Featured If you could only have ONE Study Bible?

Then it doesn't matter what was said by me previously then.
That's ok. Has no bearing on what is true - the 1560 is much better than the 1599.
I used the 1599 for a couple of years before I purchased a 1560 and noticed the difference. Mr. Eason, who wrote the book I have, in 1937, had his sources back then, and I am sure they were accurate enough - I just lack the understanding of how the list reads, I guess.

 

Which printed edition?

 

Historical Catalogue of the British and Foreign Bible Society (1903)

https://archive.org/stream/historicalcatal00librgoog#page/n136/mode/2up

 

I just downloaded that one right before you posted this!

 

I beleive nost consider it that way. Like NIV84 and NIV11. No one claims they are the same translation. I know no one who says the 1560 and 1599 are the same.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

The claim is that is was a resvision of Whittingham's work. Are you saying it is a revision or totally different?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

My guess is because the Geneva is all but a forgotten translation. I don't see people lining up to buy it when the market is already flooded with translations. Especially when the name is unrecognizable to most and some will associate "Geneva" with Calvin and vilify the transaltion before reading it.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Get a load of its title page:

 

You do know the real draw was/is the Geneva Notes' twist on Scripture, rather than the actual translation itself!

 

Connect the dots people:

It's said that the last Geneva Bible was published in 1644. In 1645, the Westminster Annotations debuted, published with the KJB. Later editions of the Westminster Annotations were so enlarged that they were published in stand-alone commentary form.

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/22159/03.pdf

3.3.5 Annotations upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament (1645, 1651, 1657-58)

 

Well, I have never seen it in the top 10, nor would I expect it to be. I would also guess it is not even close to beginning a major selling trnaslation. Since other than me, you are the only other person I know that uses the 1560 or 1599 regularly. I would love to see these historical translations get more credit and more sales. The 1560 is the first Great English Bible from the Orginal languages. It deserves more credit. The 1599 was a great study Bible in its own right.

I would call the 1560 the first great English translation(fromOrginal languages) and the 1599 the first great English study bible (in the annotation sense of a study Bible). Probably the Best English Bibles until the ASV.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I disagree. The text alone is the clear winner here, not the notes - that's just supposed modern 'historians' of our day saying such. Anyone with a clear mind can see the textual superiority when comparing the text to other translations, older and newer. As a Christian, exactness of doctrine should be above any opinions when it comes to the wording of scripture.

As an example - most newer versions of scripture have some good wording in them, and can be very useful when teaching, but when it comes to, let's say Baptist doctrine, clarity is of the utmost importance. And no other Bible, older or newer, clearly states Baptist doctrine better than the Geneva Bible of 1560.

Look at 1 Peter 3:20 in this version -

"Baptism,which corresponds to this, now saves you" (ESV)

Compare to this version -

"eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism" (ASV)

Compare to this version -

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us" (KJV)

And this version -

"Whereof the baptism that now is, answering that figure, saveth us also" (Tomson1599)

To this -

"To the which also the figure that now saveth us, even Baptism agreeth" (Geneva1560)

If you can see the difference, it's because there is a difference - and it is an important difference.

If you see no problem with teaching that baptism saves someone, or you can say the phrase "yeah, but that's not what it means", then accuracy is not important to you. And you could be a good follower of someone like Alexander Campbell, who converted thousands of Baptists into 'church of christ' followers. You would also say "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (ESV), and teach baptism washes away sins, a much anti-Baptist teaching, yet in plenty of books called Bibles.

If you use a version that says baptism saves in any other verse, then your version is against Baptist doctrine, and accuracy may be unimportant to you.

I would hope not.

But like I said above, most newer versions of scripture have some good wording in them, and can be very useful when teaching, but...

 

If you tally in the sales and family home usage in the 1500's to 1700's with todays usage I think it would be the top 1.

As for the ASV, it flopped and is seldom used since the inception into the American public in 1901.
I know nobody who uses it, or refers to it.

Except a few posts on this site that is.

 

Hahaha. Yes the Geneva dominated the late 16th- to early 18th century. As far as the ASV goes, I was reffering to quality not popularity. It is a quality transaltion, as is the Geneva.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

In my opinion whether it's a revision or not, it is different enough to make it unimportant to claim that the NT of 1560 is anything like the NT of 1557. 1557 by one man, compared to the 1560 done by many men.

But with that being said, I still have not gone through the 1557 to be able to say that with authority.

 

From the one source I quoted earlier. The claim is that Whittingham's was revised. He was part of it and had others involved as well, as you claim as well. Knox and Cloverdale being two of the bigger names involved.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk