Featured When translations are older...

I did not claim that the Geneva Bible translators used the Great Bible more than they used Tyndale's or Olivetan's, but they did make some use of it especially for the Old Testament. The Great Bible was one of the sources of the Geneva Bible.

Charles Butterworth pointed out: "Broadly defined, the Geneva Bible was a sweeping revision of the text of the Great Bible in the Old Testament and a careful revision of the edition of 1557 in the New Testament" (Literary Lineage of the King James Bible, p. 165).

 

Your comments would improperly misrepresent and distort what I stated. You fail to demonstrate that I believe any nonsense or that I supposedly question the power or strength of God.

God gave His perfect word by the miracle of inspiration 100% purely to the prophets and apostles. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. I believe in a consistent view of the preservation of the Scriptures. You seem to hold a view of preservation similar to the inconsistent view of KJV-only advocates although you may advocate for the Geneva Bible what they would advocate for the KJV.

The Scriptures do not state that God choose to have the Scriptures copied or translated by a miracle of inspiration as He had done in the giving of the Scriptures. God gave imperfect men clear instructions that relate to the copying of the original language Scriptures, but those instructions have not been followed perfectly by men. It is not God's fault that copiers of the Scriptures have made some errors in their copying.

Have you presented any consistent, sound scriptural case for any suggestion that a certain group of men or series of groups perfectly copied the original language Scriptures, that a certain groups of men perfectly translated them into different languages, or that certain printers print translations perfectly?

 

Your comments are an unfair, incorrect understanding and misrepresentation of what I state. You present no sound, scriptural case that demonstrates that your view is any more sound and scripturally-based than my view.

My eyes are completely open to God's ability. My consistent, sound view of Bible translations is clearly based on what the Scriptures teach.

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from these instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God.

These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:35). It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by imperfect men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16).

Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Would not the preserved original language Scriptures given by inspiration be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing?

 

One rendering where the Geneva Bible may show the influence of the Great Bible and the Latin Vulgate would be at John 10:16.

Instead of keeping the faithful, accurate renderings of William Tyndale, who used two different English words for two different Greek words at John 10:16, the Geneva Bible followed the Great Bible in using only one English word for the two different Greek words.

One place where the KJV reveals a possible influence of High Church/Episcopal views is at John 10:16. Concerning this verse, Burlington Wale asserted: “The ecclesiastical bent of the translators of the Authorised Version shows itself here as elsewhere” (Biblical Outlines, Vol. I, p. 218). F. B. Meyer maintained that “there is no doubt that the King James translators yielded to their ecclesiastical bias when they said, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’” (Howard, Sunday-Schools the World Around, p. 177). At this verse in the KJV, two different Greek words are translated "fold" which removes the clear distinction between them. Were there any important, essential, or necessary reasons why one English word was used to translate these two different Greek words?

Concerning John 10:16, J. B. Lightfoot observed: "The point of our Lord's teaching depends mainly on the distinction between the many folds and the one flock" (The Revision, p. 73). William Tyndale kept this difference of meaning between the two Greek words by translating the second Greek word (poimne) as "flock," as it is also translated in Jay Green's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament and Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible and 1537 Matthew’s Bible also have “flock” in agreement with Tyndale. The KJV translators themselves translated poimne as "flock" at Matthew 26:31, Luke 2:8, and 1 Corinthians 9:7. The KJV translators also translated another form of this word poimnion as “flock” at Luke 12:32, Acts 20:28, 29, and 1 Peter 5:2, 3.

Luther’s 1534 German Bible distinguished between the two Greek words, using Stalle for aule and Herd or Herde for poimne. The 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible also has “one flock” in agreement with Tyndale’s and Luther‘s.

In their tract entitled “A Corrected English Version Needed for the Heathen,“ Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff asserted that “the learned monarch’s translators rejected this rendering [Tyndale’s] of the original, and adopted one made from the Vulgate Latin, which has ovile fold, for both Greek words“ (p. 2). A writer in the Primitive Church Magazine asserted: “Tyndale and Coverdale translated John 10:16, ‘There shall be one flock, and one shepherd,‘ correctly rendering the Greek; but in the great Bible, or Cranmer’s, as it is often called, the reviser, following the vulgate Latin, put ‘one fold and one shepherd,‘ thus introducing ‘an inaccurate rendering, which continued through several revisions” (Vol. IX, June, 1852, p. 169). David Brown cited or quoted the following: “It is worth remarking that in this Bible (referring to Great Bible) one serious mistranslation is introduced which Tyndale had avoided” … “the rendering ‘fold’ in lieu of ‘flock’ in John 10:16” (Indestructible Book, p. 317). Henry Craik maintained that the KJV translators “ought to have restored the correct rendering given by Tyndale” at John 10:16 (Hints, p. 42). Bullinger's Lexicon defined poimne as "a flock," and it noted that in the KJV at John 10:16 "it is wrongly rendered 'fold'" (p. 291). John Wesley commented: “There shall be one flock (Not one fold)“ (Explanatory Notes, p. 244). Melancthon Jacobus wrote: “The term here rendered fold, means flock, and is altogether different from the term rendered ‘fold’ in the context” (Notes on the Gospels: John, p. 183). Concerning this verse in his commentary on John, Oliver B. Greene maintained that “the Greek reads ‘one flock’” (II, p. 133). In his commentary on John, J. Vernon McGee noted: “It is really ‘flock’ (poimne), not ‘fold’ (aule) in this second phrase” (I, p. 164). In its note for this verse, the Ryrie Study Bible has “fold--better, flock” (p. 1607). A. C. Gaebelein asserted that “the Authorized Version is incorrect in using the word ‘fold’” (Annotated Bible, VI, p. 215). In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Arno Clemens Gaebelein wrote: “The authorized version states ‘one fold,’ but this is a serious mistake. Not one fold, but one flock, not an exclusive enclosure of an outward church—but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd, and known of Him” (p. 185).

At its entry for fold, William Swinton as edited by Baptist T. J. Conant noted that it is “from the Latin Vulgate ovile” and that “the true rendering is flock” (Bible Word-Book, p. 56). William Arthur contended: “The venerated translators of our Authorized Version allowed themselves to be led by the Vulgate into a mistranslation in John 10:16” (Contemporary Review, July, 1887, p. 52). Glenn Conjurske maintained: “There are places where the King James Version follows the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek, as, for example, where it reads ’fold’ instead of ’flock’ in John 10:16” (Olde Paths, July, 1992, p. 154). A. T. Robertson observed that the Latin Vulgate's use of one Latin word for these two Greek words "confused this distinction" and "helped Roman Catholic assumptions" (Word Pictures, V, p. 181). Marvin Vincent wrote: "It will readily be seen that the incorrect rendering fostered by the carelessness or the mistake of some of the Western fathers, and by the Vulgate, which renders both words by ovile, fold, has been in the interest of Romish claims" (Word Studies, II, p. 194). Ralph Earle pointed out that “the Roman Catholic church has insisted that it is the only true ’fold,’ into which everyone must come in order to be saved” (Word Meanings, p. 89). In his sermon entitled “Christian Unity,“ Alfred Plummer stated: “The doctrine, that the sheep not in the fold must be brought in, until there is one fold, with all the sheep penned within, gave immense support to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be the one church, outside which there is no salvation” (Modern Sermons, VII, p. 180). The Contemporary Review maintained that “the favourite Catholic text for unity, ‘There shall be one fold’ is a mistranslation. It ought to be ‘one flock’” (Vol. 15, 1870, p. 291). In the volume on John in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, A. Plummer asserted: “The change from ‘flock’ to ‘fold’ has been all loss, leading to calamitous misunderstanding” (p. 217). In his sermon, Alfred Plummer stated: “It is impossible to estimate the mischief that has been done by this unhappy substitution of ‘fold’ for ‘flock’ in this important text” (Modern Sermons, Vol. VII, p. 180). Henry Fox maintained that the rendering “one fold” at John 10:16 in the KJV “has been quite a stock argument with the High Church party” (On the Revision, p. 19). Burlington Wale observed: “The Church of England is the fold; and of course, if there be but ‘one fold,’ all that are not members of the Church of England are out of ‘the fold.’ And so to establish this point, the Saviour is made to say what He does not say. He says there shall be one flock (poimnee), and not one fold” (Biblical Outlines, I, p. 218).

Henry Alford wrote: “The one flock, is remarkable--not one fold, as characteristically, but erroneously rendered in A. V.;--not ONE FOLD, but ONE FLOCK: not one exclusive enclosure of an outward church, but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd and known of Him” (New Testament for English Readers, I, p. 556). Alford asserted: “The rendering’ fold’ instead of ‘flock’ here is a grievous and important error” (How to Study the NT, p. 152). Alford contended: “It is impossible to acquit King James’ translators of some unfairness here. Tyndale’s version, which they had before them, had the faithful rendering as far as this word is concerned; but they followed the erroneous one” (Ibid.).
John Brown wrote: “Sometime a change made from Tyndale was a change decidedly for the worse; as in the case of John 10:16 where ’there shall be one flock’ was altered to ’one fold’” (History, p. 50). In his introduction to his modern-spelling edition of Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament, David Daniell referred to “Tyndale’s correct translation of the last words of John 10:16 as ‘one flock and one shepherd,‘ which became in the Latin-based versions, including our Authorised Version, ‘one fold and one shepherd’” (p. xxi). In his 1538 English translation of the Latin Vulgate’s New Testament, Miles Coverdale translated the Latin as “one fold and one shepherd” at the end of this verse. Edwin Bissell maintained that “one well-known error of our own translation (John 10:16), was inherited from this version of Coverdale through the Latin” (Historic Origin, p. 52). J. H. Murray contended that “the sense is perverted by ’one fold’ being given for ’one flock’” (Help for English Readers, p. 203).

 

The Geneva Bible translators translated poimne as "flock" at Matthew 26:31, Luke 2:8, and 1 Corinthians 9:7. The Geneva Bible translators also translated another form of this word poimnion as “flock” at Luke 12:32, Acts 20:28, 29, and 1 Peter 5:2, 3.

Why did Geneva Bible translators translate poimne differently at John 10:16?
Can you demonstrate that their rendering "sheepfold" is more accurate and faithful to the meaning of the Greek word than Tyndale's rendering "flock" and their own rendering "flock" at other verses?

 

You have not proven from perfect editions of Greek, Latin, and all other ancient texts that the Geneva Bible translators provided a perfectly accurate English text.

The 1560 Geneva Bible does not have the second half of 1 John 2:23 that is in the KJV perhaps because the Geneva Bible's New Testament was translated from early Textus Receptus editions that did not include it since those TR editions were based on imperfect Greek NT manuscripts that had a copying error [Homoeoteleuton] that omitted that second half.

Along with this difference at 1 John 2:23, there are several other likely textually-based differences between the Geneva Bible's New Testament and the KJV's New Testament.

 

Are you sure that the KJV translators had no Greek for the second half of 1 John 2:23?

Are you claiming that there are no editions of Beza's Greek text that have the second half of 1 John 2:23?

Are you suggesting that there are no Greek NT manuscripts that have the second half of 1 John 2:23 in their text?

Would you claim that all the use of italics or a different type in the 1611 edition of the KJV is correct?

Do you acknowledge that you cannot prove from any perfect editions of the Greek, Latin, or other texts that the Geneva Bible translators provided a perfectly accurate English text?

 

The translators of the KJV inconsistently put in a different type the words that they added or used to clarify the text. Both the translators of the Geneva Bible and the translators of the KJV seemed to be unaware that some readings added from editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate by Erasmus were found in no Greek NT manuscripts, and they did not put those added words translated from the Latin in a different type. It would be misleading to English readers to be inconsistent in the use of a different type.

The second half of 1 John 2:23 had been first added and translated from the Latin in Coverdale's 1538 English New Testament and in the 1539 Great Bible. You do not demonstrate that the Geneva Bible translators had any actual Greek source for it. There was Greek for it in two or three of Beza's last Greek NT editions [made after the 1560 Geneva Bible had been printed] so the KJV translators had printed Greek for it the same as for some other places added from the Latin Vulgate in earlier TR editions. The second half of 1 John 2:23 is much more strongly supported in actual Greek NT evidence than some of the other additions by Erasmus, which are found in no Greek NT manuscripts and yet are not in a different type or italics in the Geneva Bible or in the 1611 KJV.

 

GenevanBaptist of course has it right, that the Geneva Bible had it in the gloss, following pre-1560 Greek NT editions of Stephanus and Crespin:

http://images.csntm.org/PublishedWorks/Stephanus_1550/Stephanus_1550_0216b.jpg

http://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/pageview/971895

 

I believe some of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's and the Geneva Bible and the KJV are overall accurate English translations with some inconsistencies, imperfections, and inaccurate renderings.

In some places the 1560 Geneva Bible is better or more accurate than the KJV, and in some places the KJV is better or more accurate than the Geneva Bible when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

I would also believe that some post-1611 English Bibles such as the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists and the NKJV are overall accurate English translations.