-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why isn't the Geneva Bible the "pefect translation?" Not KJV?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
William Bradley, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The translators changed virtually nothing from William Tyndale’s New Testament in the New Testament of the Geneva Bible” (Purified Seven Times, p. 87).
Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva “differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts” (Things That Are Different, p. 48). Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Ibid.). Carter maintained that the Geneva Bible “came from the same source, the same text” as the KJV, and that it is “trustworthy” (p. 121). Carter indicated that “there were no doctrinal differences” between the Geneva Bible and the KJV (p. 125). Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible “is from the same manuscripts as the King James” (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17).
Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160).
Gail Riplinger wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe, p. 566). 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). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text that underlies the King James Version” (Which Bible, p. 51).
H. D. Williams identified the Geneva Bible as being “based on the Received Texts of the original languages of the Bible” (Word-for-Word, p. 238). D. A. Waite maintained that “the Geneva Bible (1557-60) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 48). David Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout” (Bible Versions, p. 11). H. D. Williams listed the Geneva Bible as a “literal, verbal plenary translation” (Word-for-Word, p. 121). Robert Sargent referred to it as “a very good translation” (English Bible, p. 197). Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82).
Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva “differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts” (Things That Are Different, p. 48). Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Ibid.). Carter maintained that the Geneva Bible “came from the same source, the same text” as the KJV, and that it is “trustworthy” (p. 121). Carter indicated that “there were no doctrinal differences” between the Geneva Bible and the KJV (p. 125). Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible “is from the same manuscripts as the King James” (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17).
Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160).
Gail Riplinger wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe, p. 566). 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). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text that underlies the King James Version” (Which Bible, p. 51).
H. D. Williams identified the Geneva Bible as being “based on the Received Texts of the original languages of the Bible” (Word-for-Word, p. 238). D. A. Waite maintained that “the Geneva Bible (1557-60) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 48). David Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout” (Bible Versions, p. 11). H. D. Williams listed the Geneva Bible as a “literal, verbal plenary translation” (Word-for-Word, p. 121). Robert Sargent referred to it as “a very good translation” (English Bible, p. 197). Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82).
The popularity, wide use, and wide acceptance of the Geneva Bible are even acknowledged by some KJV-only authors. Robert Sargent and Laurence Vance both confirmed that the Geneva Bible "became the Bible of the people" (English Bible, p. 197; Brief History, p. 19). Phil Stringer referred to the Geneva as “the people’s Book“ and as “the Bible of the common man” (History, p. 13). William Bradley wrote: "The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the people, the Bible of the persecuted Christians and martyrs of the faith, the Bible of choice among English-speaking people for over one hundred years" (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Bradley also commented: “The Geneva Bible was the most widespread English Bible for a period of about one hundred years, from the 1560’s to the 1660’s” (To All Generations, p. 64). David Cloud stated: "The Geneva quickly became the most popular English Bible and wielded a powerful influence for almost 100 years" (Rome and the Bible, p. 108). Michael Bates asserted: “It would be more than a hundred years before the Geneva Bible would finally give way to the KJV” (Inspiration, p. 291).
franklinmonroe
Active Member
When are you gonna stop asking the same question over and over again?... but using the logic of the KJVO camp, why not the geneva bible instead?
The popularity, wide use, and wide acceptance of the Geneva Bible are even acknowledged by some KJV-only authors. Robert Sargent and Laurence Vance both confirmed that the Geneva Bible "became the Bible of the people" (English Bible, p. 197; Brief History, p. 19). Phil Stringer referred to the Geneva as “the people’s Book“ and as “the Bible of the common man” (History, p. 13). William Bradley wrote: "The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the people, the Bible of the persecuted Christians and martyrs of the faith, the Bible of choice among English-speaking people for over one hundred years" (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Bradley also commented: “The Geneva Bible was the most widespread English Bible for a period of about one hundred years, from the 1560’s to the 1660’s” (To All Generations, p. 64). David Cloud stated: "The Geneva quickly became the most popular English Bible and wielded a powerful influence for almost 100 years" (Rome and the Bible, p. 108). Michael Bates asserted: “It would be more than a hundred years before the Geneva Bible would finally give way to the KJV” (Inspiration, p. 291).
So agin their "logic" underwealms me, for based upon all those citations, shouldn't the Geneva and the NKJV BOTH be taken by the KJVO as being also "perfect transltions?"
is trhere any differences between 1560 and 1599 GB editions? is there any way to buy them today?
Last edited by a moderator:
1560 Geneva and 1599 Geneva
There was more than one edition of the Geneva Bible.
There was even actually more than one edition of the Geneva Bible printed in 1599. One collector claimed to find several varying editions of the Geneva Bible that all had a 1599 printing date.
One reason for all these varying editions with the same date is said because some later editions printed in the late 1630's or in the 1640's were printed with an incorrect 1599 title page in order to try to keep their readers from getting in trouble with the Church of England after selling and buying of the Geneva Bible in England was made a high-commission crime.
What is typically meant by someone referring to a 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible is the later editions of the Geneva that included with the Geneva's Old Testament a revision of the Geneva's New Testament by Laurence Tomson. Tomson actually suggested that he made a new English translation of Beza's Latin New Testament, but it seems to be more of a revision of the 1560 New Testament perhaps compared to Beza's Latin New Testament than a completely new translation.
Both editions or versions of the Geneva Bible were printed many times often in the same year: the 1560 edition and the other edition with the 1576 Tomson's New Testament.
The title page of a 1599 edition and a 1611 edition of his New Testament stated that it was “translated out of the Greek by Theodore Beza,” which indicated that its basis was the Latin New Testament of Beza. The title page then noted that Beza’s translation was “Englished by L. Tomson."
is there any differences between 1560 and 1599 GB editions?
There was more than one edition of the Geneva Bible.
There was even actually more than one edition of the Geneva Bible printed in 1599. One collector claimed to find several varying editions of the Geneva Bible that all had a 1599 printing date.
One reason for all these varying editions with the same date is said because some later editions printed in the late 1630's or in the 1640's were printed with an incorrect 1599 title page in order to try to keep their readers from getting in trouble with the Church of England after selling and buying of the Geneva Bible in England was made a high-commission crime.
What is typically meant by someone referring to a 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible is the later editions of the Geneva that included with the Geneva's Old Testament a revision of the Geneva's New Testament by Laurence Tomson. Tomson actually suggested that he made a new English translation of Beza's Latin New Testament, but it seems to be more of a revision of the 1560 New Testament perhaps compared to Beza's Latin New Testament than a completely new translation.
Both editions or versions of the Geneva Bible were printed many times often in the same year: the 1560 edition and the other edition with the 1576 Tomson's New Testament.
The title page of a 1599 edition and a 1611 edition of his New Testament stated that it was “translated out of the Greek by Theodore Beza,” which indicated that its basis was the Latin New Testament of Beza. The title page then noted that Beza’s translation was “Englished by L. Tomson."
is there any way to buy them today?
Both editions of the Geneva Bible have been reprinted at times.
Henrickson Publishers [Peabody, Massachusetts] reprinted a facsimile edition of a 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible in 2007.
This facsimile edition of the 1560 Geneva Bible had been printed earlier by the University of Wisconsin Press in 1969.
There was a facsimile reprinting of a 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible
by Geneva Publishing Company in 1991.
There was a paperback 1602 edition of a Geneva Bible New Testament prnted by Pilgrim Press [Cleveland, Ohio] in 1989.
There was a modern-spelling edition of a 1599 Geneva Bible printed by Tolle Lege Press [White Hall, WV] in 2006. www.TolleLegePress.com