Why not use the Geneva Bible instead of the KJV? Second attempt

This is for KJVO folks only?

 

I am the original poster on this on the BB Board...

Did NOT want to see reasons for/against KJVO...
DID want to explore reasons why those in the Church who do use the KJV did not give the "benefit of the doubt" to the use of the Geneva Bible, as that Bible was the one of the reformation and of the reformers themselves!

 

Historically, the KJV was given a royal push in that it was placed in every Church of England and public libraries at the command of the king. It has been revised and upgraded over the years.

In modern times it was the primary bible used in the war against modernism right into the 1970's. Most of the fundamental, conservative seminaries of those years stood firmly with the KJV. We read and used other versions, but we read from the pulpit and preached from the KJV.

I think it had very good and wide support and has lent itself to popularity.

I am not KJVO, but it is still my main text. I still use my 1945 bible in personal study and when I preach. I have nothing against other versions and some 18 translations adorn my bookshelves.

That is how I understand the strong popularity of the KJV, rather than because it is the most accurate version. There is a trend of change in churches to-day and it seems the NIV is holding its own.

Cheers,

Jim

 

See my thread on Why did Calvinists abandon the Geneva Bible?

Several credible explanations are presented (as are a few real whoppers).

 

It COULD be that the GB hasn't caught back on with English Bible users because of its long hiatus from ready availability, brought on by the British government. Many people reason, "Why use another old Bible version when newer ones, in MY English, are available? One old version, the KJV, is enough, and is readily available."

Personally, I read the GB, along with other old English versions, for study.

 

If the verses concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures, the preservation of the Scriptures, etc. were interpreted the exact same way and applied the same way to the 1560 Geneva Bible as some do to the KJV, would it destroy the basis or reasoning that is used to rationalize exclusive only claims for the KJV?

A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. Thus, correct and scriptural interpretations concerning what the Scripture states about itself should equally apply in 1560 as in 1611. If a translation did not have to be inspired and 100% perfect in 1560 to present the word of God in English, where do the Scriptures teach that it should be claimed for a translation made in 1611?

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators identified the pre-1611 English Bibles as being the word of God in the same way and sense that would apply to their own translation.

 

I would like to see more high quality editions of the 1599 Geneva. I would certainly get in line for one.

 

In the past I have used the GB along with the KJV and the NKJV. In my search for the truth I have not abandoned any of the thought for thought translations but primarily teach from the Near, word for word translation of the NASB. it has always mystified me that anyone would consider the KJV to be the original text but have found that to, often, be the given reason.

Since the GB is an earlier translation than the 1611 King James it would seem to me to be a more logical choice for English speakers but then, Ẅho am I?

 

I've read them both. There are no crucial reasons to choose the KJV over the Geneva Bible. They are very similar; the KJV is more eloquent and may benefit from slightly later and better scholarship. However, the Geneva may be a little bit easier for the modern reader to understand. In their original printed forms (format, typeface, etc.) both would be considered clumsy by today's standards. Even many of the notes would be sorely antiquated.

Of course, neither really ought to be considered for the contemporary believer's primary Bible. Later versions benefit from more recent manuscript discoveries which have led to improved understanding of the ancient languages.

I don't think that the proposition of using the Geneva is taken very seriously; the question seems to exist for the purpose of exposing one of the KJVO inconsistancies.

 

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). Christopher Anderson wrote: “Whatever may be said of the notes, no intelligent person can speak lightly of the version itself” (Annals, II, p. 389). In 1772, David Durell (Hebrew scholar and friend of Benjamin Blayney and who assisted Blayney in the making of the 1769 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).

 

Remember, it's moreso the Geneva Bible's Notes that certain Reformed partisans find oh so precious.

Hilarious quote from the website of the Christian Reconstructionism movement's own Tolle Lege Press, which put out an edition of 1599 Geneva Bible several years ago:

They had no problem altering the Geneva Bible scripture text into "modern spelling", but refused to correct cross reference errors found in the Notes because:

Parish the thought!

LOL

 

Why not use the Geneva Bible?

The counter question is: why should I use the Geneva Bible?

I can think of no particular reason to use it. It long ago passed out of general use.

While the Geneva is a mighty fine translation, I suspect that many would object to using a Calvinist, sectarian version.

 

I purchased a Geneva facsimile reprint (1560 edition) last year. I have a growing affinity for this bible. Because of its massive size and small print,I won't be using it full time. If someone would reprint the main text with bigger print, then I probably would use it full time.

 

The 1560 Geneva Bible is more accurate and understandable in a number of verses when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages than the KJV.

The 1560 Geneva Bible does not have the problem of having the Church of England bias for Episcopal church government that was evident in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

The 1560 Geneva Bible was not influenced by the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament as the 1611 KJV was.

 

There is likely less valid evidence that the 1560 Geneva Bible was a "Calvinist, sectarian version" than could be given for saying that the 1611 KJV was a "Anglican, sectarian version." The dedication to King James in the 1611 edition of the KJV stated that "we have great hope that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby."

Most of the translators of the 1611 KJV were Calvinists. It has been claimed that there is evidence of Calvinist bias in the text of the KJV in the same verses where such bias has been claimed in the Geneva Bible.
Under the heading "Questionable concepts carried over in the King James Version," Samuel Fisk asserted: "even that noble version [referring to the KJV] could not divert itself of concepts drawn from the Geneva Bible" (Calvinistic Paths Retraced, p. 74).

 

1. I don't actually agree with (the proposed facts) of your first paragraph.

2. I don't follow the Presbyterian (Calvinist) form of Church government either. Your second argument carries no weight with me.

3. I kind of like the Rheims version. I think both the KJV and the Rheims were influenced by the Holy Scriptures. I think the KJV is better though.

 

It sounds like you are debating yourself. From your comment I get the following sense:
The Geneva should be preferred because it ISN'T a "Calvinist sectarian version." On the other hand the KJV shouldn't be preferred because it is an "Anglican sectarian version" AND was strongly influenced by Calvinists!

Perhaps it is time for another cup of coffee there brother 1560.

BTW: How many Anglicans were on the translation team for the Geneva; how many Baptists? (purely rhetorical questions)

As a note of clarification: I suggested that some would object to the use of the Geneva Bible on account of its origins. I don't personally have such an objection. I simply believe the KJV is the better (best!) translation.

 

:BangHead:I love the GB; however, to my knowledge the only people printing it, Tolle Lege Press, use this rotten, tiny typeface on all their editions, which I find next-door-to-impossible to read. Ergo, I do not use the GB.