The Geneva English Bible: The Shocking Truth

[Logos1560]

Is the Geneva Bible the perfect base in all these renderings?

Gen. 1:28 rule (Geneva) have dominion (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:7 The Lord God also (Geneva) And the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:8 And the Lord God (Geneva) And the LORD God (KJV) The LORD God (NKJV)

Gen. 2:9 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:15 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:16 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:17 as touching (Geneva) of (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:18 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:19 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:20 The man (Geneva) Adam (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:21 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:21 the man (Geneva) Adam (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:1 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:2 we eat (Geneva) we may eat (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:4 not die at all (Geneva) not surely die (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:7 breeches (Geneva) aprons (KJV) coverings (NKJV)

Gen. 3:8 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:9 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:13 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:14 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:20 And the man (Geneva) And Adam (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:20 Hevah (Geneva) Eve (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:21 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:22 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:23 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:24 Thus he cast out (Geneva) So he drove out (KJV) So He drove out (NKJV)

Gen. 3:24 the blade of a sword shaken (Geneva) a flaming sword which turned every way (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:1 Afterward the man (Geneva) And Adam (KJV) Now Adam (NKJV)

Gen. 4:1 Hevah (Geneva) Eve (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:1 by the Lord (Geneva) from the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:2 Habel (Geneva) Abel (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:4 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:9 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:13 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:15 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:16 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:17 Kain also (Geneva) And Cain (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:17 Henoch (Geneva) Enoch (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:25 Sheth (Geneva) Seth (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:26 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 5:1 God created Adam (Geneva) God created man (KJV, NKJV)

 

[Logos1560]

Is the Geneva Bible more accurate or more faithful to the Hebrew at Genesis 21:1 than the KJV?

Genesis 21:1 in the 1560 Geneva Bible
Now the Lord visited Sarah, as he had said, and did unto her according as he had promised.

Genesis 21:1 in the KJV
And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is the Geneva Bible more accurate or more faithful to the Hebrew at Genesis 21:1 than the KJV?

Genesis 21:1 in the 1560 Geneva Bible
Now the Lord visited Sarah, as he had said, and did unto her according as he had promised.

Genesis 21:1 in the KJV
And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken.

Not is this passage!

 

[John of Wood Green]

I heard this fellow named David Daniell lecture. Good man. Former Professor of English at University College London, he founded the Tyndale Society. Left us last year.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Is the Geneva Bible the perfect base in all these renderings?

Gen. 1:28 rule (Geneva) have dominion (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:7 The Lord God also (Geneva) And the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:8 And the Lord God (Geneva) And the LORD God (KJV) The LORD God (NKJV)

Gen. 2:9 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:15 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:16 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:17 as touching (Geneva) of (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:18 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:19 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:20 The man (Geneva) Adam (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:21 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 2:21 the man (Geneva) Adam (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:1 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:2 we eat (Geneva) we may eat (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:4 not die at all (Geneva) not surely die (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:7 breeches (Geneva) aprons (KJV) coverings (NKJV)

Gen. 3:8 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:9 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:13 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:14 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:20 And the man (Geneva) And Adam (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:20 Hevah (Geneva) Eve (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:21 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:22 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:23 the Lord God (Geneva) the LORD God (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 3:24 Thus he cast out (Geneva) So he drove out (KJV) So He drove out (NKJV)

Gen. 3:24 the blade of a sword shaken (Geneva) a flaming sword which turned every way (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:1 Afterward the man (Geneva) And Adam (KJV) Now Adam (NKJV)

Gen. 4:1 Hevah (Geneva) Eve (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:1 by the Lord (Geneva) from the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:2 Habel (Geneva) Abel (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:4 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:9 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:13 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:15 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:16 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:17 Kain also (Geneva) And Cain (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:17 Henoch (Geneva) Enoch (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:25 Sheth (Geneva) Seth (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 4:26 the Lord (Geneva) the LORD (KJV, NKJV)

Gen. 5:1 God created Adam (Geneva) God created man (KJV, NKJV)

I don't think it makes a difference to an English speaking person reading the Bible if Lord is all capitals or not.

As for the others...minor differences that are not doctrinally important.

Just my opinion of course.

History has shown the Matthews Bible made little headway in the realm of English speaking countries compared to the Geneva 1560. The widespread ownership of the 1560 is too well known now to doubt of its effect on society then as well as now. It does support historical Baptist doctrine in the text, even while not in the gloss. The translators were not 'inspired', just like all versions. But they, like others, were human beings able to be led by God's Spirit on how to word that particular translation.

Where doctrine, specific doctrine, is corrupt in most English Bibles, including the KJV, the Geneva has it correct.

Read it for free. Download it for free. Use it for free. It may be one of the few free things in this life that may make a difference about eternity for the lost.

Happy Thanksgiving all!

 

[HankD]

I don't think it makes a difference to an English speaking person reading the Bible if Lord is all capitals or not.

As for the others...minor differences that are not doctrinally important.

Just my opinion of course.

History has shown the Matthews Bible made little headway in the realm of English speaking countries compared to the Geneva 1560. The widespread ownership of the 1560 is too well known now to doubt of its effect on society then as well as now. It does support historical Baptist doctrine in the text, even while not in the gloss. The translators were not 'inspired', just like all versions. But they, like others, were human beings able to be led by God's Spirit on how to word that particular translation.

Where doctrine, specific doctrine, is corrupt in most English Bibles, including the KJV, the Geneva has it correct.

Read it for free. Download it for free. Use it for free. It may be one of the few free things in this life that may make a difference about eternity for the lost.

Happy Thanksgiving all!

And Happy Thanksgiving to you GB.

GB generally speaking I believe uppercase "LORD" signifies the translation of the tetragrammaton YHWH (Hebrew letters) whereas "Lord" signifies "Adonai" or even another name of God (this might have been mentioned already).

 

[GenevanBaptist]

And Happy Thanksgiving to you GB.

GB generally speaking I believe uppercase "LORD" signifies the translation of the tetragrammaton YHWH (Hebrew letters) whereas "Lord" signifies "Adonai" or even another name of God (this might have been mentioned already).

Yes. EVERYBODY points that out.
But it still says Lord in the text which most normal humans who speak English understand.

I just notice other Christian men using the English word without any issue. And to me it is not an issue.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Do you understand the consistent application of the concept that you are proclaiming?

You did not deal with or answer the sound point raised by another poster. Would Jehovah Witnesses say that what their New World Translation says doctrinally is the proof that it is correct?

There can be serious problems with the concept that a translation becomes its own proof for its renderings and becomes its own authority in and of itself, making it independent of the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

I am comparing the Geneva 1560 to other English Bibles, not the originals, which haven't existed for many centuries.

And according to the various translations put out of those that I have handled or read from, the Geneva 1560 holds true to Baptist doctrines more than the others.

My opinions and my experiences.

I must state - I don't think versions other than the GB1560 are 'evil' nor useless.

I like reading from the 'reprobate' NEB.
Which some people also have issues with.

I have learned. I have changed. I am more flexible now.

But when it comes down to particulars? The 1560 Geneva is my go to source.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

I heard this fellow named David Daniell lecture. Good man. Former Professor of English at University College London, he founded the Tyndale Society. Left us last year.

Sorry to hear him gone.
He was a great tool in the Master's hand!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am comparing the Geneva 1560 to other English Bibles, not the originals, which haven't existed for many centuries.

And according to the various translations put out of those that I have handled or read from, the Geneva 1560 holds true to Baptist doctrines more than the others.

My opinions and my experiences.

I must state - I don't think versions other than the GB1560 are 'evil' nor useless.

I like reading from the 'reprobate' NEB.
Which some people also have issues with.

I have learned. I have changed. I am more flexible now.

But when it comes down to particulars? The 1560 Geneva is my go to source.

you are a GBP! Geneva Bible preferred

 

[HankD]

Yes. EVERYBODY points that out.
But it still says Lord in the text which most normal humans who speak English understand.

I don't think even most who pick up a bible for the first time (or even many times) realize the significance of all upper case LORD vs Lord or the significance of the tetragrammaton.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think even most who pick up a bible for the first time (or even many times) realize the significance of all upper case LORD vs Lord or the significance of the tetragrammaton.

Or whether it states the unique, only, only begotten etc!

 

[Logos1560]

I am comparing the Geneva 1560 to other English Bibles, not the originals, which haven't existed for many centuries.

Perhaps you are comparing the 1560 Geneva Bible to the wrong standard.

The printed editions of original-language Old Testament texts and of Greek New Testament texts on which the Geneva Bible and the KJV and other English Bibles were based and from which they were translated still exist so that the English translations can be properly compared to their underlying texts and tried by them just as the early English Bible translators suggested.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Perhaps you are comparing the 1560 Geneva Bible to the wrong standard.

The printed editions of original-language Old Testament texts and of Greek New Testament texts on which the Geneva Bible and the KJV and other English Bibles were based and from which they were translated still exist so that the English translations can be properly compared to their underlying texts and tried by them just as the early English Bible translators suggested.

Then you can clearly tell us all why they translated differently by the existing 'original' texts?

Don't think so.

If we have what they used, and you can show from those texts that they did not follow the original language texts, can you explain WHERE they DID get what they wrote?

No. Because there is no information on what was all there at their disposal, is that not right?

Yes.

We don't know for sure just what they used to get their wording.

Yes, there are some scattered references.
But nothing concrete.

Obviously what they DID use, other translators didn't.

Or we would have closer English versions.

That's like trying to find the original 'copy' that the KJV translators wrote out by hand.
It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Logos1560]

Then you can clearly tell us all why they translated differently by the existing 'original' texts?

The Geneva Bible translators and the KJV translators made use of multiple textually-varying sources so that they sometimes picked and chose from different sources.

Bible scholars have determined clearly in a good number of cases what the sources used by the Geneva Bible translators or the KJV translators were that could lead them to translate differently.

The Geneva Bible translators and KJV translators were greater Latin scholars than Hebrew scholars or Greek scholars, and they used Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons which often had renderings from Latin Vulgate editions as the definition of Hebrew OT words and of Greek NT words. Thus, the Latin Vulgate and Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons were sources which could lead the Geneva Bible translators or the KJV translators to depart from the most accurate English renderings of their printed original-language texts.

One reason for some actual textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV were the places where the Geneva Bible sometimes followed or was influenced by the Latin Vulgate instead of the giving the most accurate renderings of its Greek NT text or where the 1611 KJV sometimes followed or was influenced by the Latin Vulgate instead of giving the most accurate renderings of its Greek NT text.

 

[Logos1560]

a few possible examples of textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV which could be from the influence of the Latin Vulgate

Matthew 4:10

Avoid Satan [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]
Get thee hence, Satan [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 4:12

John was delivered up [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate]
John was cast into prison [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 6:34

for the morrow shall care for itself [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate]
for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 10:9

Possess not gold [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]
Provide neither gold [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 11:28

I will ease you [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]
I will give you rest [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Matthew 26:15

And said [1560 Geneva Bible]
And said unto them [1611 KJV] [Latin Vulgate] [“unto them” in italics in later KJV’s]

Matthew 26:26
and when he had given thanks [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, pp. 64-65)
and blessed it [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Mark 1:34

to say that they knew him [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza]
because they knew him [1611 KJV] [Tyndale/Vulgate] [see 1611 marginal note]

Mark 7:2

common [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus, Vulgate]
defiled [1611 KJV] [Beza] [see 1611 marginal note]

Mark 9:16
among yourselves [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza, Latin Vulgate]
with them [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Luke 8:29

was carried [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus & Latin Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 84)
was driven [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 9:22

and the third day rise again [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate]
and be raised the third day [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 15:13

So not long after [1560 Geneva Bible]
And not many days after [1611 KJV] [Latin—non post multos dies]

[Daniell maintained that the “KJV followed the Latin” (Bible in English, p. 363)]

John 12:26

and if any man serve me [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
if any man serve me [1611 KJV] [possible Latin Vulgate influence]

 

[Logos1560]

Is the rendering of the 1560 Geneva Bible more accurate and faithful to the meaning of the Hebrew words in the following examples?

Lev. 18:6 shame (Geneva) nakedness (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:7 shame of thy father (Geneva) nakedness of thy father (KJV) nakedness of your father (NKJV)

Lev. 18:7 shame of thy mother (Geneva) nakedness of thy mother (KJV) nakedness of your mother (NKJV)

Lev. 18:7 discover (Geneva) uncover (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:8 discover (Geneva) uncover (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:9 discover (Geneva) uncover (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:10 The shame (Geneva) The nakedness (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:10 discover (Geneva) uncover (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:11 The shame (Geneva) The nakedness (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:12 the shame (Geneva) the nakedness (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:13 discover (Geneva) uncover (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:13 the shame (Geneva) the nakedness (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:15 discover (Geneva) uncover (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:16 discover (Geneva) uncover (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:16 shame (Geneva) nakedness (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:17 discover (Geneva) uncover (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:17 shame (Geneva) nakedness (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:18 shame (Geneva) nakedness (KJV, NKJV)

Lev. 18:19 shame (Geneva) nakedness (KJV, NKJV)

 

[Logos1560]

Because there is no information on what was all there at their disposal, is that not right?

Yes.

Is it actually true and correct to say that "there is no information" on what sources where at the disposal of the Geneva Bible translators and the KJV translators?

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Is it actually true and correct to say that "there is no information" on what sources where at the disposal of the Geneva Bible translators and the KJV translators?

I know there is info on what could've been used.

Reread my words - "...no information on what was all there..."

Nobody knows what was all there that they used.

They are guessing, since no record exists from the 1560 translators on what they used.

If you say they used Latin here or Greek there, how do we know they didn't use Greek that doesn't now exist. Manuscripts do deteriorate over time because of handling too much.

We just don't know. None of us were there.

But I see why you assume things the way you are stating them.

But we still don't know.

 

[Logos1560]

I know there is info on what could've been used.

Reread my words - "...no information on what was all there..."

Nobody knows what was all there that they used.

They are guessing, since no record exists from the 1560 translators on what they used.

If you say they used Latin here or Greek there, how do we know they didn't use Greek that doesn't now exist. Manuscripts do deteriorate over time because of handling too much.

We just don't know. None of us were there.

.

You are speculating or guessing that the Geneva Bible translators may have had something available that is not known. Your mere speculation is not strong evidence for your claims concerning the Geneva Bible.

The Geneva Bible translators had available printed editions of the Greek New Testament as edited by textual critics Erasmus and Stephanus. They could not have had any Greek NT edition edited by Beza since none had yet been printed.

It has not been demonstrated that Stephanus had available any Greek NT manuscripts that are not known.

Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible contended that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131). Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). John Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh pointed out that Robert Stephens “made use of several manuscripts which were collated by his son Henry” (Introduction to N. T., II, p. 448). Henry Baird quoted Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).

Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of all of these collations used for Stephanus' editions?

Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Smith’s Dictionary maintained that “while only 598 variants of the Complutensian are given, Mill calculates that 700 are omitted” (III, p. 2131). Marvin Vincent asserted: “Of the Complutensian readings many more were omitted than inserted, and the Complutensian text is often cited incorrectly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). In a note, John Eadie commented: “The margin of the New Testament of Robert Stephens, 1550, is not of great value. He did not print all the various readings which his son Henry had gathered, nor did he fully collate all the sixteen MSS” (English Bible, II, p. 214). Samuel Newth maintained that the manuscripts used by Stephanus were “imperfectly collated” (Lectures, p. 86). Frederic Gardiner claimed that the collation in this edition “is neither complete nor accurate” (Principles, p. 5). Marvin Vincent suggested that “the collation, both of the Complutensian and of the manuscripts was partial and slovenly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). Vincent wrote: “The body of manuscript evidence amassed by the Stephens were imperfectly collated in the edition of 1550. Though the authorities stand in the margin, the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and in 119 places, with all of them. No fixed principles regulated the occasional applications of the manuscript readings to the construction of the text” (pp. 63-64). Richard Porson (1759-1808) asserted that “Stephen’s margin is full of mistakes in the readings and numbers of the MSS” (Gentlemen’s Magazine, May, 1789, p. 386; Letters, p. 55). Porson maintained that Stephens “has favored us with only a part of the various readings, (probably less than half) and has frequently set down a reading as from one manuscript which belonged to another” (Letters, pp. 88-89). Charles Hudson reported that the “various readings collated by his son” . . . “are known to be given very inaccurately” (Greek and English Concordance, p. xiv).