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

OOPS.... duplicate post.

 

I have the Geneva on e-Sword (it is free BTW) so I can make the print as large as I want. Check it out.

 

I have that as well, but I don't use it much. I guess I am old fashioned - I like to have books I can hold in my hands.

 

Why would you seem to like and favor the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament over the 1560 Geneva Bible?

The original edition of the 1582 Rheims New Testament differs some from the present Douay-Rheims since the text of the Rheims was later altered and revised in the 1700's to follow some renderings of the KJV.

Here are some renderings found in the 1582 Rheims:

Matt. 3:2 "Do penance"
Matt. 3:8 "Yield therefore fruit worthy of penance."
Luke 1:15 "he shall be replenished with the Holy Ghost"
Luke 1:65 "all these things were bruited over all the hill country of Jewry"
Acts 1:8 "But you shall receive the virtue of the holy Ghost"
Acts 2:23 "by the determinate counsel and prescience of God"
Acts 12:3 "it was the days of the Azymes"
Acts 12:4 "meaning after the Pasche to bring him forth to the people"
Galatians 3:25 "But when the faith came, now we are not under a pedagogue."
Galatians 5:21 "Envies, murders, ebrieties, commessations, and such like"
Ephesians 5:9 "for the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and verity"
Ephesians 5:32 "This is a great sacrament"
Titus 1:5 "shouldst ordain priests by cities"
Hebrews 3:13 "that none of you be obdurated with the fallacy of sin"
Hebrews 3:15 "do not obdurate your hearts as in that exacerbation"

 

You offer no evidence that the 1560 Geneva Bible has any bias toward the Presbyterian form of church government.


The early Congregationalists and Baptists in England found support for the congregational form of church government in the 1560 Geneva Bible and in the other pre-1611 English Bibles. Some of them objected to the changes in the 1611 KJV that indicated Episcopal bias towards the Church of England's Episcopal form of church government.

 

Is Geneva Bible more accurate at Heb. 10:23?

In Hebrews 10:23, James D. Price noted that the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, and all Greek manuscripts have the Greek word for "hope" while the KJV has "faith." Scrivener thought that "faith" for "hope" at Hebrews 10:23 was a "mere oversight of our [KJV] translators" (The Authorized Edition, p. 247). Henry Craik referred to it as “a manifest oversight” (Hints, p. 49). Ezra Abbot suggested that “as a misprint, which would easily escape correction, it may have originated in the expression, ’assurance of faith’ in the preceding verse, putting the thought of ’faith’ into the mind of the type-setter, and making it natural for him to substitute the common expression, ’profession of faith,’ for the unusual one, ’profession of hope.’ This may also have been facilitated by the occurrence of the word ’faithful’ in the following clause” (Authorship, p. 226). Thomas Horne as edited by Samuel Tregelles maintained that the rendering in our version at Hebrews 10:23 is “simply a mistake” (Introduction, Vol. 4, p. 227). This is stated in a note concerning that comment: “’Faith’ in this passage of our English Bibles, seems to have been merely an erratum of the first edition, formed by the eye of the compositor resting on ’faithful’ immediately after” (Ibid.). C. E. Hammond proposed that “the compositor’s eye in the first edition perhaps rested upon the word ‘faithful’ in the line immediately below; so it [faith] crept in accidentally, and has never been corrected” (Outlines, p. 55). David Norton also asserted that “faith” “could be a printer’s error because of ‘faithful’ later in the verse” (Textual History, p. 351). In 1871 in a note concerning Hebrews 10:23, Thomas Abbott commented that “faith may, perhaps, be a typographical error” (English Bible, p. 40).


Was it impossible for the KJV translators to have overlooked a questionable rendering? Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Duoglott, the Great Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham's New Testament, the Geneva Bible, Thomson’s New Testament, and the Bishops' Bible all translated this Greek word accurately as "hope" as do Jay Green's Interlinear and Berry's Interlinear. According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded that this rendering in the Bishops’ and other earlier English Bibles be altered? Luther’s 1534 German Bible rendered this word as “hoffnung” [hope]. According to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning noted earlier, Luther’s German Bible and the KJV would be equal in authority. The 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible also has “hope.“ This same Greek word was translated "hope" by the KJV translators every other time it is found in the TR (53 times).

Young's Analytical Concordance defined elpis at Hebrews 10:23 as "hope" (p. 324). The Ryrie Study Bible has this note for this verse: “Lit. the confession of our hope” (p. 1865). The Companion Bible has this note: “our faith=the hope, Gr. elpis” (p. 1838). In his commentary on Hebrews, Oliver B. Greene noted about this verse that "The Greek reads, 'Let us hold fast the confession of our hope'" (p. 406). Concerning this verse, Ralph Earle observed: "The Greek word is not pistis, ' faith,' but elpis, 'hope'" (Word Meanings, p. 427). Bullinger defined the Greek word elpis at this verse as “hope” (Lexicon, p. 272). C. E. Hammond maintained that “the true reading is ‘hope’” (Outlines, p. 55). In his Expository Discourses on 1 Peter, John Brown asserted that “hope, not faith, is the genuine reading” at Hebrews 10:23 (p. 445). In the 1824 New Family Bible edited by Benjamin Boothroyd, “confession of our hope” is in the text at Hebrews 10:23. In his book A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine under the heading “the nature of hope,” KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes would quote “hold fast” with the reference (Heb. 10:23) (p. 95). This would indicate that Andrewes considered this verse to be referring to hope. It may be possible that his comments were based on the text of the Geneva Bible.


Some have noted a parallel or comparison between the three of 1 Corinthians 13:13 [faith, hope, and love] to the same three in Hebrews 10:22-24 [faith, v. 22; hope, v. 23; love, v. 24]. At 1 Corinthians 13:13, they are clearly identified as “these three,“ not as these two with “faith” and “hope” referring to the same thing or being synonyms. While clearly present in the Greek, this parallel is missing in the KJV. In 1659, Robert Gell wrote: "And let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, (the [KJV] translators turn it [faith] which should be turn'd [hope,] according to all Greek copies, I have yet seen. Beside, the apostle in verses 22, 23, 24 hath the three theological graces, in their order)" (Essay, p. 525). Alfred Dewes wrote: “In the three consecutive verses the three graces of faith, hope, and love are introduced; but the translation fails to represent them” (Plea, p. 13). In 1866, Henry Alford (1810-1871) asserted: “We have here an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder through centuries. The word ’faith,’ given here by the A. V., instead of hope--breaking up the beautiful triad of vv. 22, 23, 24,--faith, hope, love,--was a mere mistake, hope being the original, without any variety of reading, and hope, being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions previously to 1611” (New Testament for English Readers, Vol. 2, p. 706). In his commentary on Hebrews, Donald Guthrie maintained that “10:22 mentions faith, 10:23 refers to hope, and 10:24 to love” (p. 56). The same three graces [faith, love, hope] are also found in Colossians 1:4-5 and 1 Thessalonians 1:3.


Did Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible translators, and other early translators supposedly corrupt the Bible by translating this word as "hope" or were perhaps the KJV translators mistaken in translating this word as "faith?" By changing a noun in all the earlier English Bibles, were the KJV translators guilty of unfaithfulness in translation, inaccuracy in translation, or unreliability in translation according a consistent application of the claims of a KJV defender? Did the KJV translators receive new revelation which makes their choice of words infallible so that we should read their interpretations back into the Greek? Considering the meaning of this Greek word and the way the KJV translators consistently rendered it fifty-three times, can KJV-only advocates honestly condemn present-day translators for rendering it as "hope?" Did the KJV translators improve on the Greek by translating this word "faith?" D. A. Waite indicated that “reverse translation” [translating the English back into the Hebrew or Greek] could show the accuracy or inaccuracy of a version and that the KJV “will be the one that will come out ahead every time” (Defending the KJB, p. 252). If this test of reverse translation was used at Hebrews 10:23, does the KJV come out ahead with its rendering “faith?“ Does Waite accept the preserved Greek word at Hebrews 10:23 as the final authority for its meaning or does he accept the English word in the KJV as his standard? The evidence of the earlier English Bibles, Luther’s German Bible, the Dutch authorized Bible, and the way that even the KJV translators translated this word in all other places make a strong case for suggesting that these finite, fallible, and uninspired translators could possibly be incorrect in this rendering.