Does Geneva have older English than KJV?

[Logos1560]

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

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

Perhaps the main reason that they did not was because of the first rule given the KJV translators [The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit]. Some renderings may be in the KJV simply because the KJV translators left them there from the Bishops' Bible.

Thankfully, the KJV translators did seem to follow the Geneva Bible more often than the Bishops' Bible. Nevertheless, there were some other places were the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV could have been better if they had also followed the Geneva Bible there instead of keeping the rendering of the Bishops. In fact, there are a good number of times when later editors introduced changes into the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV that the change agreed with the text of the Geneva while the original 1611 rendering had been kept from the Bishops' Bible.

 

[thomas15]

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

Hard to tell, sir.

 

[EdSutton]

I'm not interested enough in most of this (as to which actually has "older English") to take the time to do any exhaustive study of the Geneva Bible, but would simply note that the Geneva Bible does a better job of rendering " ἡ ἀποστασία" in II Thess. 2:3 (as does WEB, TYT, WYC and the footnotes of the AMP) as "departure", than do the KJV, NIV, HCSB, ASV, and NASB, among most others. (My underlining!)

2 Thess 2:1-3 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the comming
of our Lord Iesus Christ, and
by OUR ASSEMBLING VNTO HIM,
2 That ye be not suddenly mooued from
your minde, nor troubled neither by spirit,
nor by worde, nor by letter, as it were from vs,
as though the day of Christ were at hand.
3 Let no man deceiue you by any meanes:
for that day shall not come, except there
come a DEPARTING FIRST, and that
that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne
of perdition,

Thanks, Ed Edwards. :thumbs:

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (KJV)

"Rebellion" (NIV) and "falling away" (KJV, ASV, YLT,) are both poor renditions, IMO, for they simply carry too many unspoken theological implications pre-imposed upon the verse.

"Apostasy" (WEY, NASB, HCSB, DARBY) is somewhat better, even if basically a transliteration.

"Departing" (TNT, WYC), and "departure" (GEN, WEB, AMP footnote) are the best renderings here, however, with the "theological implications" supplied by the context.

Ed