WHY Not use the geneva Bible Instead of KJV?

Good question. In many places the Geneva Bible is easier to read than the KJV. It also contained extensive footnotes and commentary. These footnotes and commentary often were at odds with the Church of England doctrine. For example:

Ac 8:37

8:37 {13} And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, {n} I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

(13) Profession of faith is required of those being baptized, and therefore it is evident that we are not first ingrafted into Christ when we are baptized, but are already ingrafted, and then are baptized.

 

Hello JesusFan & InTheLight

This is an interesting question.

First of all, of course the Geneva Bible was "inspired” as much as the KJB.
But I have never even seen one for sale, at the Bible book store.
--------------------------------------------------
And in IntheLight said........

Well your response gives the answer......
“....It also contained extensive footnotes and commentary”

If I want a commentary, I will read a commentary(& I often do).
But as I am reading my Bible, I want it to be free of “man’s” input, as much as possible.
--------------------------------------------------
And as for the Scripture you referenced..........
Acts 8:37
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Although I like what the footnote had to say, all a Christian needs, is the scriptures, to come to the same exact conclusion(by comparing Scripture with Scripture).
--------------------------------------------------
Oh by the way, here is what the NIV and other MV's say, at Acts 8:37........
“........nothing..........”

And people wonder why, I am KJVO!?!

 

Why did Calvinists themselves abandon the Geneva Bible?

Harry Stout in The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History, eds. Nathan Hatch and Mark Noll, explains that with the rise of "Covenant Theology" in Calvinist circles, attachment to the Geneva Bible waned because its notes focused on more basic Reformation themes rather than Covenant schemes.

 

OK, so the question is--was verse 37 ADDED to the Received Text by someone at some point? Was it removed from the Alexandrian texts by someone at some point?

Or was it always in the Received Text and never in the Alexandrian texts?

 

Those are some good questions, "that nobody knows the answers to".

But....we do know that this verse has been in the English Bible for over 400 years!
This is a documented fact.

And we also know that billions of Spirit filled Christians, have studied these English Bibles over those years and not once did God speak to their heart, that this verse wasn’t suppose to be there.

As you can see, our faith in the Bible is based on more than our trust in the accuracy of any copyist or translator: because God has not left us alone.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, when you apply this to the “version debate”, you have men, who are telling us that we should take their opinions about the Bible, over the Bible itself.

Also, God has not left it at this; There is solid historical evidence, that for years it was well known that the Alexandrian texts were unreliable.
(They weren't new discoveries; They had been left alone for a reason!)

And something else, that is also well known, is the personal characters and attitudes of Wescott & Hort and why they chose to use the Alexandrian texts.

But because they were “well respected” scholars, most people overlook there character flaws.
--------------------------------------------------
One more thing: God in Heaven, would not want us to have these kinds of DOUBTS, about His Word, but Satan sure would.

 

Interesting contention. I'll have to check that out. I don't know that Covenant theology actually was a Johnny-come-lately in terms of the Geneva, but it bears a hearing.

Incidentally, I have the Geneva Bible prefaces on my Online Bible package but recently bought the print edition for a steal. I'd advise all to do the same.

 

I would say that the BRITISH GOVT. had more to do with the demise of the Geneva Bible than anything else.

 

I meant to revise my comments to include that, but I got sidetracked. Well said.

 

Because you refuse to face facts?

 

I seriously doubt that the figure has even been 1 billion.

Produce your solid historical evidence.

Can you please not dredge up lies about W&H that have been debunked over and over again?

You're right, they were well-respected scholars. Their character flaws are minor compared to the lies spread about them by KJVO sources.

 

I am sorry that you have doubts- I have none, other than the fact that I doubt that a God who inspired the creation of thousands of languages and dialects would limit Himself to speaking through one translation.

 

The Geneva Bible does not fit neatly within the KJVO doctrine. When the KJV1611 was written, the Geneva was the inerrant english translation of its day. Had the KJVO's lived in the early 1600's, they would have rejected the modern KJV on the same grounds that they reject all non-KJV Bibles. The KJVO position cannot be logically consistent; otherwise, they would reject the KJV & hold to the Geneva Bible. The number of people who have read the KJV is totally irrelevant to the discussion. More people read the Quran than read the KJV, does that make it legitimate? I think not. Our doctrine & beliefs should never be based on majority consensus.

 

I honestly don't think God would limit Himself to ANYTHING. You are the one putting limits on an all-powerful being who created this wonderful universe. :wavey:

 

You misread MexDeaf. He's not the one putting limitations on the Almighty God.

 

Good morning Phillip

You said..........

In reality noone in this thread is “limiting” God. This is just a game they play.
This “old charge”, being put out by Maxdeaf and others, is an act of desperation on their part. (They all know that I am talking about English Bibles only.)

They simply have no recourse to the “facts”, that I have posted, yet they will never back away from their pseudointellectual views, so all they can do is attack me personally.

 

I hope you pay better attention to the Scriptures than you do to forum names- mine is Mexdeaf, thank you.

And I am far from an 'ultra-intellectual'. I am just a simple man of faith who believes the Bible, loves the Author, and follows His Son. I just don't play the KJVO game. I have investigated all of it's so-called 'facts' and found them to be, at best, half-truths.

I can see that there is no sense in trying to reason with you so I will just try my best to ignore you. I can't promise I'll always be successful.

 

I've heard KJV proponents say this a lot. "The Alexandrian texts are corrupt" or "the Alexandrian texts are unreliable".

Could you please post WHY these texts are corrupt? Because I've never seen or heard anyone actually post reasons behind these statements. I'd really like to know.

 

Here is a quick answer..............

Since the poster admits later in the thread that he copied and pasted material and did not credit it these statements are deleted.

 

You also said that:

Please substantiate this bizarre claim.