If you lived in 1610.......

[ktn4eg]

If you lived in 1610, what would you say would be the most accurate English Bible at the time?

 

[SolaSaint]

I would think the Geneva Bible was the bible of choice in 1610. I wonder how many Englishmen were literate enough to rad it?

 

[preachinjesus]

The Greek and Hebrew...oh wait...

I would have likely worked with the Geneva Bible. That seems to have been one of primary texts used by English Separatists (which Baptist arose out of.)

Great question!

 

[Logos1560]

If you lived in 1610, what would you say would be the most accurate English Bible at the time?

The Geneva Bible was considered overall the most accurate English Bible in 1610.

Many believers still considered it that after 1611.

 

[Logos1560]

Charles Butterworth noted: "The Geneva Bible is above all anxious to be accurate; it is clean-cut, honest, and straightforward; it is both scholarly and pious" (Literary Lineage, p. 236).

Concerning the Geneva Bible, Glenn Conjurske asserted: “Accuracy was its main concern and its main characteristic” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 86). Irving Jenson wrote: “The Geneva Bible excelled in accuracy and was very popular” (Jensen’s Survey of the N. T., p. 33). Ken Connolly suggested that the Geneva Bible translators "painstakingly worked over minute details of the text, giving a faithful translation and achieving agreement between all the collaborators" (Indestructible Book, p. 155).

David Allen wrote: “The Geneva text showed a scholarly expertise throughout” (The Jewel, p. 59). Kenneth Latourette wrote: “Embodying thorough scholarship, it also had an English style which delighted the rank and file of readers, was printed in Roman rather than black letters and in convenient style, and enjoyed a wide circulation” (History of Christianity, II, p. 817).

David Daniell reported: “It was a masterpiece of Renaissance scholarship and printing, and Reformation Bible thoroughness” (Bible in English, p. 291). Donald Brake maintained that “the Geneva Bible became the cornerstone of the Reformation” (Visual History, p. 150). David Lawton asserted: “The Geneva Bible is a superb production in the tradition of Tyndale” (Faith, p. 64). Walter Scott wrote: “The Geneva Bible was the first complete translation into the English from the originals throughout” (Story of our English Bible, p. 153). Kerr wrote: “With the Geneva we have a true ‘people’s Bible‘--written in vigorous English, exhibiting careful scholarship without sounding pedantic, and widely available” (Ancient Texts, p. 93). Frank Gaebelein observed: “Whittingham and his co-workers produced a translation of notable scholarship and beauty” (Story, p. 40). Derek Wilson described it as “a most scrupulous piece of translation” (People’s Bible, p. 65). Raidabaugh asserted that “the men who prepared it were scholars acquainted with the original; and, though they derived assistance from other versions, did not follow any of them with servility” (History, p. 45). Blackford Condit maintained that “the language of the Geneva version is remarkable for its Saxon simplicity” (History, p. 252).

 

[Salty]

I've been told by good authority that John the Baptist and Peter personally presented an organial copy to Dr Bob and Padre of which they still preach out of each Sunday!

 

[makahiya117]

If you lived in 1610, what would you say would be the most accurate English Bible at the time?

" A peacock is no more perfect or beautiful than a swan.
A peacock is simply magnified in the details. Beauty under a magnifying glass, is magnified beauty. When early English Bibles dawned, their simple lines were like the swan. Now they pale with the magnified details of the beautiful King James Bible. The previous Bishop’s Bible 1568-1611 was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV. It’s beauty was simply polished, like pure gold is polished, so that the KJV magnifies and mirrors more finely the glorious reflection of our precious Saviour, Jesus, the author. ”

 

[Yeshua1]

The Geneva Bible was considered overall the most accurate English Bible in 1610.

Many believers still considered it that after 1611.

Too bad there never was an effort to make a "new geneva bible"

 

[Logos1560]

" A peacock is no more perfect or beautiful than a swan.
A peacock is simply magnified in the details. Beauty under a magnifying glass, is magnified beauty. When early English Bibles dawned, their simple lines were like the swan. Now they pale with the magnified details of the beautiful King James Bible. The previous Bishop’s Bible 1568-1611 was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV. It’s beauty was simply polished, like pure gold is polished, so that the KJV magnifies and mirrors more finely the glorious reflection of our precious Saviour, Jesus, the author. ”

Are you quoting from one of Gail Riplinger's books?

I know that Gail Riplinger made this claim in your quotation: "The previous Bishop’s Bible 1568-1611 was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV."

Riplinger's claim is simply not true.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you quoting from one of Gail Riplinger's books?

I know that Gail Riplinger made this claim in your quotation: "The previous Bishop’s Bible 1568-1611 was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV."

Riplinger's claim is simply not true.

Does any one know just what her biblcal studies were in? how much learning and training she had in textual crisiticism?

For that matter, what about most who support KJVO? What are their studies in regarding this topic?

 

[glazer1972]

The Geneva. Furthermore, I would prefer a Geneva today over a KJV if I could find one with the original spellings and a modern typeface.

 

[Salty]

...For that matter, what about most who support KJVO? What are their studies in regarding this topic?

Dr D.A. Waite: BA in classical Greek (U MI), THM, NT Greek (Dallas Th) MA in Speech (So Meth) THD in Bible Exposition ( Dallas Th), PHD (Princeton)

Peter Ruckman: PHD, in religion (BJU)
He founded Pensacola Bible Institute 1965.

He also has some strange beliefs - but I suppose 3 wives will do that to you.