Huh? The 1560 note is to verse 6 not verse 4.
-
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!
If you could only have ONE Study Bible?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
Huh? The 1560 note is to verse 6 not verse 4.
My bad....small font in the bible. Mistook "e" for "c" Haha
So obviously you have copy and can look at the correct one
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
GenevanBaptist
Member
No, there were editions done with both NTs. It just depended on the publisher. Tomson NTs were included with the Geneva OT since 1579. But there were straight Geneva Bibles printed during those same years.
The notes are completely different in the NT. Much more Calvinistic in Tomsons NT and those are the notes from Beza's Latin NT.
There is two versions of the 1599??? I thought Tompson was the 1599. I know the 1560 was still around, but historical I believe when one says 1599, they speak of Tompson.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
GenevanBaptist
Member
According to the Historical Catalogue of the British and Foreign Bible Society, listed in Charles Eason's book called "The Genevan Bible, Notes on it's Production and Distribution", (pages 8 and 9), Dublin, 1937 - they list 187 quarto editions of the pure Geneva Bible, OT & NT, were printed in 1599, while 43 quarto editions of the Geneva NT by its self were printed, besides all the Tomson editions of the 1599 OT/NT & NT printings.
Yeah, they(1560) were printed in 1599 as well, but it was the same version as the 1560? Speaking of the 1599 Geneva is not referring to a year printed, as much as the year of origin. The 1599 is called so becuase it was the year Tompson's second revision was released.
I say this, becuase if one buys a 1599 Geneva, you should expect to get Tompson's second revision.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
GenevanBaptist
Member
I should have said 1587.
Is te Asv even available period?
So the 1599 edition was the one tha incorporated th more extensive calvintic notes in it? And King James espised those notes, so went for Kjv?
Yes, and yes. King James did not like the 1560 either, because it was calvinistic/ptotestant leaning as well, but to a much lesser degree. The note in Exodus however infuriated him. The 1599 is a more comprehensive study Bible. It contains the most complete set of annotations of any Geneva Bible
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
The Kjv would haveused same textual sources as Geneva, correct?
So the Geneva woul be nore agreeable to Baptists, asOxford translators from Angiclan church, and read some of their beliefs into translation?
I would say protestant, not necessarily baptist. It was widly popular especially amoung those not associated with the church of England.....until the King banned the Geneva. Baptists as we know it, were not well established yet.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
The notes would have bugged Church of Rome also!
GenevanBaptist
Member
The OT notes are identical in both the 1599 & the 1560, except the dating system in the 'arguments' of some of the early books.
So the notes that supposedly inflamed King James I, (also King James VI of Scotland) were the same, and he was, by the way, brought up using the 1560 Geneva in Scotland. The first Bible printed in Scotland was a reprinting of the second printing of the Geneva Bible and that was in 1579. It was a pure Genevan edition, not a Tomson.
Is that reason whyteKjv supplanted it, not due to better bettr bible, but due to the King behind it?
GenevanBaptist
Member
My opinion, based upon a bit of reading, is just that. He was a ruler that wanted his will done no matter the cost, and to supposedly appease some puritans, he ok'd the 1611 Bible to be printed, even tho people were quite addicted to their Geneva Bibles and needed no new Bible.
There is a Chick Tract explaining the 'history' of the KJV that is very popular. Yet it is full of deceit, and void of the truth. They act as if there were no other English Bibles around then. Quite un-Christian of a Christian ministry.
It was still Whittingham's edition of the NT in the Scottish correct? Was there any changes in the Scottish edition other than annotations?
**obviously to location of the printing is differnet **
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
GenevanBaptist
Member
No, it was the normal '1560' Geneva OT/NT, as Whittingham's 1557 was just a revision of Tyndale's 1534 NT, and not a new translation.
As far as I can tell from multiple source editions I have seen online, there are 3 different sets of gloss annotations -
1) 1560 Geneva originals,
2) Tomson NT, with a few altered notes in the '1560' OT,
3) Tomson NT with Francis Junius "Revelation" notes substituted for Tomson's "Revelation" notes.
There are no 'updated notes through the years' in different editions as some have stated (not here btw).
Last edited:
Whittingham's was the one supervising the Geneva Bible. The 1560 is a revision of his 1557. Correct? **Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961, London, New York: British and Foreign Bible Society, American Bible Society, SBN 564-00130-9.**
It seems the 1560 Geneva is a Whittingham. It wasnt just him, but he was heavily involved.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
- Status