Geneva and KJV History

It actually came after King James. Archbishop Laud effectively outlawed the Geneva in the 1630's.

Oddly enough, the Baptists of that era considered the KJV a doctrinally corrupt translation (slanted toward Anglican theology) and rejected it.

 

If I recall my studies correctly, Phillip, he was. And those who held to the Geneva because the KJV was slanted towards Anglican Theology were correct in doing so.) What a way to make your Bible popular...outlaw the other translations. Sounds like what a lot of KJVO extremists would do today if they could.

 

Speaking of Archbishops, what about Richard Bancrofts changes to the text given him by the translators, over their objections, to make it better fit Anglican theology. As best I recall, we only know for sure where two of those are!

 

There was some government and Church of England opposition to the Geneva Bible during the reign of King James I. Archbishop George Abbot, who had been one of the KJV translators, issued an order in 1615 that was probably aimed at the Geneva Bible. This order forbid the sale of Bibles without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment. The Geneva Bible could not be printed in England after 1618 (that was still
during the reign of King James I).

During the reign of James's son Charles I,
around 1637 I think Archbishop William Laud made the selling, binding, or importation of the Geneva Bible a high-commission crime. Archbishop Laud also ordered copies of the Geneva Bible burned.

Benson Bobrick noted that Laud "even inserted Catholic prints of the life of the Virgin into Scottish editions of the King James Version of the New Testament and burned every copy of the Geneva Bible he could find" (WIDE AS THE WATERS, p. 278).

James Baikie wrote: "In England the popularity of the Geneva Bible, in spite of the efforts made to supersede it, lasted up to and through the Civil War" (ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 243). Edwin Robertson wrote: "It was not until the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660 that the AV
really became the Bible of England" (MAKERS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 111).

 

Part of the reason the KJV even came into being was that King James wasn't especially fond of the marginal notes that were in the Geneva Bible - especially the notes that tended to speak against the infallibility of the monarchy. I guess that some members of the monarchy had very high opinions of themselves...

 

Laud attained great power over both church and state, and his abuse of this power led to his downfall. He made liberal use of the Star Chamber and Court of high Commission to persecute Puritans, Baptists, & Catholics.

The AV finally replaced the GB as the "Peoples' Bible" about 1644, with Laud's actions against the GB doing much to bring this about, but he didn't live to see much of it, as he was beheaded in early 1645 for his part in causing the "Bishops' War" between Scotland & England in 1640 by trying to force a common 'Prayer Book' down the throats of the Scots.

 

You know... its interesting that the KJVO's avoid this subject. They often claim that godly men chose the KJV over the previous versions but never answer this evidence.

 

It's because it would ruin the foundation of their belief in KJVO, Scott. Without that foundation, where would their theory be?

 

KJV-only author Bill Bradley 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). KJV-only author Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva "differs from the King James Version only in differing renderings of the same Greek texts" (THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT, P. 48). Chester Murray, another KJV-only advocate,
claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and 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). Peter Ruckman wrote: "I recommend Tyndale's version, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible" (SCHOLARSHIP ONLY CONTROVERSY, p. 1). Referring to Tyndale's and the Geneva, Ruckman wrote: "We will not condemn them" (BIBLE BABEL, p. 2).

Based on a consistent application of the above KJV-only claims and statements about the Geneva Bible and the KJV, it could also be said that the KJV and NKJV are "practically identical." Likewise, according to their own reasoning, the NKJV should be recommended and not condemned.
The same-type differences between the KJV and NKJV can be found between the Geneva and the KJV,
Thus, since KJV-only advocates can still recommend the Geneva with those differences, they have no valid basis for not also recommending the NKJV.

 

It's interesting to see who is not posting on this thead.

 

William Laud (1573-1645) was a leader among the younger Anglicans during the reign of King James I. Grimm wrote: "It was Laud who advised James in the reintroduction of the episcopal system in Scotland, a task which he had begun in 1599 and did not complete until 1612" (REFORMATION ERA, p. 546).

Laud claimed to be following the views of KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes. William Hutton observed: "There can be no doubt that Laud admired and reverenced Andrewes more than any other Churchman of his day" (WILLIAM LAUD, p. 140). W. H. Frere described Laud as "the man who was to take up Andrewes' work and carry it out into practice by energetic means" and as "the lineal successor of Andrewes" (ENGLISH CHURCH, pp. 371, 387). Hutton wrote; "Again and again he [Laud] declares that he followed him [referring to Andrewes] and him only" (LAUD, pp. 140-141). Ross Williamson maintained that "partly because Andrewes in his gentleness, is a more attractive figure than his disciple and successor, the chroleric, meddlesome Laud, Laud has been blamed for much that should more justly be laid to Andrewes's account" (FOUR STUART PORTRAITS, p. 81).