was The Geneva Bible Considered superior to 1611 KJV?

Were there any holding to that when kjv came out, or even today?

The Geneva English translation of the Bible was widely used in colonial America. It took decades for the AV1611 to gain traction. Remember that SOME of the early English colonies were close to the Anglican Church that printed the AV1611 while OTHER colonies were fiercely independent of the Anglican (puritan, congregational, etc) and would by nature steer away from anything smacking of Anglican origin.

Also, while the AV had some "word choice" variants, knowing that English as a receptor language was not perfect or as detailed as the original languages, the Geneva had actual "commentary notes" and "explanations" in the printed copies

Perfect reaponse

In an appendix entitled “When and how we get our Bible,” a Sunday School Scholars’ Edition of the KJV stated that the Geneva Bible “is pre-eminently the Protestant Bible” (p. 6).

In 1772, David Durell (Hebrew scholar and friend of Benjamin Blayney and who assisted Blayney in the making of the 1769 KJV edition) maintained that “it [the KJV] does not exhibit in many places the sense of the text so exactly as the version of 1599 [the Geneva]“ (Critical Remarks on the Books, p. vi).

Scrivener noted that “even King James’s revisers sometimes retain renderings of the Bishops’ Bible, when they are decidedly inferior to that of the Geneva New Testament” (Supplement, I, p. 94). In 1827, Baptist Samuel Green asserted that “some learned men speak highly of this copy [the Geneva] of the English Scriptures, and do not hesitate to declare, that it is at least equal to that of King James’s translators” (Miscellanies, p. 256).

In 1835, B. B. Edwards claimed that “on further examination of the Geneva Bible, it appeared that many of the obsolete words and errors in grammar and syntax, found in James’s version, are not in the Geneva” (Biblical Repository, Vol. 6, p. 478). B. B. Edwards maintained that though the Geneva was “sometimes improved in the last translation [the KJV]” that the Geneva Bible “contained many preferable translations” (Ibid.).

JesusFan said:

Were there any holding to that when kjv came out, or even today?

Click to expand...

Yes, Jack Hyles great-great (+9) great grandfather!

Dr. Bob said:

The Geneva English translation of the Bible was widely used in colonial America. It took decades for the AV1611 to gain traction. Remember that SOME of the early English colonies were close to the Anglican Church that printed the AV1611 while OTHER colonies were fiercely independent of the Anglican (puritan, congregational, etc) and would by nature steer away from anything smacking of Anglican origin.

Click to expand...

Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia (2006), p. 324

"The Calvinist orientation of this translation has led many to assert that it was the favored Bible among puritans in England and New England, but an examination of Bible ownership and the actual words cited in sermons and recorded in sermon notes would indicate that this is an exaggeration."

Dr. Bob said:

Also, while the AV had some "word choice" variants, knowing that English as a receptor language was not perfect or as detailed as the original languages, the Geneva had actual "commentary notes" and "explanations" in the printed copies

Click to expand...

The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History, eds. Nathan Hatch and Mark Noll explains that as elaborate Covenant Theology theories arose and dominated Puritanism, attachment to the Geneva Bible [which was based primarily on its notes] waned. The notes were from an earlier era; the commentary was lacking what Puritanism had come to be enamored with.

p. 20
"In its infant stage, English Puritanism was organized around the Genevan translation of 1560. As the movement grew in power and influence, clerical loyalties switched to the Authorized or "King James" version of 1611. This later version furnished the primary text on which New England's Bible Commonwealth would rest."

Dr. Bob said:

The Geneva English translation of the Bible was widely used in colonial America. It took decades for the AV1611 to gain traction. Remember that SOME of the early English colonies were close to the Anglican Church that printed the AV1611 while OTHER colonies were fiercely independent of the Anglican (puritan, congregational, etc) and would by nature steer away from anything smacking of Anglican origin.

Also, while the AV had some "word choice" variants, knowing that English as a receptor language was not perfect or as detailed as the original languages, the Geneva had actual "commentary notes" and "explanations" in the printed copies

Click to expand...

Their Bible had Calvinistic study notes, correct?

Logos1560 said:

In an appendix entitled “When and how we get our Bible,” a Sunday School Scholars’ Edition of the KJV stated that the Geneva Bible “is pre-eminently the Protestant Bible” (p. 6).

In 1772, David Durell (Hebrew scholar and friend of Benjamin Blayney and who assisted Blayney in the making of the 1769 KJV edition) maintained that “it [the KJV] does not exhibit in many places the sense of the text so exactly as the version of 1599 [the Geneva]“ (Critical Remarks on the Books, p. vi).

Scrivener noted that “even King James’s revisers sometimes retain renderings of the Bishops’ Bible, when they are decidedly inferior to that of the Geneva New Testament” (Supplement, I, p. 94). In 1827, Baptist Samuel Green asserted that “some learned men speak highly of this copy [the Geneva] of the English Scriptures, and do not hesitate to declare, that it is at least equal to that of King James’s translators” (Miscellanies, p. 256).

In 1835, B. B. Edwards claimed that “on further examination of the Geneva Bible, it appeared that many of the obsolete words and errors in grammar and syntax, found in James’s version, are not in the Geneva” (Biblical Repository, Vol. 6, p. 478). B. B. Edwards maintained that though the Geneva was “sometimes improved in the last translation [the KJV]” that the Geneva Bible “contained many preferable translations” (Ibid.).

Click to expand...

Even KJVO would have to accept it as a legit translation, to them still inferior to their beloved Kjv, correct?

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).

Gail Riplinger asserted: “Generally speaking the early English Bibles are the same” (In Awe, p. 130). Gail Riplinger wrote: “This author’s word-for-word comparison of the actual scriptures of Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, and the Great Bible sheds new light on their contributions to the English Bible” (p. 37). Gail Riplinger referred to her “word-for-word collation” of the Bishops’ Bible and her “own word-for-word analysis of the English Bibles before the KJV” (p. 18). Gail Riplinger asserted: “These observations result from this author’s thorough collation of the Bishops’ and previous Bibles. It is a conclusion based on facts which are demonstrable and not based on supposition” (p. 135). Gail Riplinger boldly claimed: “The words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (p. 859).

JesusFan said:

Their Bible had Calvinistic study notes, correct?

Click to expand...

Yes. It promoted biblical soteriology of a sovereign Godhead and sinful world.

Logos1560 said:

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).

Gail Riplinger asserted: “Generally speaking the early English Bibles are the same” (In Awe, p. 130). Gail Riplinger wrote: “This author’s word-for-word comparison of the actual scriptures of Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, and the Great Bible sheds new light on their contributions to the English Bible” (p. 37). Gail Riplinger referred to her “word-for-word collation” of the Bishops’ Bible and her “own word-for-word analysis of the English Bibles before the KJV” (p. 18). Gail Riplinger asserted: “These observations result from this author’s thorough collation of the Bishops’ and previous Bibles. It is a conclusion based on facts which are demonstrable and not based on supposition” (p. 135). Gail Riplinger boldly claimed: “The words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (p. 859).

Click to expand...

By her own logic here then, the Nkjv would be "practically identical to the KJV"

JesusFan said:

By her own logic here then, the Nkjv would be "practically identical to the KJV"

Click to expand...

Yes, if her own logic was applied consistently and justly, the NKJV should be considered "practically identical" to the KJV.


I have found many pages of places where the KJV improved on the Geneva Bible that the NKJV is in agreement with the KJV.

I also found many pages of renderings where the NKJV is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible when it differs from the KJV, and in at least some of those places the Geneva Bible and the NKJV seem to be more accurate than the KJV.

Logos1560 said:

Yes, if her own logic was applied consistently and justly, the NKJV should be considered "practically identical" to the KJV.


I have found many pages of places where the KJV improved on the Geneva Bible that the NKJV is in agreement with the KJV.

I also found many pages of renderings where the NKJV is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible when it differs from the KJV, and in at least some of those places the Geneva Bible and the NKJV seem to be more accurate than the KJV.

Click to expand...

I know someone who by my consideration is lost. (I would not know for certain) I was pleasantly surprised to know that he had begun reading any Bible. His Bible of choice is, the last I knew, the Geneva Bible. I asked him how he happened to choose it. It appeared that it was his own choice. He didn’t mention anyone else’s help in the matter.

Ben1445 said:

I know someone who by my consideration is lost. (I would not know for certain) I was pleasantly surprised to know that he had begun reading any Bible. His Bible of choice is, the last I knew, the Geneva Bible. I asked him how he happened to choose it. It appeared that it was his own choice. He didn’t mention anyone else’s help in the matter.

Click to expand...

I am sure that the Holy Spirit even has used the living Bible and Good news Bibles to save out to Lord Jesus His own sheep over the years, even though neither would ever be on my preferred bible listing

Examples in first 12 chapters of Acts where the 1560 Geneva Bible and the NKJV seem to agree in differing from the KJV.

Acts 1:3 presented (Geneva, NKJV) shewed (KJV)
Acts 1:3 that he had suffered (Geneva) his passion (KJV) His suffering (NKJV)
Acts 1:4 he commanded (Geneva) commanded (KJV) He commanded (NKJV)
Acts 1:4 but to wait (Geneva, NKJV) but wait (KJV)
Acts 1:19 their own language (Geneva, NKJV) their proper tongue (KJV)
Acts 1:20 charge (Geneva) bishopric (KJV) office (NKJV)
Acts 1:22 be made (Geneva) be ordained (KJV) become (NKJV)
Acts 1:23 presented (Geneva) appointed (KJV) proposed (NKJV)
Acts 1:28 on Matthias (Geneva, NKJV) upon Matthias (KJV)

Acts 2:8 language (Geneva, NKJV) tongue (KJV)
Acts 2:13 They are full (Geneva, NKJV) These men are full (KJV)
Acts 2:15 since it is (Geneva, NKJV) seeing it is (KJV)
Acts 2:25 David saith (Geneva) David speaketh (KJV) David says (NKJV)
Acts 2:34 sit at (Geneva, NKJV) sit thou on (KJV)

Acts 3:12 So when Peter (Geneva, NKJV) And when Peter (KJV)
Acts 3:12 or godliness (Geneva, NKJV) or holiness (KJV)
Acts 3:17 I know (Geneva, NKJV) I wot (KJV)
Acts 3:18 thus fulfilled (Geneva, NKJV) so fulfilled (KJV)
Acts 3:23 shall be (Geneva, NKJV) shall come to pass (KJV)
Acts 3:25 to Abraham (Geneva, NKJV) unto Abraham (KJV)
Acts 3:26 your iniquities (Geneva, NKJV) his iniquities (KJV)

Acts 4:2 in Jesus Name (Geneva) through Jesus (KJV) in Jesus (NKJV)
Acts 4:18 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
Acts 4:28 to do (Geneva, NKJV) For to do (KJV)

Acts 5:16 were all healed (Geneva, NKJV) were healed every one (KJV)
Acts 5:21 all the elders (Geneva, NKJV) all the senate (KJV)
Acts 5:35 Men of Israel (Geneva, NKJV) Ye men of Israel (KJV)
Acts 5:41 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)

Acts 6:11 against Moses and God (Geneva, NKJV) against Moses and against God (KJV)

Acts 7:6 But God (Geneva, NKJV) And God (KJV)
Acts 7:11 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
Acts 7:17 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 7:20 acceptable unto God (Geneva) exceeding fair (KJV) well pleasing to God (NKJV)
Acts 7:25 that God (Geneva, NKJV) how that God (KJV)
Acts 7:38 congregation (Geneva, NKJV) church (KJV)
Acts 7:40 know not (Geneva) wot not (KJV) do not know (NKJV)

Acts 8:1 to his death (Geneva, NKJV) unto his death (KJV)
Acts 8:7 with a loud (Geneva, NKJV) with loud (KJV)
Acts 8:23 For I see (Geneva, NKJV) For I perceive (KJV)
Acts 8:27 to worship (Geneva, NKJV) for to worship (KJV)

Acts 9:8 from the ground (Geneva, NKJV) from the earth (KJV)
Acts 9:9 ate nor drank (Geneva, NKJV) did eat nor drink (KJV)
Acts 9:16 how many things (Geneva, NKJV) how great things (KJV)
Acts 9:22 the Christ (Geneva, NKJV) very Christ (KJV)
Acts 9:25 through the wall (Geneva, NKJV) by the wall (KJV)
Acts 9:38 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)

Acts 10:2 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
Acts 10:9 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)

Acts 11:1 Now the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Acts 11:25 to seek (Geneva, NKJV) for to seek (KJV)
Acts 11:26 first called Christians (Geneva, NKJV) called Christians first (KJV)
Acts 11:28 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)

Acts 12:4 the passover (Geneva, NKJV) Easter (KJV)
Acts 12:9 knew not (Geneva) wist not (KJV) did not know (KJV)

Dr. Bob said:

The Geneva English translation of the Bible was widely used in colonial America. It took decades for the AV1611 to gain traction. Remember that SOME of the early English colonies were close to the Anglican Church that printed the AV1611 while OTHER colonies were fiercely independent of the Anglican (puritan, congregational, etc) and would by nature steer away from anything smacking of Anglican origin.

Also, while the AV had some "word choice" variants, knowing that English as a receptor language was not perfect or as detailed as the original languages, the Geneva had actual "commentary notes" and "explanations" in the printed copies

Click to expand...

Most of the scholars will not accept the fact that there is no real difference between the scriptures and our Lord Jesus. Some of those guys are generally left interpreting the truth out of John 1:1. That passage says that Jesus Christ is the personification of the Word. He is the only person who has ever lived and has been born of a woman who existed and ministered personally among men for 4k years before his birth.

He existed from everlasting, the eternal God but he is introduced to us personally as to his personhood in the very beginning of the third millennium of human and world history with both a name and a title. From this point on it will be him who personally interacts with the prophets of history to give the spoken word from God that would also be written. No words were written until Job was written, not by Job, but about Job. Then Moses who interacted face to face with the LORD wrote the Pentateuch.

Gen 15 records the introduction of both the name of Jesus Christ in the OT and his title. His name is revealed as Adonay Jehovah, appearing in the KJV as Lord GOD. His title is "the word of the LORD." As a for instance, it is the word of the LORD who came to Ezekiel 200 times to speak to him the words he wrote. Some of those times it was to him as it was to Abraham; Here is how it was to Abraham;

Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the Lord (first mention) came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. (see Ro 4 - it was the place and time of Abraham's justification by faith)

2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, (first mention) what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

This is a great and notable transition that sheds much light on Jesus as the Word of God and should not be dismissed. The title "the word of the Lord" is in the NT scriptures 13 times.

Psalm 18:30
As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

The word of the LORD is most often a HE, a personality in scripture. My personal conclusion is that God would not be true to Christ if he did not perfectly preserve his word, which he gave to Christ to give to us. Consider what Peter said after he denied the Lord;

Luke 22:61
And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. I am on the side of no doubt about the word of the Lord. Jesus Christ is everywhere in the scriptures.