-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
ANY Reason why the geneva instead of the KJV is NOT The English Bible For Today?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Harry Stout in The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History, eds. Nathan Hatch and Mark Noll, explains that when Covenant Theology became all the rage in Calvinist circles, the Geneva Bible fell out of fashion among them because its notes focused on more basic Reformation themes rather than the complicated Covenant schemes that had become trendy.
Last edited by a moderator:
In his introduction to his modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's, David Daniell pointed out: "This, the Geneva Bible, was made for readers at all levels, and it was for nearly a century the Bible of the English people, used by all wings of the English church" (p. xi). Christopher Anderson maintained that “the readers of the Geneva Bible, as a body, cannot be distinguished by any opprobrious party epithet of the day, for that version was to be found in all the families of England where the Scriptures were read at all” (Annals, II, p. 355). Scrivener maintained that “the Geneva version was the Family Bible of the middle classes in England for two full generations after its first appearance” (Supplement, I, p. 93). Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones described the Geneva Bible as “the most popular and influential English Bible during most of the hundred years or so after it was published” (KJB after 400, p. 336). MacCulloch indicated that a half a million copies of the Geneva Bible were printed and that the surviving copies indicate that they “have usually been read to bits” (Reformation, p. 569).
In his letters written in the late 1720’s, Daniel Waterland indicated that there were editions of the Geneva Bible printed as late as 1657, 1677, and 1688 (Works, X, p. 400). David Norton cited where Thomas Ward in 1688 indicated that Bibles printed in 1562, 1577, and 1579 [editions of the Geneva Bible] were still “in many men’s hands” (History, p. 39). In a footnote, David Norton pointed out that “sixteenth-century Geneva Bibles with eighteenth-century inscriptions are quite common” (p. 39, footnote 3). He gave the example of one Geneva Bible in a New Zealand library that “contains signatures, comments and records that date from 1696 to 1877.” Alec Gilmore observed that there is some evidence that a 1610 edition of the Geneva Bible “was still being used in Aberdeenshire as late as 1674” (Dictionary, p. 84). In 1824, John Lee noted: “Till within the last forty years, a Bible of the Geneva translation, printed at London in 1583, was used in the church of Crail, as it had been nearly 200 years” (Memorial for the Bible Societies, p. 112). John Brown also mentioned that “as late as the close of the 18th century a Genevan Bible was still in use in the church of Crail in Fifeshire” (History, p. 84). A Geneva Bible printed in London in 1615 that is now preserved at Davidson College’s library has family record inscriptions dated 1747 and 1749, indicating its use in the 1700’s. Even as late as 1867, A. E. Rich wrote: “This version is known as the Genevan edition, and is still in use, to some extent, in England and Scotland” (Congregational Review, VII, p. 586).
In his letters written in the late 1720’s, Daniel Waterland indicated that there were editions of the Geneva Bible printed as late as 1657, 1677, and 1688 (Works, X, p. 400). David Norton cited where Thomas Ward in 1688 indicated that Bibles printed in 1562, 1577, and 1579 [editions of the Geneva Bible] were still “in many men’s hands” (History, p. 39). In a footnote, David Norton pointed out that “sixteenth-century Geneva Bibles with eighteenth-century inscriptions are quite common” (p. 39, footnote 3). He gave the example of one Geneva Bible in a New Zealand library that “contains signatures, comments and records that date from 1696 to 1877.” Alec Gilmore observed that there is some evidence that a 1610 edition of the Geneva Bible “was still being used in Aberdeenshire as late as 1674” (Dictionary, p. 84). In 1824, John Lee noted: “Till within the last forty years, a Bible of the Geneva translation, printed at London in 1583, was used in the church of Crail, as it had been nearly 200 years” (Memorial for the Bible Societies, p. 112). John Brown also mentioned that “as late as the close of the 18th century a Genevan Bible was still in use in the church of Crail in Fifeshire” (History, p. 84). A Geneva Bible printed in London in 1615 that is now preserved at Davidson College’s library has family record inscriptions dated 1747 and 1749, indicating its use in the 1700’s. Even as late as 1867, A. E. Rich wrote: “This version is known as the Genevan edition, and is still in use, to some extent, in England and Scotland” (Congregational Review, VII, p. 586).
Paine noted that "the household Bible of the English people was the one which was produced at Geneva" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 9). Price asserted that “the Geneva Bible immediately sprang into full-grown popularity” (Ancestory of our English Bible, p. 265). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that the Geneva Bible "was the Bible on which most Englishmen in Elizabethan England were brought up" (Vol. XXI, p. 152). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible indicated that the Geneva Bible “enjoyed great popularity among English Protestants for the rest of the century and to the end of the next” (p. 117). In an introductory essay in a reprint of the 1602 edition of the Geneva New Testament, Gerald Sheppard observed: "The Geneva Bible became the most popular Bible in England and America and remained so until about 1640" (p. 1). Bray confirmed that "the Geneva Bible became and remained the popular text, read and studied by all classes of the population" (Documents, p. 355). John Brown wrote: “For nearly a hundred years the Genevan Bible was the favourite version of the common people” (History, p. 81). David Dewey wrote: “From its publication in 1560, the Geneva Bible reigned supreme in Protestant affections for over a century” (User’s Guide, p. 124). Samuel Newth noted that the Geneva Bible “was the form of the Bible most largely circulated in this country [Great Britain]“ “for nearly a century onward” (Lectures, p. 26). Condit asserted that the Geneva Bible “very soon became the Bible of the household, and for more than a century and a half it maintained its place as the Bible of the people” (History, p. 245). Condit also observed: “So universally was this Bible accepted, that it was read from the pulpit, quoted in sermons, cited by authors, and adopted in the family” (p. 250). Samuel Fisk acknowledged that “the influence of the Geneva Bible continued for a considerable time even after publication of the King James Version in 1611” (Calvinistic Paths, p. 74). Andrew Edgar noted that “long after 1611 the Geneva version continued to be the household Bible of a large portion of the English people” (Bibles of England, p. 326). After referring to the publication of the 1611, Richard Lovett pointed out that “for twenty-five years the Geneva Bible continued in use in many churches” (Printed English Bible, p. 150).Charles Boyce observed that "the Geneva Bible was so powerful a literary text that the Bishops' Bible actually relied on it to some extent, as, later did the creators of the King James Version" (Shakespeare A to Z, p. 63).
KJV-only claims concerning the Geneva Bible
The popularity, wide use, and wide acceptance of the Geneva Bible are even acknowledged by some KJV-only authors. Robert Sargent and Laurence Vance both confirmed that the Geneva Bible "became the Bible of the people" (English Bible, p. 197; Brief History, p. 19). Phil Stringer referred to the Geneva as “the people’s Book“ and as “the Bible of the common man” (History, p. 13). William Bradley wrote: "The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the people, the Bible of the persecuted Christians and martyrs of the faith, the Bible of choice among English-speaking people for over one hundred years" (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Bradley also commented: “The Geneva Bible was the most widespread English Bible for a period of about one hundred years, from the 1560’s to the 1660’s” (To All Generations, p. 64). David Cloud stated: "The Geneva quickly became the most popular English Bible and wielded a powerful influence for almost 100 years" (Rome and the Bible, p. 108). Michael Bates asserted: “It would be more than a hundred years before the Geneva Bible would finally give way to the KJV” (Inspiration, p. 291).
The popularity, wide use, and wide acceptance of the Geneva Bible are even acknowledged by some KJV-only authors. Robert Sargent and Laurence Vance both confirmed that the Geneva Bible "became the Bible of the people" (English Bible, p. 197; Brief History, p. 19). Phil Stringer referred to the Geneva as “the people’s Book“ and as “the Bible of the common man” (History, p. 13). William Bradley wrote: "The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the people, the Bible of the persecuted Christians and martyrs of the faith, the Bible of choice among English-speaking people for over one hundred years" (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Bradley also commented: “The Geneva Bible was the most widespread English Bible for a period of about one hundred years, from the 1560’s to the 1660’s” (To All Generations, p. 64). David Cloud stated: "The Geneva quickly became the most popular English Bible and wielded a powerful influence for almost 100 years" (Rome and the Bible, p. 108). Michael Bates asserted: “It would be more than a hundred years before the Geneva Bible would finally give way to the KJV” (Inspiration, p. 291).
KJV-only praise of the Geneva Bible
William Bradley, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The translators changed virtually nothing from William Tyndale’s New Testament in the New Testament of the Geneva Bible” (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva “differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts” (Things That Are Different, p. 48). Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Ibid.). Carter maintained that the Geneva Bible “came from the same source” as the KJV and that it is “trustworthy” (p. 121). Carter indicated that “there were no doctrinal differences” between the Geneva and the KJV (p. 125). Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible “is from the same manuscripts as the King James” (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17). Chester Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). 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). Riplinger also wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe of thy Word, p. 566). Riplinger asserted that “generally speaking, the early English Bibles are the same” (p. 130). Riplinger indicated that those previous early English Bibles “were no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJB” (Hidden History of the English Scriptures, p. 59). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text that underlies the King James Version” (Which Bible, p. 51). Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot which was the Geneva Bible as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108). H. D. Williams identified the Geneva Bible as being “based on the Received Texts of the original languages of the Bible” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 238). D. A. Waite maintained that “the Geneva Bible (1557-60) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 48). David Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). Cloud described both the Geneva and the KJV as being editions of Tyndale’s (Faith, p. 510). Cloud stated that the predecessors of the KJV were "the same basic Bibles." He wrote: "They were based upon the same Greek text and employed the same type of translation methodology" (For Love of the Bible, p. 48). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout” (Bible Versions, p. 11). In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams listed the Geneva Bible as a “literal, verbal plenary translation” (Word-for-Word, p. 121). Robert Sargent referred to it as “a very good translation” (English Bible, p. 197). Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82). Ruckman wrote: “I recommend … the Geneva Bible” (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). Ruckman asserted that “we will not condemn them” [referring to pre-1611 English Bibles including the Geneva Bible] (Bible Babel, p. 2). Ruckman described the Geneva Bible as “a revision of Tyndale” and “the most anti-Catholic translation to date” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 158, 157).
William Bradley, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The translators changed virtually nothing from William Tyndale’s New Testament in the New Testament of the Geneva Bible” (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva “differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts” (Things That Are Different, p. 48). Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Ibid.). Carter maintained that the Geneva Bible “came from the same source” as the KJV and that it is “trustworthy” (p. 121). Carter indicated that “there were no doctrinal differences” between the Geneva and the KJV (p. 125). Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible “is from the same manuscripts as the King James” (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17). Chester Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). 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). Riplinger also wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe of thy Word, p. 566). Riplinger asserted that “generally speaking, the early English Bibles are the same” (p. 130). Riplinger indicated that those previous early English Bibles “were no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJB” (Hidden History of the English Scriptures, p. 59). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text that underlies the King James Version” (Which Bible, p. 51). Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot which was the Geneva Bible as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108). H. D. Williams identified the Geneva Bible as being “based on the Received Texts of the original languages of the Bible” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 238). D. A. Waite maintained that “the Geneva Bible (1557-60) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 48). David Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). Cloud described both the Geneva and the KJV as being editions of Tyndale’s (Faith, p. 510). Cloud stated that the predecessors of the KJV were "the same basic Bibles." He wrote: "They were based upon the same Greek text and employed the same type of translation methodology" (For Love of the Bible, p. 48). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout” (Bible Versions, p. 11). In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams listed the Geneva Bible as a “literal, verbal plenary translation” (Word-for-Word, p. 121). Robert Sargent referred to it as “a very good translation” (English Bible, p. 197). Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82). Ruckman wrote: “I recommend … the Geneva Bible” (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). Ruckman asserted that “we will not condemn them” [referring to pre-1611 English Bibles including the Geneva Bible] (Bible Babel, p. 2). Ruckman described the Geneva Bible as “a revision of Tyndale” and “the most anti-Catholic translation to date” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 158, 157).
So it would appear that you would agree with me that IF you held to the superiority of the TR contarsted with the CT, which I do not hold to myself, than one would conclude that the Geneva Bible has as much validity to being THE Bible for today as ole KJV?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
No, not even for a TR-referred reader. The 1560 Geneva Bible (although some editions may have been printed into the mid-1600s) was actually a translation product of the mid-1500s. The scholarship behind the AV1611 had significantly advanced over a half-century. I have read them both, and I would say that the KJV is generally the better translation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Was there an edition of the Geneva Bible that had the notes from many of the Reformers in margins/notes?
is that available today?
It would be unusual to find a Geneva Bible WITHOUT the Reformed marginal notes. That's usually what its fans find oh so precious about it.
I am not aware of any "special edition" with "Reformers'' notes other than those that were integral and ubiquitous from the first printing on. There was a wholesale revision of the Revelation notes at the tail end of the sixteenth century.
William Spalding, The History of English Literature:
"Coverdale, Knox, and several others, have been said to have had some share in the work; but three only can positively be named, all of whom were afterwards ministers in the Church of England."
Andrew Edgar, The Bibles of England:
"Coverdale was residing at Geneva at the time, and some writers have claimed for him a share of the honour. Scotsmen have, of course, put in a similar claim on behalf of John Knox. ... Whatever help, if any, was given to this noble work at Geneva by Coverdale and Knox, it seems now to be admitted that the chief credit of the work is due to Whittingham, and that his principle assistants were two Englishmen, named Thomas Sampson and Anthony Gilby."
I am not aware of any "special edition" with "Reformers'' notes other than those that were integral and ubiquitous from the first printing on. There was a wholesale revision of the Revelation notes at the tail end of the sixteenth century.
William Spalding, The History of English Literature:
"Coverdale, Knox, and several others, have been said to have had some share in the work; but three only can positively be named, all of whom were afterwards ministers in the Church of England."
Andrew Edgar, The Bibles of England:
"Coverdale was residing at Geneva at the time, and some writers have claimed for him a share of the honour. Scotsmen have, of course, put in a similar claim on behalf of John Knox. ... Whatever help, if any, was given to this noble work at Geneva by Coverdale and Knox, it seems now to be admitted that the chief credit of the work is due to Whittingham, and that his principle assistants were two Englishmen, named Thomas Sampson and Anthony Gilby."
translators of the Geneva Bible
There is no official list or record that presents all the men that may have been involved in the translating of this Bible. John Lewis listed the translators as Miles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, William Whittingham, Thomas Sampson, and William Cole, and noted that some add John Knox, John Bodleigh, and John Pullain to that list (Complete History, p. 206). At its entry for the Geneva Bible, the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature also numbered the same above first six names as among its translators (p. 1835). Opfell enumerated its translators as Whittingham, Gilby, Sampson, and "possibly William Kethe, William Cole, John Baron, and William Williams" (KJV Translators, p. 22). The Dictionary of National Biography claimed that William Kethe (?-1608) "acted as one of the translators of the Geneva Bible" (XI, p. 74). This same reference work noted that Cole (?-1600) joined with Coverdale, Whittingham, Gilby, Sampson, and others in producing the Geneva Bible (IV, p. 731). Benjamin Brook maintained that the translators of the Geneva Bible “were Coverdale, Goodman, Gilby, Whittingham, Sampson, Cole, Knox, Bodleigh, and Pullain, all celebrated puritans” (Lives, I, p. 125). Daniell included Coverdale, Goodman, Gilby, Sampson, Cole, and Whittingham as its translators, possibly joined in committee by John Knox, and later assisted by Baron, Kethe, Williams, John Pullain, and John Bodley (Bible in English, p. 278). Cloud noted that “it is even possible that John Knox assisted in the project” (Faith, p. 521). John Strype asserted that John Knox was one of the Geneva translators (Life of Matthew Parker, I, p. 409). Williston Walker also claimed that John Knox “laboured on the Genevan version” (History, pp. 369-370). In his introduction to a facsimile reprint of the 1560 Geneva Bible, Lloyd Berry noted that “a letter from Miles Coverdale to William Cole in Geneva, dated February 22, 1560, indicates that Gilby, Cole, Kethe, Baron, and Williams had remained with Whittingham to finish the work on the Bible and to see it through the press” (p. 8).
Bradstreet maintained that the Geneva translators “were among the Reformation’s spiritual giants” (KJV in History, p. 111). If the translators’ holiness of life, doctrinal soundness, and endurance of suffering were the chief criteria for evaluating a translation, the Geneva Bible could perhaps be rated higher than any other English translation. Perhaps one reason some of those that may have been involved in the translating are not known is that the accession of Queen Elizabeth in England permitted some of them to return to England in 1559. Knox and Goodman had been chosen or elected as the pastors of the congregation of English exiles at Geneva. Coverdale, who was godfather to John Knox’s son, became an elder of this congregation. Ken Connolly maintained that Whittingham succeeded Knox as pastor of the English congregation in Geneva in 1559 (Indestructible Book, p. 154). Alan Macgregor asserted that “Knox’s congregation bore the cost of the translation” (400 Years On, p. 284). Was the Geneva Bible the only early English Bible that may have been the work of the members of a local church in cooperation with its pastors?
There is no official list or record that presents all the men that may have been involved in the translating of this Bible. John Lewis listed the translators as Miles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, William Whittingham, Thomas Sampson, and William Cole, and noted that some add John Knox, John Bodleigh, and John Pullain to that list (Complete History, p. 206). At its entry for the Geneva Bible, the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature also numbered the same above first six names as among its translators (p. 1835). Opfell enumerated its translators as Whittingham, Gilby, Sampson, and "possibly William Kethe, William Cole, John Baron, and William Williams" (KJV Translators, p. 22). The Dictionary of National Biography claimed that William Kethe (?-1608) "acted as one of the translators of the Geneva Bible" (XI, p. 74). This same reference work noted that Cole (?-1600) joined with Coverdale, Whittingham, Gilby, Sampson, and others in producing the Geneva Bible (IV, p. 731). Benjamin Brook maintained that the translators of the Geneva Bible “were Coverdale, Goodman, Gilby, Whittingham, Sampson, Cole, Knox, Bodleigh, and Pullain, all celebrated puritans” (Lives, I, p. 125). Daniell included Coverdale, Goodman, Gilby, Sampson, Cole, and Whittingham as its translators, possibly joined in committee by John Knox, and later assisted by Baron, Kethe, Williams, John Pullain, and John Bodley (Bible in English, p. 278). Cloud noted that “it is even possible that John Knox assisted in the project” (Faith, p. 521). John Strype asserted that John Knox was one of the Geneva translators (Life of Matthew Parker, I, p. 409). Williston Walker also claimed that John Knox “laboured on the Genevan version” (History, pp. 369-370). In his introduction to a facsimile reprint of the 1560 Geneva Bible, Lloyd Berry noted that “a letter from Miles Coverdale to William Cole in Geneva, dated February 22, 1560, indicates that Gilby, Cole, Kethe, Baron, and Williams had remained with Whittingham to finish the work on the Bible and to see it through the press” (p. 8).
Bradstreet maintained that the Geneva translators “were among the Reformation’s spiritual giants” (KJV in History, p. 111). If the translators’ holiness of life, doctrinal soundness, and endurance of suffering were the chief criteria for evaluating a translation, the Geneva Bible could perhaps be rated higher than any other English translation. Perhaps one reason some of those that may have been involved in the translating are not known is that the accession of Queen Elizabeth in England permitted some of them to return to England in 1559. Knox and Goodman had been chosen or elected as the pastors of the congregation of English exiles at Geneva. Coverdale, who was godfather to John Knox’s son, became an elder of this congregation. Ken Connolly maintained that Whittingham succeeded Knox as pastor of the English congregation in Geneva in 1559 (Indestructible Book, p. 154). Alan Macgregor asserted that “Knox’s congregation bore the cost of the translation” (400 Years On, p. 284). Was the Geneva Bible the only early English Bible that may have been the work of the members of a local church in cooperation with its pastors?
That may be true overall or generally, but it is not true concerning every rendering of every word of every verse. In at least some places, the 1560 Geneva Bible has a clearer, better, or more accurate rendering than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. In some places the KJV kept the more archaic and less clear renderings of the Bishops' Bible where the Geneva Bible already had clearer and more up-to-date English.
In 1772, David Durell (Hebrew scholar and friend of Benjamin Blayney and who assisted Blayney in the making of the 1769 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).
One evidence that would indicate and affirm that some renderings of the Geneva Bible are better or more accurate is the fact that the NKJV translators ended up agreeing with them in a good number of cases.
So back to my OP...
IF we were to adopt the policies of KJVO, wouldn't the geneva Bible also have to be seen as being another "Only english" Bible for use today?
Here are some actual examples from the book of Job where the NKJV has the same rendering or a closer rendering to the Geneva Bible than the KJV has.
Job 1:11 stretch out (Geneva, NKJV) put forth (KJV)
Job 1:17 have taken them (Geneva) have carried them away (KJV) took them away (NKJV)
Job 2:5 stretch (Geneva, NKJV) put (KJV)
Job 3:11 womb (Geneva, NKJV) belly (KJV)
Job 8:4 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Job 8:14 confidence (Geneva, NKJV) hope (KJV)
Job 9:31 in the pit (Geneva, NKJV) in the ditch (KJV)
Job 9:33 umpire (Geneva) daysman (KJV) mediator (NKJV)
Job 10:6 out my sin (Geneva, NKJV) after my sin (KJV)
Job 10:9 pray (Geneva, NKJV) beseech (KJV)
Job 15:10 older (Geneva, NKJV) elder (KJV)
Job 15:26 shield (Geneva, NKJV) bucklers (KJV)
Job 16:3 words of wind (Geneva, NKJV) vain words (KJV)
Job 16:5 comfort of my lips (Geneva, NKJV) moving of my lips (KJV)
Job 17:1 grave (Geneva, NKJV) graves (KJV)
Job 19:4 with me (Geneva, NKJV) with myself (KJV)
Job 19:13 removed (Geneva, NKJV) put (KJV)
Job 19:25 on the earth (Geneva, NKJV) upon the earth (KJV)
Job 20:3 correction (Geneva) check (KJV) rebuke (NKJV)
Job 20:25 cometh upon (Geneva) are upon (KJV) come upon (NKJV)
Job 21:15 Who is (Geneva, NKJV) What is (KJV)
Job 21:29 their signs (Geneva, NKJV) their tokens (KJV)
Job 22:2 to himself (Geneva, NKJV) unto himself (KJV)
Job 22:14 circle of heaven (Geneva, NKJV) circuit of heaven (KJV)
Job 22:16 before the time (Geneva) out of time (KJV) before their time (NKJV)
Job 23:7 reason (Geneva, NKJV) dispute (KJV)
Job 26:8 broken (Geneva, NKJV) rent (KJV)
Job 26:13 Spirit (Geneva, NKJV) spirit (KJV)
Job 29:10 The voice of princes (Geneva) The nobles (KJV) The voice of nobles (NKJV)
Job 30:8 children of villains (Geneva) children of base men (KJV) sons of vile men (NKJV)
Job 30:29 ostriches (Geneva, NKJV) owls (KJV)
Job 31:11 wickedness (Geneva, NKJV) heinous crime (KJV)
Job 32:14 your words (Geneva, NKJV) your speeches (KJV)
Job 32:18 compelleth (Geneva) constraineth (KJV) compels (NKJV)
Job 34:11 to his way (Geneva, NKJV) to his ways (KJV)
Job 34:15 return (Geneva, NKJV) turn again (KJV)
Job 36:6 afflicted (Geneva) poor (KJV) oppressed (NKJV)
Job 39:10 will he plow (Geneva, NKJV) will he harrow (KJV)
Job 39:14 in the dust (Geneva, NKJV) in dust (KJV)
Job 41:20 boiling pot (Geneva, NKJV) seething pot (KJV)
Job 1:11 stretch out (Geneva, NKJV) put forth (KJV)
Job 1:17 have taken them (Geneva) have carried them away (KJV) took them away (NKJV)
Job 2:5 stretch (Geneva, NKJV) put (KJV)
Job 3:11 womb (Geneva, NKJV) belly (KJV)
Job 8:4 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Job 8:14 confidence (Geneva, NKJV) hope (KJV)
Job 9:31 in the pit (Geneva, NKJV) in the ditch (KJV)
Job 9:33 umpire (Geneva) daysman (KJV) mediator (NKJV)
Job 10:6 out my sin (Geneva, NKJV) after my sin (KJV)
Job 10:9 pray (Geneva, NKJV) beseech (KJV)
Job 15:10 older (Geneva, NKJV) elder (KJV)
Job 15:26 shield (Geneva, NKJV) bucklers (KJV)
Job 16:3 words of wind (Geneva, NKJV) vain words (KJV)
Job 16:5 comfort of my lips (Geneva, NKJV) moving of my lips (KJV)
Job 17:1 grave (Geneva, NKJV) graves (KJV)
Job 19:4 with me (Geneva, NKJV) with myself (KJV)
Job 19:13 removed (Geneva, NKJV) put (KJV)
Job 19:25 on the earth (Geneva, NKJV) upon the earth (KJV)
Job 20:3 correction (Geneva) check (KJV) rebuke (NKJV)
Job 20:25 cometh upon (Geneva) are upon (KJV) come upon (NKJV)
Job 21:15 Who is (Geneva, NKJV) What is (KJV)
Job 21:29 their signs (Geneva, NKJV) their tokens (KJV)
Job 22:2 to himself (Geneva, NKJV) unto himself (KJV)
Job 22:14 circle of heaven (Geneva, NKJV) circuit of heaven (KJV)
Job 22:16 before the time (Geneva) out of time (KJV) before their time (NKJV)
Job 23:7 reason (Geneva, NKJV) dispute (KJV)
Job 26:8 broken (Geneva, NKJV) rent (KJV)
Job 26:13 Spirit (Geneva, NKJV) spirit (KJV)
Job 29:10 The voice of princes (Geneva) The nobles (KJV) The voice of nobles (NKJV)
Job 30:8 children of villains (Geneva) children of base men (KJV) sons of vile men (NKJV)
Job 30:29 ostriches (Geneva, NKJV) owls (KJV)
Job 31:11 wickedness (Geneva, NKJV) heinous crime (KJV)
Job 32:14 your words (Geneva, NKJV) your speeches (KJV)
Job 32:18 compelleth (Geneva) constraineth (KJV) compels (NKJV)
Job 34:11 to his way (Geneva, NKJV) to his ways (KJV)
Job 34:15 return (Geneva, NKJV) turn again (KJV)
Job 36:6 afflicted (Geneva) poor (KJV) oppressed (NKJV)
Job 39:10 will he plow (Geneva, NKJV) will he harrow (KJV)
Job 39:14 in the dust (Geneva, NKJV) in dust (KJV)
Job 41:20 boiling pot (Geneva, NKJV) seething pot (KJV)
glazer1972
Member
I just wish we could get a good quality version of the 1560 w/o modern spellings.
Hendrickson Publishers published a facimile edition of the 1560 Geneva Bible in 2007 without modern spellings that is still available. The Geneva Bible in print today with modern spellings is the 1599 edition.
glazer1972
Member
I have thought about that one but I have a facimile of the 1611. Would rather have a more modern font.