Why not the Geneva Bible?

[Logos1560]

the AV (or KJV, as you call it in America) was translated on this side of the Atlantic, where "corn" is the generic term for grain, and "wheat" is a particular grain, others being oats and barley. So if I am right in thinking that the original Hebrew meant any kind of cereal grain, then "wheat" would not be clearer than "corn".

You make a valid point for readers of the KJV in Great Britain. On the other hand, many readers of the KJV in America likely understand "corn" to be referring to a particular grain (maize). Wheat was likely the grain usually being referred to, and wheat would be closer to the type grains such as wheat, oats, and barley than corn (maize).

By the way, there was more than one Hebrew word that is translated "corn" in the KJV, and at least one of those Hebrew words is sometimes translated "wheat" in the KJV.

 

[David Lamb]

Does the 1560 Geneva Bible have an advantage over the 1611 KJV in that it was not influenced by the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims N. T. like the KJV was?

Mark 4:12 turn (Geneva) converted (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 6:31 wilderness (Geneva) desert place (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 10:41 disdain (Geneva) displeased (Rheims, KJV)
Mark 13:22 deceive (Geneva) seduce (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 1:80 wilderness (Geneva) deserts (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 6:49 fall of that house (Geneva) ruin of that house (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 9:1 heal (Geneva) cure (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 12:26 remnant (Geneva) rest (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 12:27 royalty (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) glory (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 12:27 clothed (Geneva) arrayed (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 14:28 perform (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) finish (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:4 wild fig (Geneva) sycomore (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:21 strait (Geneva) austere (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:23 vantage (Geneva) usury (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:5 garnished (Geneva) adorned (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:20 besieged (Geneva) compassed (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:20 soldiers (Geneva) army (Rheims) armies (KJV)
Luke 21:34 oppressed (Geneva) overcharged (Rheims, KJV)

Luke 22:30 seats (Geneva) thrones (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:19 insurrection (Geneva) sedition (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:32 evil doers (Geneva) malefactors (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:39 evil doers (Geneva) malefactors (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 24:8 remnant (Geneva) rest (Rheims, KJV)

Are the differences you have quoted really due to RC influence? I cannot believe that you mean that "desert", "sycamore" and "armies" (to give just three examples) are fore Roman Catholic in flavour than "wilderness", "wild fig" and "soldiers". I expect I have misunderstood you. Sorry.

 

[David Lamb]

You make a valid point for readers of the KJV in Great Britain. On the other hand, many readers of the KJV in America likely understand "corn" to be referring to a particular grain (maize). Wheat was likely the grain usually being referred to, and wheat would be closer to the type grains such as wheat, oats, and barley than corn (maize).

By the way, there was more than one Hebrew word that is translated "corn" in the KJV, and at least one of those Hebrew words is sometimes translated "wheat" in the KJV.

Thank you for the info on the Hebrew.

I have often thought that Americans must find some "British English" terms used in the KJV confusing. The bird that reminded Peter of His Saviour's words is called a "cock" in the KJV; I think you would call it a "rooster". The animal on which Jesus rode into Jerusalem, an "ass" in the KJV, would, I think, mean something quite different in the States!

 

[Logos1560]

Are the differences you have quoted really due to RC influence? I cannot believe that you mean that "desert", "sycamore" and "armies" (to give just three examples) are fore Roman Catholic in flavour than "wilderness", "wild fig" and "soldiers".

The point is that the source of those renderings was the 1582 Rheims N. T. that was translated by Roman Catholics. Some who defend the KJV condemn all modern versions as being influenced by Roman Catholics while they ignore the fact that the KJV was influenced by them. The 1582 Rheims was the source of some of the Latin-based words in the KJV. I was not suggesting that all the renderings in the KJV that came from the influence of the Rheims was necessarily unique to Roman Catholics. In at least a few cases, the rendering that the KJV took from the Rheims could be considered simplier than the one in the Protestant English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops).

Luke 21:4 superfluity (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’) excess (Coverdale’s) abundance (Rheims, KJV)

A few examples of the Latin-based renderings from the Rheims in the KJV are the following: clemency [clementia] (Acts 24:4), principal [principalibus] (Acts 25:23), emulation [aemulandum] (Rom. 11:14), malignity [malignitate] (Rom. 1:29), illuminated [illuminati] (Heb. 10:32), sincerity [sinceritate] (2 Cor. 1:12), and incense [incensa] (Rev. 8:3).

 

[Logos1560]

Some of the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible were the victims of persecution while some of the translators of the 1611 KJV were persecutors of others for their faith.

McClure pointed out that in 1564 Thomas Sampson (1517?-1589), one of the Geneva Bible translators, "was arraigned for non-conformity before the odious High Commission Court, and deprived of his office, and confined" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 53). The members of that ecclesiastical commission that sent for Sampson included four men who would be translators of the Bishops' Bible: Matthew Parker (Archbishop), Edmund Grindal (Bishop of London), Richard Cox (Bishop), and Edmund Guest (Bishop) (Peirce, Vindication, pp. 57-58). The Dictionary of National Biography also noted that Sampson was "deprived of the deanery of Christ Church and placed in confinement" (Vol. XVII, p. 722). Smith pointed out that Sampson was "subjected to long and rigorous imprisonment" (Select Memoirs, p. 271). The Dictionary of National Biography also noted that in 1571 Archbishop Matthew Parker commanded Grindal to prosecute Anthony Gilby, another Geneva Bible translator, for nonconformity. Grindal refused on the grounds that he was not in his diocese (Vol. VII, p. 1218).


Bishops' Bible translator, Edwin Sandys (Archbishop of York), gathered commissions twice to examine matters of complaint against Geneva Bible translator William Whittingham (DNB, XXI, pp. 152-153). Sandys challenged the validity of Whittingham's ordination along with several other charges. McClure confirmed that Whittingham "was repeatedly impleaded in the ecclesiastical courts for his non-conformity, and for his presbyterial ordination in Geneva; and he was once excommunicated by the Archbishop of York" (KJV Translators, p. 50). Christopher Goodman, who had been pastor of the English congregation along with John Knox at Geneva and who was likely involved in the translating of the Geneva Bible, was examined in 1571 by Archbishop Parker, "beaten with three rods, and forbidden to preach" (DNB, VIII, p. 129). Smith noted that Goodman "was cited before Archbishop Parker and others of the high commission" (Select Memoirs, p. 303). Thus, some of the Bishops' Bible translators were directly involved in the persecution of the translators of the Geneva Bible.

The Church of England's High Commission Court and the Star Chamber with its "distinguished" members such as Bishops' Bible translators Matthew Parker, Richard Cox, Edmund Grindal, Edmund Guest, and Edwin Sandys; and KJV translators Lancelot Andrewes, George Abbot, Thomas Ravis, and Thomas Bilson; and Archbishops Bancroft and Laud were involved in the persecution of others for their faith. Other KJV translators were also members of these commissions. Usher's list of the commissions in the province of Canterbury included KJV translators John Bois, Arthur Lake, John Layfield, Nicolas Love, James Montague, John Overall, Sir Henry Savile, Miles Smith, and Giles Thompson (Rise and Fall, pp. 345-359).


Bancroft had Lancelot Andrewes (a KJV translator) interrogate Henry Barrow, a Separatist who had been arrested in 1587. Ruckman maintained that “in 1587 Henry Barrow and John Greenwood had been imprisoned for teaching this Baptist position on separatism” (History of N. T. Church, II, p. 58). Hadrian Saravia (a KJV translator) interrogated Daniel Studley, another Separatist. Thomas Sparke (a KJV translator) interrogated Roger Waters, an eighteen-year-old Separatist who was kept in chains for more than a year. Nicolson reported that some of the Separatists were shut in the “most noisome and vile dungeons, without beds, or so much as straw to lie upon” and without any trial where they could defend themselves (God’s Secretaries, p. 87). After three years of imprisonment, Nicolson noted that “Barrow’s life ended in execution, for denying the authority of bishops, for denying the holiness of the English Church and its liturgy and denying the authority over it of the queen” (p. 92). Nicolson maintained that “Andrewes could happily see a good, God-fearing, straight-living, honest and candid man like Henry Barrow condemned to death” (p. 100). Diarmaid MacCulloch referred to the execution of three Separatist leaders [Henry Barrow, John Greenwood, and John Penry] for sedition in 1593 as the “martyrdom of sincere godly Protestants, in no way heretical in theology” (Reformation, p. 377).

 

[Logos1560]

My question is, why don't we go back to the Geneva Bible, which was really our first totally Protestant Bible in English and the very one the Pilgrams and the Puritans brought with them to America?

The Geneva Bible had an important influence on America. David Daniell noted: “The Geneva Bible was at the heart of the founding of those colonies, as will be seen, in a greater way than even [the] KJV” (Bible in English, p. 221). He contended: “This evidence of the regular use of the Geneva Bible can be supported by many documents from the colonies” (p. 425). G. S. Wegener maintained that the Geneva Bible “was to become equally popular in America, where it accompanied many who exiled themselves from Britain for conscience’s sake” (6000 Years, p. 237). Jack Lewis also confirmed that “the Geneva played an important role in the history of early America” (English Bible, p. 26). John Jeffcoat maintained: “America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible” (www.Greatsite.com).

 

[Logos1560]

There are perhaps many reasons that the Geneva Bible fell out of favor, and until recently it was mostly forgotten. Often the blame is placed upon the English Crown and its state Church establishment.

King James and his state church used their great powers to undermine the Geneva Bible. McGrath maintained that the secret agenda of James I was “to destroy, discredit, or displace it” [the Geneva Bible] (In the Beginning, p. 129). John Jeffcoat III wrote that the KJV “was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants …and killed them” (www.Greatsite.com). Norton suggested: “The Church and the State were not so much for the KJB, or even for a uniform Bible, as they were against the Geneva Bible” (History, p. 93).


The Geneva Bible could not be printed in England after 1616. David Cloud claimed: “In 1616 the king [James I] issued a command that only the King James Bible was to be printed in England” (Faith, p. 584). MacGregor wrote that the last quarto edition of the Geneva Bible printed in England was in 1615 and the last folio in 1616 (Literary History, p. 145). MacGregor wrote: "After the Geneva Bible ceased to be printed in England, about 150,000 copies of it were imported from Holland for English household use" (p. 146). McGrath observed that “official opposition to the Geneva Bible could not prevent it from becoming the most widely read Bible of the Elizabethan, and subsequently the Jacobean, era” (In the Beginning, p. 127).

Norton indicated that William Laud played a “role in securing the dominance of the KJB” (History, p. 104). Bradstreet maintained that “the popularity of the Geneva Bible so disturbed King Charles and Archbishop Laud that they did everything they could think of to discredit and get rid of it” (KJV in History, p. 103). Conant noted: "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling to it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367). Edmunds and Bell affirmed that “Laud made it a high commission crime to import, print, or sell the Geneva [Bible]“ (Discussion, p. 116). Norton pointed out that Laud gave “the Geneva Bible’s commercial success as one of his reasons for its suppression” (History, p. 91). Laud’s decree to prohibit the importing of the Geneva Bible was around 1637. Bradstreet noted that Laud’s “propaganda campaign suggested that it was near treason to purchase a Bible printed in a foreign land when Bibles printed in England could be had” (KJV in History, p. 103). From 1637, some foreign publishers were said to print Geneva Bibles with a false date of 1599 perhaps to try to keep those who obtained them from getting in trouble with Archbishop Laud and the High Commission Court. Jack Lewis pointed out that Archbishop Laud even ordered copies of the Geneva Bible burned (English Bible, p. 32). Bobrick asserted that Laud "even inserted Catholic prints of the life of the Virgin into Scottish editions of the King James Version of the New Testament and burned every copy of the Geneva Bible he could find" (Wide as the Waters, p. 278). Daniell also confirmed that in 1646 William Prynne wrote that “he [Laud] would suffer no English Bibles to be printed or sold with marginal notes [i. e. the Geneva version] to instruct the people, all such must be seized and burnt . . . but himself gives special approbation for the venting of Bibles [KJV’s] with Popish pictures taken out of the very Mass book, to seduce the people to Popery and idolatry” (Bible in English, p. 458). Peter Ruckman referred to “a Catholic king (Charles I)” and to “the Papist Charles I” (History of the N. T. Church, II, pp. 5, 32) although Charles I was still a member of the Church of England. Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Things That Are Different, p. 48).

Daniell confirmed that the Geneva Bible "was suppressed in the seventeenth century" (Tyndale's N. T., p. xii). Norton indicated that “in fair competition” with the Geneva, the KJV “would probably have lost, but its supporters had foul means at their disposal” (History, p. 91). Norton observed: “Strangulation of the Geneva Bible in the press was the most diplomatic and effective long-term policy for the establishment of the KJB in England, Scotland and the American colonies that could have been hit on” (p. 94). Did the KJV ever face such extreme suppression and opposition from an ungodly king and state church as the Geneva Bible faced? McGrath pointed out that the Geneva Bible did not need any “endorsement by the political and religious establishment to gain enthusiastic and widespread acceptance” (In the Beginning, p. 127).

In spite of all the opposition and suppression, Paul Wegner noted that "the Geneva Bible gave it [the KJV] competition for about fifty years" (Journey from Texts, p. 311). David Beale pointed out that the Geneva Bible "would remain the household English Bible until the 1650's" (Mayflower Pilgrims, p. 22). John Kerr maintained that “the Geneva Bible continued to be the most popular version of the Bible for a generation after the King James Version came out in 1611” (Ancient Texts, p. 92). James Baikie stated: "In England the popularity of the Geneva Bible, in spite of the efforts made to supersede it, lasted up to and through the Civil War" (English Bible, p. 243). Edwin Robertson asserted that the Geneva Bible “remained the most popular, particularly throughout the Civil War and Commonwealth period” (Makers, p. 111). Robertson wrote: "It was not until the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660 that the AV really became the Bible of England" (Ibid.). Bradstreet also maintained that the Geneva Bible was the most popular English Bible “until the 1660’s” (KJV in History, p. 49). Thuesen also confirmed that with the Restoration the KJV “finally became the Bible for the English people” (In Discordance, p. 29). Worth also maintained that the KJV finally won the battle for supremacy with the Geneva Bible by the 1660's (Church, Monarch, and Bible, p. 158). Norton pointed out: “It was one thing for the KJB to defeat the Geneva, another for it to be the Bible” (History, pp. 106-107).

In 1660, the monarchy was restored, and the supremacy of the Anglican Church was also restored. During this Restoration, Charles II was king from 1660-1685. Justo Gonzalez pointed out that “on his deathbed, Charles II declared himself a Catholic, thus confirming the suspicions of many of the persecuted Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians” (Story of Christianity, II, p. 163). McGrath observed that after 1660 "the King James Bible was now seen as a pillar of Restoration society, holding together church and state, the bishops and monarch, at a time when social cohesion was essential to England's future as a nation" (In the Beginning, pp. 288-289). McGrath added that "the most significant factor" in the KJV's final triumph over the Geneva Bible "appears to have been the fact that it was associated with the authority of the monarch at a time when such authority was viewed positively" (p. 289). McGrath noted that the Geneva Bible came to be viewed as a "seditious text" in Great Britain "because it had been the preferred translation of the detested Puritan faction" (p. 289). Bradstreet suggested that “the distaste with which the English people viewed the Puritan excesses under Cromwell led to a general repudiation of all things Puritan, and the fate of the Geneva Bible was sealed” (KJV in History, p. 106). Charles II was succeeded by his brother James II who attempted to make Roman Catholicism again the official religion of Great Britain.

In an article in the Encyclopedia of the Renaissance, Daniell wrote; "Contrary to the later prevailing view, it [the KJV] was disliked on its first appearance, and only overtook the Geneva Bible for commercial and political reasons. Idolization of the King James Version did not begin until the later eighteenth century" (Vol. I, p. 225). Norton also confirmed: “In spite of the later perception of the KJB’s superiority, this publishing triumph owed nothing to its merits (or Geneva’s demerits) as a scholarly or literary rendering of the originals: economics and politics were the key factors. It was in the very substantial commercial interest of the King‘s Printer, who had a monopoly on the text, and the Cambridge University Press, which also claimed the right to print the text, that the KJB should succeed” (History, p. 90).

 

[Amy.G]

Thanks Logos for all the excellent articles. I have learned so much about the history of our Bible. I think this is a subject every Christian should study.
I would love to see someone make an updated Geneva Bible. It would be nice to go back to our roots instead of making yet another modern version. Not that I have anything against MV's. I use the NASB 99% of the time.

 

[Logos1560]

I would love to see someone make an updated Geneva Bible.

A modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible has been made. It is printed by Tolle Lege Press of White Hall, West Virginia.
www.TolleLegePress.com

It only updates the spelling, not any archaic words. It does include a glossary in the back for some of the archaic words in the text and in the marginal notes (pp. 1347-1366).

 

[David Lamb]

A few examples of the Latin-based renderings from the Rheims in the KJV are the following: clemency [clementia] (Acts 24:4), principal [principalibus] (Acts 25:23), emulation [aemulandum] (Rom. 11:14), malignity [malignitate] (Rom. 1:29), illuminated [illuminati] (Heb. 10:32), sincerity [sinceritate] (2 Cor. 1:12), and incense [incensa] (Rev. 8:3).

I suggest that it would be wrong to take this too far. Yes, many English words are Latin-based (meditation - Latin meditari; voyce/voice - Latin vox; pray - Latin precari; direct - Latin directus; iniquitie/iniquity - Latin iniquitas. Those few examples come from Psalm 5 in the Geneva Bible).

Many other English words come down to us from Anglo-Saxon (fire, water, father, etc.). The Angles and the Saxons were not Roman Catholics, but worshippers of false gods like Thor and Woden.

What I am trying to say is that just as we would not attribute the use of words like "fire" and "water" to pagan influences just because they come from a language used by pagans, so we should not necessarily atrribute the use of words like "convenient" and "comfort" to Roman Catholic influence, on the grounds that they are based on Latin, a language used extesively in Roman Catholicism.

 

[robycop3]

Would you believe there are actually some wing nuts out there(Kizziah, Voorhees) who insist that some British/USA words taken directly from Latin, such as Savior, color, & labor, are incorrect in American Bibles because they aren't spelled with an "our" ending? (Some crazy notion that "saviour" should be spelled with SEVEN LETTERS!)

I reckon that they forgot that England & the USA are separate sovereign nations.

While our nations use the same basic language, & their respective citizens can easily communicate with each other, there are many differences in word definitions, pronunciations, & spellings between our respective language styles, such as the ones named above. Also, a lorry in GB is a truck in the USA, a perambulator(pram) in GB is a baby buggy or carriage in the USA, a car's bonnet in GB is a hood in the USA, and I'm sure you know that "knock up" has entirely-different meanings in our respective nations.

I give absolutely no credence to such people, and I certainly wouldn't drink their Kool-Aid!

 

[Logos1560]

King James wanted a new Bible without all the marginal notes.

McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10). Vance maintained that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21).

Pastor Mincy affirmed: "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131). Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people" (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3). KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206). In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97). Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147).

What did those marginal notes say that upset King James I? At Daniel 6:22, the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible has this marginal note: "For he did disobey the king's wicked commandment to obey God, and so did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing whereby God should be dishonoured." At Exodus 1:19, it has this note: "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil." The note at Exodus 1:22 is as follows: "When tyrants can not prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage." In his article in a modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Marshall Foster observed: “the marginal note in the Geneva Bible at Exodus 1:19 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian rulers. King James called such interpretations ‘seditious.‘ The tyrant knew that if the people could hold him accountable to God’s Word, his days as a king ruling by ‘Divine Right’ were numbered” (p. xxv). At Matthew 2:19, the marginal note has the word tyrant [“Christ is brought up in Nazareth, after the death of the tyrant, by God’s providence”]. Its note at Matthew 10:28 stated: “Though tyrants be never so raging and cruel, yet we may not fear them.“ At Acts 12:2, its note again referred to tyrants [“It is an old fashion of tyrants to procure the favour of the wicked with the blood of the godly”]. McGrath maintained that "the Geneva notes regularly use the word 'tyrant' to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word" (In the Beginning, p. 143). Long after King James’ death, these notes were in a few editions of the KJV, such as one in 1672. At the top of the page that has Isaiah 14, the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has this heading: “The fall of the tyrant.“ At the top of the page that has Ezekiel 32, the 1560 Geneva Bible has this heading: “The end of tyrants.“ The 1611 KJV did have the word “tyrant” in the Apocrypha [Wisdom of Solomon 12:14, 2 Maccabees 4:25, 7:27].

Perhaps it was not only the marginal notes that caused King James to dislike the Geneva Bible. If it was only the notes that bothered the king, why didn’t he have the text printed without those notes? Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”

Concerning Genesis 10:8-9, Ovid Need wrote: “Both the text wording and the notes of the Geneva speak harshly against oppressors and tyrants, such as we have today. As I have used the Geneva and compared it with the KJV, I understand why King James wanted to rid Christians of the Geneva” (Biblical Examiner, January, 2007, p. 2). Ovid Need added: “An example is found in Matthew 2:6, KJV says a governor, where the Geneva says, the governor. The strong wording that demands that only one Sovereign, Jehovah God in the form of Jesus Christ was removed from the KJV” (Ibid.).

Is it possible that King James I did not want believers to read how strongly God's Word condemns tyranny and tyrants? Did King James think that some might regard some of his actions as being those of a tyrant? Alexander McClure referred to King James as "the tyrant" (KJV Translators, p. 50). Why did the KJV translators remove the words "tyrant,” “tyrants,” and “tyranny” from the text of the English Bible? According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded this change? Is it possible that the KJV translators agreed with the view of civil government held by King James? Did the translators avoid using the word "tyrant" to keep from offending King James or were they perhaps instructed to remove it? What was wrong with the use of the word “tyrant” in the English Bible?