Why Reject the Geneva Bible for the KJV?

[manchester]

Why do so many Christians reject the Bible of our Baptist forerunners, the Geneva Bible, and instead embrace the King James Anglican Version 1611? We know the early Baptists rejected the King Kames VERSION and followed the Geneva BIBLE. Why do some deny that the Geneva Bible is the one true translation of the TR, the 100% true God's Word in English?

 

[USN2Pulpit]

This is an interesting question. I hope the dialogue here is polite, because I think a lot can be learned (on both sides of the issue).

Personally I find it very interesting that another version of the bible had to be written when there was already one written in the English language. Perhaps the answer tends toward these factors: </font>

• the source material used for the translation of each version</font>
• the reason the AV-1611 was written, given that a well-suited version in English already existed</font>

Anyway, I hope this thread is discussed with respect for one another.

 

[Phillip]

I do have a Geneva Bible, but have not read it for obvious reasons.

I too am very curious to know the doctrinal differences between the Geneva and the KJV1611 (if any) and the true historical differences.

According to the book I am currently reading the KJV was simply an attempt by King James to "control" the copyright of A Bible and control was and who printed it.

It is also my understanding the Pilgrams brought over the Geneva, but the real reason is not clear. Were they not allowed a KJV until it was printed in America? Did they believe it to be a better translation?

Now, THIS is an interesting thread. Let's get some good input here.....

Scholars, lets hear from you...........

 

[Dr. Bob]

Couple of salient thoughts:

(1) The Geneva Bible was "outlawed" (as in, could not be printed) in England after the AV1611 and its revisions began to be circulated.

(2) The King made $$ (don't know the English pound symbol) off each copy of the AV and nothing off the Geneva.

(3) The Geneva included notes that were ANTI-royalty/monarchy

(4) The Geneva's notes were also theologically "reformed", very much opposed to the English Catholic theology

If I were King, I'd be very opposed to the Geneva without a doubt

 

[manchester]

The Bible every Puritan family had in their home was not the KJV of 1609 or 1611. The Bible which they carried was the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the l6th and 17th centuries, which was printed from 1560 to 1644 in over 200 different printings. As a product of superior translation by the best Protestant scholars of its day, it became the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers, thinkers and historical figures of its day. Puritans John Bunyan and John Milton used the Geneva Bible, which is reflected in their writings. During the English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell issued a pamphlet containing excerpts from the Geneva Bible to his troops. The Geneva Bible was even brought with the Pilgrims when they set sail on the Mayflower and was the generally accepted text among the Puritans. William Bradford cited it in his book Of Plymouth Plantation.

In addition to being the reason for its popularity, the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible were also the reason for its demise. These strongly Protestant notes so infuriated King James that he considered it "seditious" and made its ownership a felony. James I was particularly worried about marginal notes such as the one in Exod 1: 19, which allowed disobedience to Kings. Consequently, King James eventually introduced the King James Version, which drew largely from the Geneva Bible (minus the marginal notes that had enraged him). During the reign of James I and into the reign of Charles I the use of the Geneva Bible steadily declined as the Authorized King James version became more widely used. In 1644 the Geneva Bible was printed for the last time.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/GenevaBible.htm

 

[rsr]

The Geneva NT was based on the third edition of the Stephanus' Greek, and Beza has input into the translation. His Latin NT provided the foundation for many of the notes that so enrage James I.

Phillip said:

"It is also my understanding the Pilgrams brought over the Geneva, but the real reason is not clear. Were they not allowed a KJV until it was printed in America? Did they believe it to be a better translation?"

Books were expensive, so the Puritans were not likely to replace them just because a new-fangled version came out — especially when its notes were agreement with the Puritans' doctrine.

William Bradford's Geneva, for example, was published in 1582.

The KJV was not unknown. A 1620 KJV that once belonged to John Alden is extant.

Those Bibles are on display at:

http://www.pilgrimhall.org/PSNote9.htm

It was actually cheaper to import KJVs from England than to produce them here, and the KJV was still technically under the crown copyright until American independence.

 

[Phillip]

Thank you, rsr.

How about translational differences. How does the Geneva really rate as being a translation?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Well, even the Geneva Bible would be better that the dozens of MVs that many Christians use today.

So, my advice for all you MV lovers. If you must use a different Bible than the KJV, use the Geneva, it surely beats the NIV, NASB, HCSB, or even the ESV.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Scholars, lets hear from you...........

Let us also encourage the KJVO people to have some input.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
Scholars, lets hear from you...........

Let us also encourage the KJVO people to have some input. </font>[/QUOTE]They don't need encouragement, they jump in anyway!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
Well, even the Geneva Bible would be better that the dozens of MVs that many Christians use today.

So, my advice for all you MV lovers. If you must use a different Bible than the KJV, use the Geneva, it surely beats the NIV, NASB, HCSB, or even the ESV.

In all seriousness, Terry; where do you obtain the information to back this statement up?

My second question, is the Geneva not as good as the KJV? If it is not, in what areas?

 

[gb93433]

If you were an Anglican in 1611 wouldn't you want a Bible that supports Anglican theology?

 

[rsr]

I am no expert. But I have not heard of any grave problems with the Geneva (other than the "breeches" reference) and a few other spots.

Translationally, the Geneva NT and the KJV NT are predominantly revisions of the Tyndale NT. A glaring difference between Tyndale and the other two is in the use of the word "church." Tyndale steadfastly refuses to translate "church" and instead renders it as "congregation." (This is true even in Revelation.)

A glaring exception is twice in Acts, where he calls pagan temples "churches." I think he was making a theological point.

 

[Alcott]

Harrington, why do you push an Anglican, king(not Jesus)--centered "version" over others?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Hebrews 9:5 (Geneva)

And ouer the Arke were the glorious
Cherubims, shadowing the mercie seat:
of which things we will not nowe speake
particularly.

Problem is with "Cherubims".
One of these angels in English is
a "Cherub". Two of these angels
in English are "Cherubim" (adapted
from the Greek). What is a
"Cherubims"? The words isn't in
my English dictionary

Unfortunately, the KJVs copy
the error from the Geneva

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV was officially a revision of the 1568 Bishops' Bible. Thankfully, the KJV did not follow some of the Bishops' Bible poorer renderings, but instead followed some better renderings in the Geneva Bible.

The 1560 Geneva Bible could be said to have this advantage over the KJV: the fact that the Geneva Bible was not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims N. T. while the KJV was influenced by it. The KJV took or followed some words used in the Rheims.

Church of England Archbishop Matthew Parker, who directed the making of the Bishops' Bible, would not permit the printing of the Geneva Bible in England for several years. Archbishop Parker was also involved in having some of the translators of the Geneva Bible persecuted. After Parker's death, the Geneva Bible was printed in England a few years until its printing was again
stopped around 1618. In the 1630's, Archbishop
William Laud would make the binding, selling, or
importing of the Geneva Bible a high commission crime. Even with all this governmental suppression and opposition by the Church of England, the Geneva Bible is said to have remained the most popular and beloved English Bible up to the 1640's or later. Some scholars claim that the KJV did not became the Bible of England until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

While the KJV may have improved some renderings in the Geneva Bible, there are at least a few places where the Geneva Bible could be said to be clearer, better, or more accurate than the KJV.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Problem is with "Cherubims".
One of these angels in English is
a "Cherub". Two of these angels
in English are "Cherubim" (adapted
from the Greek). What is a
"Cherubims"?

Actually in Hebrew (source of the word) the "im" ending makes many nouns PLURAL.

Elohim = plural and would be translated "gods", but in reference to the Lord there is always the singular verbs (showing the three-in-one). Neat.

So it should be cherub and cherubim if directly from the Hebrew, and cherub and cherubs in English.

We are much more stickler for rules today than the Geneva or AV, for sure! Doesn't make them WRONG, just shows the evolution of the language.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Phillip:
In all seriousness, Terry; where do you obtain the information to back this statement up?

How does a person prove their opinions.

For instance, if I said that bananas are better than strawberries, will you accept this as my opinion or do I have to somehow prove it?

 

[HankD]

How does a person prove their opinions.

For instance, if I said that bananas are better than strawberries, will you accept this as my opinion or do I have to somehow prove it?

That depends. If you had said that bananas TASTE better than strawberries then that IS EVIDENT.

However apart from a subjective reason like taste you need to qualify why bananas are better than strawberries (They have more Potassium and are better for you heart) etc,.

HankD

 

[rsr]

Logos said:

"While the KJV may have improved some renderings in the Geneva Bible, there are at least a few places where the Geneva Bible could be said to be clearer, better, or more accurate than the KJV."

An example would be I Corinthians 13, in which the KJV follows the Rheims NT in using "charity" instead of the Tyndale rendering of "love."