was too expensive for the average man to purchase, but a drop in price plus the govt's ban on printing/selling other English versions thruout the bailiwick of the British govt. forced the switch to the AV.

Remember, the British Empire was the largest empire ever, and its worldwide influence was enormous.

 

Well, it worked, and the KJB became the predominant Bible.

Has it ever occured to you that perhaps God was behind this government action? Have you never read in the scriptures how God moves kings?

2 Chr 36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,
23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.

This is one of the many reasons I believe in the King James Bible. The KJB became the dominant Bible in England just as England became the world's first truly "global" superpower. It was once said that the sun never sets on the British empire, and it was true. The English took the KJB to nearly every country and continent on Earth, including the isles of the sea. Many millions of people throughout the world heard the word of God and trusted Christ through the King James Bible, no other version can hold a candle to it.

Now you might think that coincidence, I do not.

 

Are you suggesting that God was behind King James' hatred of the good, accepted, and loved Geneva Bible?

Are you suggesting that God was behind the divine right of kings view of King James I or that God supported a state church [the Church of England] and its compromised doctrinal views?

McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). Bernard Levinson and Joshua Berman pointed out that the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible “contained some interpretations that were sympathetic to the right of the oppressed to resist a tyrant, and that raised questions about ‘the divine right of kings’” (KJB at 400, p. 4). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10). Vance maintained that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21). In the introduction to a 1853 edition of the Bible by Benjamin Boothroyd, this is noted: “What chiefly offended James and the high church party in this version [the Geneva Bible] were the notes, which indicated a strong but just sense of freedom” (p. xxi).


Pastor John Mincy affirmed: "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131). Ward Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people" (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3). KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206). In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97). Charles Buck also asserted that “King James bore it [the Geneva] an inveterate hatred, on account of the notes” (Theological Dictionary, p. 58). Kenneth Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87). Stephen Miller and Robert Huber affirmed that King James “hated the Geneva Bible” (The Bible, p. 178). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). Ronald Cammenga asserted that “the king objected to certain notes that he interpreted to deny the divine right of kings, notes that justified disobedience to the king under certain circumstances” (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, Nov., 2011, p. 56). The Local Preachers’ Magazine maintained that “King James disliked the notes of the Geneva Bible, because they were unfriendly to the despotic policy on which he acted after ascending the throne of England” (March, 1853, p. 112). Alister McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147).