was The Geneva Bible Considered superior to 1611 KJV?

[JesusFan]

Were there any holding to that when kjv came out, or even today?

 

[Dr. Bob]

The Geneva English translation of the Bible was widely used in colonial America. It took decades for the AV1611 to gain traction. Remember that SOME of the early English colonies were close to the Anglican Church that printed the AV1611 while OTHER colonies were fiercely independent of the Anglican (puritan, congregational, etc) and would by nature steer away from anything smacking of Anglican origin.

Also, while the AV had some "word choice" variants, knowing that English as a receptor language was not perfect or as detailed as the original languages, the Geneva had actual "commentary notes" and "explanations" in the printed copies

 

[Marooncat79]

Perfect reaponse

 

[Logos1560]

In an appendix entitled “When and how we get our Bible,” a Sunday School Scholars’ Edition of the KJV stated that the Geneva Bible “is pre-eminently the Protestant Bible” (p. 6).

In 1772, David Durell (Hebrew scholar and friend of Benjamin Blayney and who assisted Blayney in the making of the 1769 KJV edition) maintained that “it [the KJV] does not exhibit in many places the sense of the text so exactly as the version of 1599 [the Geneva]“ (Critical Remarks on the Books, p. vi).

Scrivener noted that “even King James’s revisers sometimes retain renderings of the Bishops’ Bible, when they are decidedly inferior to that of the Geneva New Testament” (Supplement, I, p. 94). In 1827, Baptist Samuel Green asserted that “some learned men speak highly of this copy [the Geneva] of the English Scriptures, and do not hesitate to declare, that it is at least equal to that of King James’s translators” (Miscellanies, p. 256).

In 1835, B. B. Edwards claimed that “on further examination of the Geneva Bible, it appeared that many of the obsolete words and errors in grammar and syntax, found in James’s version, are not in the Geneva” (Biblical Repository, Vol. 6, p. 478). B. B. Edwards maintained that though the Geneva was “sometimes improved in the last translation [the KJV]” that the Geneva Bible “contained many preferable translations” (Ibid.).

 

[Salty]

Were there any holding to that when kjv came out, or even today?

Yes, Jack Hyles great-great (+9) great grandfather!

 

[Jerome]

The Geneva English translation of the Bible was widely used in colonial America. It took decades for the AV1611 to gain traction. Remember that SOME of the early English colonies were close to the Anglican Church that printed the AV1611 while OTHER colonies were fiercely independent of the Anglican (puritan, congregational, etc) and would by nature steer away from anything smacking of Anglican origin.

Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia (2006), 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."

 

[Jerome]

Also, while the AV had some "word choice" variants, knowing that English as a receptor language was not perfect or as detailed as the original languages, the Geneva had actual "commentary notes" and "explanations" in the printed copies

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 [which was based primarily on its notes] waned. The notes were from an earlier era; the commentary was lacking what Puritanism had come to be enamored with.

p. 20
"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."

 

[JesusFan]

The Geneva English translation of the Bible was widely used in colonial America. It took decades for the AV1611 to gain traction. Remember that SOME of the early English colonies were close to the Anglican Church that printed the AV1611 while OTHER colonies were fiercely independent of the Anglican (puritan, congregational, etc) and would by nature steer away from anything smacking of Anglican origin.

Also, while the AV had some "word choice" variants, knowing that English as a receptor language was not perfect or as detailed as the original languages, the Geneva had actual "commentary notes" and "explanations" in the printed copies

Their Bible had Calvinistic study notes, correct?

 

[JesusFan]

In an appendix entitled “When and how we get our Bible,” a Sunday School Scholars’ Edition of the KJV stated that the Geneva Bible “is pre-eminently the Protestant Bible” (p. 6).

In 1772, David Durell (Hebrew scholar and friend of Benjamin Blayney and who assisted Blayney in the making of the 1769 KJV edition) maintained that “it [the KJV] does not exhibit in many places the sense of the text so exactly as the version of 1599 [the Geneva]“ (Critical Remarks on the Books, p. vi).

Scrivener noted that “even King James’s revisers sometimes retain renderings of the Bishops’ Bible, when they are decidedly inferior to that of the Geneva New Testament” (Supplement, I, p. 94). In 1827, Baptist Samuel Green asserted that “some learned men speak highly of this copy [the Geneva] of the English Scriptures, and do not hesitate to declare, that it is at least equal to that of King James’s translators” (Miscellanies, p. 256).

In 1835, B. B. Edwards claimed that “on further examination of the Geneva Bible, it appeared that many of the obsolete words and errors in grammar and syntax, found in James’s version, are not in the Geneva” (Biblical Repository, Vol. 6, p. 478). B. B. Edwards maintained that though the Geneva was “sometimes improved in the last translation [the KJV]” that the Geneva Bible “contained many preferable translations” (Ibid.).

Even KJVO would have to accept it as a legit translation, to them still inferior to their beloved Kjv, correct?

 

[Logos1560]

Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5).

Gail Riplinger asserted: “Generally speaking the early English Bibles are the same” (In Awe, p. 130). Gail Riplinger wrote: “This author’s word-for-word comparison of the actual scriptures of Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, and the Great Bible sheds new light on their contributions to the English Bible” (p. 37). Gail Riplinger referred to her “word-for-word collation” of the Bishops’ Bible and her “own word-for-word analysis of the English Bibles before the KJV” (p. 18). Gail Riplinger asserted: “These observations result from this author’s thorough collation of the Bishops’ and previous Bibles. It is a conclusion based on facts which are demonstrable and not based on supposition” (p. 135). Gail Riplinger boldly claimed: “The words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (p. 859).

 

[Dr. Bob]

Their Bible had Calvinistic study notes, correct?

Yes. It promoted biblical soteriology of a sovereign Godhead and sinful world.

 

[JesusFan]

Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5).

Gail Riplinger asserted: “Generally speaking the early English Bibles are the same” (In Awe, p. 130). Gail Riplinger wrote: “This author’s word-for-word comparison of the actual scriptures of Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, and the Great Bible sheds new light on their contributions to the English Bible” (p. 37). Gail Riplinger referred to her “word-for-word collation” of the Bishops’ Bible and her “own word-for-word analysis of the English Bibles before the KJV” (p. 18). Gail Riplinger asserted: “These observations result from this author’s thorough collation of the Bishops’ and previous Bibles. It is a conclusion based on facts which are demonstrable and not based on supposition” (p. 135). Gail Riplinger boldly claimed: “The words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (p. 859).

By her own logic here then, the Nkjv would be "practically identical to the KJV"

 

[Logos1560]

By her own logic here then, the Nkjv would be "practically identical to the KJV"

Yes, if her own logic was applied consistently and justly, the NKJV should be considered "practically identical" to the KJV.


I have found many pages of places where the KJV improved on the Geneva Bible that the NKJV is in agreement with the KJV.

I also found many pages of renderings where the NKJV is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible when it differs from the KJV, and in at least some of those places the Geneva Bible and the NKJV seem to be more accurate than the KJV.

 

[Ben1445]

Yes, if her own logic was applied consistently and justly, the NKJV should be considered "practically identical" to the KJV.


I have found many pages of places where the KJV improved on the Geneva Bible that the NKJV is in agreement with the KJV.

I also found many pages of renderings where the NKJV is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible when it differs from the KJV, and in at least some of those places the Geneva Bible and the NKJV seem to be more accurate than the KJV.

I know someone who by my consideration is lost. (I would not know for certain) I was pleasantly surprised to know that he had begun reading any Bible. His Bible of choice is, the last I knew, the Geneva Bible. I asked him how he happened to choose it. It appeared that it was his own choice. He didn’t mention anyone else’s help in the matter.

 

[JesusFan]

I know someone who by my consideration is lost. (I would not know for certain) I was pleasantly surprised to know that he had begun reading any Bible. His Bible of choice is, the last I knew, the Geneva Bible. I asked him how he happened to choose it. It appeared that it was his own choice. He didn’t mention anyone else’s help in the matter.

I am sure that the Holy Spirit even has used the living Bible and Good news Bibles to save out to Lord Jesus His own sheep over the years, even though neither would ever be on my preferred bible listing

 

[Logos1560]

Examples in first 12 chapters of Acts where the 1560 Geneva Bible and the NKJV seem to agree in differing from the KJV.

Acts 1:3 presented (Geneva, NKJV) shewed (KJV)
Acts 1:3 that he had suffered (Geneva) his passion (KJV) His suffering (NKJV)
Acts 1:4 he commanded (Geneva) commanded (KJV) He commanded (NKJV)
Acts 1:4 but to wait (Geneva, NKJV) but wait (KJV)
Acts 1:19 their own language (Geneva, NKJV) their proper tongue (KJV)
Acts 1:20 charge (Geneva) bishopric (KJV) office (NKJV)
Acts 1:22 be made (Geneva) be ordained (KJV) become (NKJV)
Acts 1:23 presented (Geneva) appointed (KJV) proposed (NKJV)
Acts 1:28 on Matthias (Geneva, NKJV) upon Matthias (KJV)

Acts 2:8 language (Geneva, NKJV) tongue (KJV)
Acts 2:13 They are full (Geneva, NKJV) These men are full (KJV)
Acts 2:15 since it is (Geneva, NKJV) seeing it is (KJV)
Acts 2:25 David saith (Geneva) David speaketh (KJV) David says (NKJV)
Acts 2:34 sit at (Geneva, NKJV) sit thou on (KJV)

Acts 3:12 So when Peter (Geneva, NKJV) And when Peter (KJV)
Acts 3:12 or godliness (Geneva, NKJV) or holiness (KJV)
Acts 3:17 I know (Geneva, NKJV) I wot (KJV)
Acts 3:18 thus fulfilled (Geneva, NKJV) so fulfilled (KJV)
Acts 3:23 shall be (Geneva, NKJV) shall come to pass (KJV)
Acts 3:25 to Abraham (Geneva, NKJV) unto Abraham (KJV)
Acts 3:26 your iniquities (Geneva, NKJV) his iniquities (KJV)

Acts 4:2 in Jesus Name (Geneva) through Jesus (KJV) in Jesus (NKJV)
Acts 4:18 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
Acts 4:28 to do (Geneva, NKJV) For to do (KJV)

Acts 5:16 were all healed (Geneva, NKJV) were healed every one (KJV)
Acts 5:21 all the elders (Geneva, NKJV) all the senate (KJV)
Acts 5:35 Men of Israel (Geneva, NKJV) Ye men of Israel (KJV)
Acts 5:41 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)

Acts 6:11 against Moses and God (Geneva, NKJV) against Moses and against God (KJV)

Acts 7:6 But God (Geneva, NKJV) And God (KJV)
Acts 7:11 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
Acts 7:17 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 7:20 acceptable unto God (Geneva) exceeding fair (KJV) well pleasing to God (NKJV)
Acts 7:25 that God (Geneva, NKJV) how that God (KJV)
Acts 7:38 congregation (Geneva, NKJV) church (KJV)
Acts 7:40 know not (Geneva) wot not (KJV) do not know (NKJV)

Acts 8:1 to his death (Geneva, NKJV) unto his death (KJV)
Acts 8:7 with a loud (Geneva, NKJV) with loud (KJV)
Acts 8:23 For I see (Geneva, NKJV) For I perceive (KJV)
Acts 8:27 to worship (Geneva, NKJV) for to worship (KJV)

Acts 9:8 from the ground (Geneva, NKJV) from the earth (KJV)
Acts 9:9 ate nor drank (Geneva, NKJV) did eat nor drink (KJV)
Acts 9:16 how many things (Geneva, NKJV) how great things (KJV)
Acts 9:22 the Christ (Geneva, NKJV) very Christ (KJV)
Acts 9:25 through the wall (Geneva, NKJV) by the wall (KJV)
Acts 9:38 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)

Acts 10:2 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
Acts 10:9 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)

Acts 11:1 Now the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Acts 11:25 to seek (Geneva, NKJV) for to seek (KJV)
Acts 11:26 first called Christians (Geneva, NKJV) called Christians first (KJV)
Acts 11:28 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)

Acts 12:4 the passover (Geneva, NKJV) Easter (KJV)
Acts 12:9 knew not (Geneva) wist not (KJV) did not know (KJV)