King James vs the Geneva Bible

[Charlie24]

@SovereignGrace, here's one for you to ponder.

At the time of the Reformation the Reformers created the Geneva Bible that leaned sharply toward the theme of Calvinism in it's marginal notes. The theme of Sovereign Grace was already alive through Augustine before Calvin laid out the principles.

King James seen this as a direct political threat to his rule in that the king didn't have to be obeyed in all matters in this doctrine. So the king decided to do something about it by gathering together a team of translators to create an English speaking Word of God that did away with that Calvinist leaning seen in the Geneva Bible, 1560.

So the Authorized 1611 KJV was born out of a political threat seen by king James 1 from the origins of Sovereign Grace.

We see this as the hand of God on the king to give us His inspired Word with the corrections of the wrong theology, but back on the right track of grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

What sayest thou?

 

[DaveXR650]

I have the Geneva and KJV versions in parallel which you can get on Kindle for a couple of bucks and I find them to be almost identical. I had never really looked at the Reformers notes but with a quick look I don't see that they are extreme Calvinist at all. I looked at John 3:16, 6:44, and Romans chapter 9. I didn't see anything on John 6:44. There are some guys on here who are more up on this area but I would double check my sources if I were you. Are you saying that the actual translation was manipulated to sound more Calvinistic?

If anything, I find the Reformers and the Puritan era Calvinists to be less deterministic than more recent theologians.

 

[Charlie24]

I have the Geneva and KJV versions in parallel which you can get on Kindle for a couple of bucks and I find them to be almost identical. I had never really looked at the Reformers notes but with a quick look I don't see that they are extreme Calvinist at all. I looked at John 3:16, 6:44, and Romans chapter 9. I didn't see anything on John 6:44. There are some guys on here who are more up on this area but I would double check my sources if I were you. Are you saying that the actual translation was manipulated to sound more Calvinistic?

If anything, I find the Reformers and the Puritan era Calvinists to be less deterministic than more recent theologians.

I agree they are almost identical except for the margin notes that sharply favored Sovereign Grace.

 

[Charlie24]

I agree they are almost identical except for the margin notes that sharply favored Sovereign Grace.

The Geneva Bible from the reformers is the received text translated from the Textus Receptus as was the KJV.

The reason they are twins to one another.

 

[Charlie24]

The Geneva Bible from the reformers is the received text translated from the Textus Receptus as was the KJV.

The reason they are twins to one another.

The difference was in the marginal notes from the Reformers, which king James 1 did away with.

 

[Charlie24]

The difference was in the marginal notes from the Reformers, which king James 1 did away with.

Or I'll say for all the KJV dispensationalists, the Lord chose king James to do away with it.

 

[Charlie24]

Or I'll say for all the KJV dispensationalists, the Lord chose king James to do away with it.

After king James commissioned the 1611 KJV it spread throughout the British Empire and by the beginning of the 18th century it spread the Gospel throughout the world. Then Britain stumbled and the USA was handed the torch with the very popular 1611 Authorized KJV.

 

[37818]

Geneva Bible Mark 15:42, And nowe when the night was come (because it was the day of the preparation that is before the Sabbath)

KJV Mark 15:42, And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, . . . .

 

[Charlie24]

Geneva Bible Mark 15:42, And nowe when the night was come (because it was the day of the preparation that is before the Sabbath)

KJV Mark 15:42, And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, . . . .

LOL, I hope you're just making a point and not trying to return to that previous thread on the Lord's crucifixion date.

Please, let's not go there again.

 

[37818]

LOL, I hope you're just making a point and not trying to return to that previous thread on the Lord's crucifixion date.

Please, let's not go there again.

The Geneva has the less literal "when the night was come".

KJV has "when the even was come,".

 

[SovereignGrace]

@SovereignGrace, here's one for you to ponder.

At the time of the Reformation the Reformers created the Geneva Bible that leaned sharply toward the theme of Calvinism in it's marginal notes. The theme of Sovereign Grace was already alive through Augustine before Calvin laid out the principles.

King James seen this as a direct political threat to his rule in that the king didn't have to be obeyed in all matters in this doctrine. So the king decided to do something about it by gathering together a team of translators to create an English speaking Word of God that did away with that Calvinist leaning seen in the Geneva Bible, 1560.

So the Authorized 1611 KJV was born out of a political threat seen by king James 1 from the origins of Sovereign Grace.

We see this as the hand of God on the king to give us His inspired Word with the corrections of the wrong theology, but back on the right track of grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

What sayest thou?

I’m not up to date on this and have really no idea how good…or bad…or identical…the GB is in comparison to the KJV.

 

[Charlie24]

I’m not up to date on this and have really no idea how good…or bad…or identical…the GB is in comparison to the KJV.

It's just something I threw out there to keep our moments on the boards alive, lol.

 

[JesusFan]

I’m not up to date on this and have really no idea how good…or bad…or identical…the GB is in comparison to the KJV.

The Puritans in America kept using it for ahile, even after 1611. so they did not hold to KJVO

 

[Jerome]

Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia, p. 324: "The Calvinist orientation of this translation has led many to assert that it was the favored Bible among puritans in England and New England, but an examination of Bible ownership and the actual words cited in sermons and recorded in sermon notes would indicate that this is an exaggeration."

The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History, eds. Nathan Hatch and Mark Noll, explains that as elaborate covenant theology theories arose and dominated Puritanism, attachment to the Geneva Bible waned. Its notes were from an earlier era, its commentary was lacking on what Puritanism had come to be enamored with, p. 20: "Puritanism was actually the product of two Bible translations, each of which dominated at different stages in the movement, and each of which served different needs and purposes. In its infant stage, English Puritanism was organized around the Genevan translation of 1560. As the movement grew in power and influence, clerical loyalties switched to the Authorized or "King James" version of 1611. This later version furnished the primary text on which New England's Bible Commonwealth would rest."

An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States, p. 92: "Within fifty years of its introduction, the King James Bible had replaced the Geneva Bible as the most popular version of the Bible in English. Nowhere was this more true than in New England, where Puritans were quick to adopt the King James Version over the Geneva Version. Thus, beginning in the 1640s, the King James Version would become the dominant version of the Bible for Protestants in the United States."