Featured If you could only have ONE Study Bible?

Well, it uses the word "breeches" in Genesis 3....which makes it a winner in my book. hahaha

I like to see the notes from the 16th century. It reads pretty similarly to the KJV. So close, I expect a G.O.(Geneva Only) movement soon.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for the review. Any reason you look the leather cover over the one with Washington crossing the Delaware?

 

The Patriot Bible is hardback. It has things in it like the declaration of independence and mayflower compact. The bonded leather that I bought comes with a CD of the transaltion as well, which includes the apocrypha in PDF format. It is searchable as well. The Bible it self contains articles on the history of the Geneva Bible as well. Not sure of the Patriot Bible does or not.


The Bonded Leather also comes with a middle English glossary in the back to help with some of the more outdated words.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

ASV w/wide margins. Not sure if even available any longer.

 

Yes, it does.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Mine cost about $69, but I upgraded it to be a hardback goatskin.



By the way fellas, the 1599 Tolle Lege edition is not a Geneva NT, it is a Tomsons NT.

Where it 'matters' in the Geneva, the text in the Tomsons is somewhat like the KJV in certain verses, and that change redirects the meaning.

The original Geneva text is much more Baptist in doctrine and disproves most other faiths in certain areas of teaching.

 

Examples?

 

That is what the 1599 Geneva is, is it not, the Tompson revision? Most changes seem to be the definite article "that" is used. The annotations is the big difference between the two.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Who did your cover for you?

I'm not a big fan of my Hendrickson cover.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Too many to list tonite. Try 1 Peter 3:20 & 21 as a sample.

 

There are other text differences that minimize the 'facts' when you compare the 1560 Geneva edition to the 1599 Tomson.

 

I think he is reffering the annotations. The annotations did get much more frequent, anti-catholic, and calvinistic. The 1599 edition was HATED by King James, due to the fact that in Exodus the notes said it was right to disobey Pharoah. It said "their disobedience was lawful". King James called the note seditious and ordered a version made without the notes. He didn't want his subjects to use Scripture as grounds for disobedience to his rule.

If it wasn't for the popularity of the Geneva Bible and the King's hatered for it, we may have never got the KJV.

I am unaware of and Scripture (text) that is more "baptist".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

The

The pigskin cover it comes with I replaced with a goatskin hardback by services performed by Leonard's Book Restoration, they have a new website. Pretty high quality, and I heartily recommend them for ANY restoration or rebinding of your favorite book or Bible.

 

Examples (not just chapter/verse!) ?

 

1560: Which were in the time passed disobedient , when the the long suffering of God abode in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, where in few, that is, eight souls were saved in the water. To which also the figure that now saveth is baptism agreeth (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but that a good conscience maketh request to God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1599: Which were in the time passed disobedient, when once the long suffering of God abode in the days of Noah, while the Ark was preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved in the water. Whereof the baptism that now is, answering that figure, (which is not putting away of filth of the flesh, but a confident demanding with a good conscience maketh to God) saveth us also by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Not a big difference. Especially when compared to how modern translations render those verses.

***obviously I updated the spelling of several words.***

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I can't give you an expample of the 1560 being more baptist in notes, vs the 1599. I do not beleive that the case. Since i do not believe calvism is anti-baptist. I can give you calvinistic annotations. Or anti-catholic notes.

A more calvinistic example
1599 * Eph 1:4 "...holiness of life cannot be separated from the grace of election: and again what pureness forever in us , is the gift of God, who hath freely of hif mercy chosen us."

1560 "The principle end of our election is to praise and glorify the grace of God"



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I may have to give them a look. Thanks for the info.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

"To which also the figure that now saveth us baptism agreeth"
"Whereof the baptism that now is, answering that figure"

The difference here is very big when you focus on 'what' saves you. Because the 1599 goes on and says - "Whereof the baptism that now is, answering that figure, saveth us also..."

Where the 1560 says "To which also the figure that now saveth us, even baptism agreeth, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

See it? The 1599 follows the thought-line of the KJV text, or actually visa versa, that "eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us"

Which is anti-Baptistic in doctrine.

When the 1560 Geneva teaches that baptism shows what saves us - the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and not baptism itself.

But mostly I disagree with the KJV on it's dilution of the text to say things different enough to cause doubt on the veracity of Baptist doctrine compared to the English text.