Does Geneva have older English than KJV?

[Logos1560]

One poster maintained that the 1560 Geneva Bible has "older English" than the 1611 KJV.

While the 1560 Geneva Bible is older or was printed before the KJV, that does not mean that it as "older English." The 1560 Geneva Bible may have an archaic word or a more difficult word where the KJV does not in a few places. However, the Geneva Bible often seems to have more up-to-date English in a good number of verses than the KJV has. That is often because of the places where the KJV kept a rendering from the 1568 Bishops' Bible [that was a revision of the 1539 Great Bible] or the places where it introduced a Latin-based rendering from the 1582 Rheims N. T.

Does the Geneva Bible have "older English" than the KJV in these examples?

Gen. 1:28 fill (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Geneva) replenish (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 9:1 fill (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew‘s) replenish (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 9:13 sign (Geneva) token (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 16:6 dealt roughly (Geneva) dealt hardly (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 19:29 wherein (Geneva) in one of the which (Bishops’) in the which (KJV)
Gen. 21:26 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 22:1 prove (Geneva) tempt (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:5 What if (Geneva) peradventure (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:21 to know (1599 Geneva) to wit (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:55 maid (Geneva) damsel (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:57 ask her consent (Geneva) inquire at her mouth (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:63 toward the evening (Geneva) at the eventide (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 24:64 lighted down from the camel (Geneva) lighted off the camel (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 25:7 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 37:22 deliver (Geneva) rid (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 39:8 knoweth (Geneva) wotteth (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 41:54 famine (Geneva) dearth (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 44:15 Know (Geneva) Wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 46:27 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 50:3 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 50:15 It may be (Geneva) peradventure (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 3:22 ask (Geneva) borrow (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 5:19 diminish (Geneva) minish (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 6:6 deliver (Geneva) rid (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 9:9 blisters (Geneva) blains (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 9:10 blisters (Geneva) blains (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:12 womb (Geneva) matrix (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:15 womb (Geneva) matrix (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:17 Lest (Geneva) Lest peradventure (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 13:18 armed (Geneva) harnessed (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 15:27 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 16:18 measure (Geneva) mete (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 29:2 fine wheat flour (Geneva) wheaten flour (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 29:40 tenth part (Geneva) tenth deal (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 32:1 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 32:19 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 32:23 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 34:19 womb (Geneva) matrix (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 37:9 toward the mercyseat (Geneva) to the mercy seatward (Bishops’, KJV)
Exod. 38:25 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (Bishops’, KJV)

 

[JFox1]

The words in the Geneva Bible aren't necessarily older, but the spelling most definitely is:

Revelation 14:13

KJV 1611

Reuelation

And I heard a voyce from heauen, saying vnto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from hencefoorth, yea, Saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their workes doe follow them.

Geneva Bible 1560 edition

Reuelacion

The' I heard a voyce fro' heauen, faying vnto me, Write, Bleffed are the dead, which hereafter dye in the Lord. Eue' fo faith the Spirit: for they reft from their labours, and their workes followe them.

I'm sure glad they don't spell things the way they did in the 1500s!!!:thumbs:

 

[Logos1560]

The words in the Geneva Bible aren't necessarily older, but the spelling most definitely is:

The spelling in the 1560 Geneva Bible would be similar to the spelling in the original 1611 edition of the KJV.

The 1560 Geneva Bible was printed in Roman type and was more readable than the actual original 1611 edition of the KJV in Gothic type.

The 1611 reprints by Thomas Nelson and Hendrickson have the Roman type instead of the Gothic type used in the original 1611 edition.

 

[Logos1560]

Does the Geneva have older English in these examples? In these examples, the Bishops' Bible was not the source of the KJV's rendering.

Jud. 2:16 hands of their oppressors (Geneva, Bishops’) hand of them that spoiled them (KJV)
Jud. 3:18 presented the present (Geneva, Bishops’) made an end to offer the present (KJV)
Jud. 9:3 hearts were moved (Geneva, Bishops’) hearts inclined (KJV)
Jud. 9:19 purely (Geneva, Bishops’) sincerely (KJV)
Jud. 9:23 brake their promise (Geneva, Bishops’) dealt treacherously (KJV)
Jud. 18:21 substance (Geneva, Bishops’) carriage (KJV)
Jud. 19:19 we lack nothing (Geneva, Bishops’) there is no want of any thing (KJV)
1 Sam. 13:17 to destroy (Geneva, Bishops’) spoilers (KJV)
1 Sam. 17:6 shield of brass (Geneva, Bishops’) target of brass (KJV)
1 Sam. 17:56 young man (Geneva) youngling (Bishops’) stripling (KJV)
1 Sam. 27:10 a roving (Geneva, Bishops’) a road (KJV)
2 Sam. 12:12 in the open sunlight (Tyndale’s, Bishops’) before the sun (KJV)
2 Sam. 22:6 overtook (Geneva, Bishops’) prevented (KJV)

 

[franklinmonroe]

The words in the Geneva Bible aren't necessarily older, but the spelling most definitely is: ...

Do not confuse spelling with archaic typeface characters. The long-s looks similar to an 'f' without the crossbar but does not represent the 'eff' phoneme (it still represents the 'ess' sound). When 's' is the final letter of a word it looked more like a modern 's'. Notice also that the 'v' looks like our modern 'u', and vice versa.

Also, it was also common for printers to add (or subtract) letters, especially the 'e'; this was to help make the text fit aestheticly into a certain rigid format. You may notice an 'e' stuck onto the end of many words. It is therefore possible to find the same word spelled without the last 'e' which was acceptable since there were no absolute conventions of orthography at the time (such as "hee" & "he").

 

[JFox1]

The Geneva Bible does spell some words differently. The archaic typesetting is only part of it.

For example, "redound" is spelled "redou'de." The n was dropped and what appears to be an acute accent appears over the u..

&, y with a small e over it and y with a small c over it are used for the word "and."

"From" is spelled fro' with an acute accent over the o.

"Sin" is spelled finne, an f with the crossbar removed.

"Fire" is spelled fyre.

"Built" is spelled buylt.

"Chariots" is spelled charets.

"Hebew" is spelled Ebrue.

"Greek" is spelled Greke.

Eue' fo, I ftil loue the Geneva Bible. :thumbs:

 

[Logos1560]

The Geneva Bible does spell some words differently.


"Sin" is spelled finne, an f with the crossbar removed.




"Chariots" is spelled charets.

In the pre-1611 English Bibles and in the 1611 edition of the KJV, sometimes the same word may be spelled more than one way. The 1611 KJV also used a character shaped like an "f" for a long "s" in many words. In fact, KJV editions in 1762 and 1769 still used that character.
A few examples of the use of this character in the 1795 Oxford KJV edition: “fin” (Ps. 32:5), “fee” (Ps. 34:12), “chafe” (Ps. 35:5), “wife” (Ps. 36:3), “flay” (Ps. 37:14), “feed” (Ps. 37:26), “fore” (Ps. 38:2), “foul” (Ps. 42:1), and “fake” (Ps. 44:26). It was not removed from KJV editions until the 1800's.

"Chariots" was also sometimes spelled "charets" in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

Is the English of the Geneva older than that of the KJV in these example?

Eph. 1:19 toward us (Geneva) to us-ward (Bishops’, KJV)
Eph. 2:17 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
Eph. 4:2 humbleness (Tyndale’s, Geneva) lowliness (Bishops’, KJV)
Eph. 5:33 fear (Tyndale’s, Geneva) reverence (Bishops’, KJV)
Phil. 1:22 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Phil. 2:30 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
1 Thess. 4:16 trumpet (Geneva) trump (Bishops’, KJV)
Philemon 1:7 hearts (Tyndale’s, Geneva) bowels (Bishops’, KJV)
Heb. 4:12 lively (Geneva) quick (Bishops’, KJV)
Heb. 6:8 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
James 1:21 maliciousness (Geneva) naughtiness (Bishops’, KJV)
James 5:8 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
2 Pet. 2:16 foolishness (Tyndale’s, Geneva) madness (Bishops’, KJV)
2 Pet. 3:9 toward us (Geneva) to us-ward (Bishops’, KJV)

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Perhaps the KJVs choice of wording is meant to reflect a language that is higher than that of everyday speech. It is a more of a biblical language that is above the common language. I believe that is by design. Shouldn't God's Word be a step above mere literary works?

We've "dumbed down" everything else in our society today. I believe the Word of God should remain in a language that is both beautiful and above the language that we speak on a daily basis.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... It is a more of a biblical language that is above the common language. I believe that is by design. Shouldn't God's Word be a step above mere literary works? ...

Is that also the level of language we found before 1611 in English Bibles? and non-English? Was the Vulgate written in 'high' Latin? Greek MSS? Hebrew? If not, then those weren't really the 'Word of God'?

Is that we we find today in other languages? Russian? Chinese? etc. If not, they aren't the 'Word of God' either?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

If not, then those weren't really the 'Word of God'?

What gave you that idea?

 

[Logos1560]

I believe the Word of God should remain in a language that is both beautiful and above the language that we speak on a daily basis.

That would be contrary to the view that the KJV translators themselves stated in their preface to the 1611. They wrote: "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar” [referring to the common people].

Suggesting that archaic language that is claimed to be above the every-day English language of today be kept conflicts with the precedent set by the KJV itself when it updated words in the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Do the Scriptures teach that the language of a Bible translation should be above the language that we speak on a daily basis? Suggesting that archaic words must be kept would seem to conflict with some scriptural statements or principles such as the following. "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air" (1 Cor. 14:9). "Write the vision and make it plain" (Hab. 2:2). "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me" (1 Cor. 14:11). "Understandest thou what thou readest?" (Acts 8:30). As the Apostle Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 14, no one is edified when no one understands. In order for words to instruct and edify, they must be first understood.

As Gordon Clark asserted: "If we cannot understand or conceive what God tells us to do, of what use is the revelation?" (The Trinity, p. 79). In the introduction of his translation of Jeremiah, Benjamin Blayney (editor of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV) asked: “Can any Scripture be profitable except it be understood? And if not rightly understood, may not the perversion of it be proportionately dangerous?“ (p. xv). James Peirce commented: “For the people, words that are commonly used and easy to be understood, should be preferred to those that are ancient and obsolete” (Vindication, p. 489). Charles Spurgeon noted: “Unless we understand what we read we have not read it; the heart of the reading is absent. We commonly condemn the Romanists for keeping the daily service in the Latin tongue; yet it might as well be in the Latin language as in any other tongue if it be not understood by the people” (Spurgeon’s Expository Ency., Vol. 15, p. 209).

 

[Logos1560]

In a number of places, the KJV translators followed or kept the updated renderings of the Geneva Bible instead of the older archaic-type renderings in the Bishops' Bible.

In other places, the KJV translators inconsistently kept the same archaic-type renderings from the Bishops' Bible when the Geneva Bible already had clearer and more up-to-date renderings.

If it was important that the KJV translators keep the older archaic-type language, should they have kept it all instead of updating the same type language a good number of times?

 

[franklinmonroe]

What gave you that idea?

It was a question. So, are you now implying that only the English (or perhaps a select few others) are written in 'biblical' language? Is there a reason in your theory that explains why not all translations are preserved in 'higher' language?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

That would be contrary to the view that the KJV translators themselves stated in their preface to the 1611. They wrote: "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar” [referring to the common people].

Why, then, did they not "modernize" the language of the KJV in the examples you cited where the Geneva is more up-to-date?

Suggesting that archaic language that is claimed to be above the every-day English language of today be kept conflicts with the precedent set by the KJV itself when it updated words in the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Isn't the very point of this thread demonstrating the fact that they didn't always do that?

Do the Scriptures teach that the language of a Bible translation should be above the language that we speak on a daily basis?

They do not nor did I imply that they did.

Suggesting that archaic words must be kept would seem to conflict with some scriptural statements or principles such as the following...

Keeping the Word of God in a beautiful, reverent, venerable language does not at all make it difficult to be understood. Is your position such that we need to continually "dumb down" the language of the Bible to keep pace with our ever-declining educational standards?

 

[thomas15]

Perhaps the KJVs choice of wording is meant to reflect a language that is higher than that of everyday speech. It is a more of a biblical language that is above the common language. I believe that is by design. Shouldn't God's Word be a step above mere literary works?

But then again perhaps this is simply your opinion since you offer no proof that this is true? And if it is true, the KJ translators were perhaps at odds Tyndale, who spake thus "If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than thou dost."

 

[robycop3]

I don't think the mss from which we receive our Bible translations were written in any "Biblical" form of their languages, so why should our translations be? After all, the MESSAGES of Scripture are unique and above any other writings on earth. To embellish the translations with 'majestic' language that's less than a literal translation could be considered ADDING to God's word.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Why, then, did they not "modernize" the language of the KJV in the examples you cited where the Geneva is more up-to-date? ...

Your question is understandable according to the portion of the Preface that was cited --

That would be contrary to the view that the KJV translators themselves stated in their preface to the 1611. They wrote: "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar” [referring to the common people].

However, that statement by the AV translator's follows their argument against the Catholic Douay-Rheims version (my bold, their italics)--

... we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar...​

Therefore in complete context, this comment was referring to the use of obtuse ecclesiastical terms (not about vernacular speach).

 

[Pastor_Bob]

But then again perhaps this is simply your opinion since you offer no proof that this is true?

That is rather obvious, don't you think? Of course this is simply my opinion. Did I state it as otherwise?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I don't think the mss from which we receive our Bible translations were written in any "Biblical" form of their languages, so why should our translations be?

My point is not that they should be, necessarily, but that they could be without any compromise to the understanding thereof. In other words, why do we feel the need to bring down the language of the KJV (or the ASV if you need a "modern version") when it is completely understandable as it is. My opinion is that we need to raise the standard of education back to where it once was instead of lowering everything else; not the least of which is the Word of God.

After all, the MESSAGES of Scripture are unique and above any other writings on earth.

I am in 100% agreement.

To embellish the translations with 'majestic' language that's less than a literal translation could be considered ADDING to God's word.

I agree again. Is there any examples you can cite that you feel the translators "embellished" the translation with majestic language while at the same time compromised the translation?