Zone1 1560 Geneva Bible

[presonorek]

My brother gave me a brand new Geneva Bible today. Is anybody familiar with it?

It predates the King James Bible by 51 years and was the preferred Bible of the Pilgrims because they didn’t trust the role of a king. Therefore they thought the King James Bible was sinister. That’s about all I have heard of it. I haven’t even opened it because I don’t want to mess it up. Lol

Maybe I should buy an additional copy for reading .

 

[presonorek]

 

[DudleySmith]

KJV Vs Geneva Bible: (6 Translation Differences)

Do you know when the Bible was first translated into the English language? Partial translations of the Bible into Old English go back as far as the 7th century. The first complete translation of the Bible (into Middle English) was by the early English reformer John Wyclyffe in 1382. William...

biblereasons.com

The common people liked the notes and other study helps in the Geneva Bible because it helped them understand what they were reading. But King James wanted a Bible that did not have the Calvinist-slanted notes but rather reflected the episcopal church government. It needed to be simple enough for the common people to read (as was the Geneva Bible but not the Bishops Bible). He charged the translators to use the Bishops Bible as a guide.

The KJV was a revision of the Bishops Bible, but the 50 scholars who completed the translation consulted the Geneva Bible heavily and often followed the Geneva Bible’s translation. They even snuck in some of the notes from the Geneva Bible in some early editions!

I haven't read it either. Looks interesting, though, since they used Tyndale's early NT translation, apparently. It's Calvinist in its notes and commentary.


I currently use two, a NKJV study bible that includes commentary on the many slight differences between versions, and a NKJV organized in chronological order, the latter of which one can get easily lost in , especially re Isaiah.

Since you don't want to damage your gift book, it's available online so you can still read it for yourself.

 

[presonorek]

KJV Vs Geneva Bible: (6 Translation Differences)

Do you know when the Bible was first translated into the English language? Partial translations of the Bible into Old English go back as far as the 7th century. The first complete translation of the Bible (into Middle English) was by the early English reformer John Wyclyffe in 1382. William...

biblereasons.com

The common people liked the notes and other study helps in the Geneva Bible because it helped them understand what they were reading. But King James wanted a Bible that did not have the Calvinist-slanted notes but rather reflected the episcopal church government. It needed to be simple enough for the common people to read (as was the Geneva Bible but not the Bishops Bible). He charged the translators to use the Bishops Bible as a guide.

The KJV was a revision of the Bishops Bible, but the 50 scholars who completed the translation consulted the Geneva Bible heavily and often followed the Geneva Bible’s translation. They even snuck in some of the notes from the Geneva Bible in some early editions!

I haven't read it either. I currently use two, a NKJV study bible that includes commentary on the many slight differences between versions, and a NKJV organized in chronological order, the latter of which can get easily lost in , especially re Isaiah. Looks interesting, though, since they used Tyndale's early NT translation, apparently. It's Calvinist in its notes and commentary.

Yes. I do remember hearing it had notes. (I haven’t opened mine yet.) That is the one reason I would reject the Geneva Bible as authoritative. For that same reason I have a slant against study Bibles. The notes are extra biblical information that distracts from actual study of the Bible. What if you read the scripture and the notes but like the notes better? Then you’d be worse off then if you didn’t read the Bible at all. The Geneva Bible fascinated me as a historical document. I think I will always consider the King James Bible to be the best English Bible. You kinda challenged my world view when you say the King James Bible contained commentary or notes. I thought the notes was one of the major reason Prince James despise the Geneva Bible.

 

[DudleySmith]

Yes. I do remember hearing it had notes. (I haven’t opened mine yet.) That is the one reason I would reject the Geneva Bible as authoritative. For that same reason I have a slant against study Bibles. The notes are extra biblical information that distracts from actual study of the Bible. What if you read the scripture and the notes but like the notes better? Then you’d be worse off then if you didn’t read the Bible at all. The Geneva Bible fascinated me as a historical document. I think I will always consider the King James Bible to be the best English Bible. You kinda challenged my world view when you say the King James Bible contained commentary or notes. I thought the notes was one of the major reason Prince James despise the Geneva Bible.

Study bibles contain a lot of history that is important to know, and notes on language meanings as well. Joachim Jeremia also has an excellent book on the times in the New Testament which will help with a lot of the social and economic contexts, and why the Pharisees and Sadduccees were important to the OT prophecies Jesus said he was there to fulfill. You miss half the points when you don't know the history. If you're afraid, just read the Sermon On The Mount or something. But, even then you will likely falsely misinterpret even some of those verses if you aren't familiar with OT meanings of certain phrases. It's up to you, in any case.

Where did I say the KJV contained notes? I said my NKJV study bible contained notes, and so does the Geneva bible.

 

[presonorek]

. They even snuck in some of the notes from the Geneva Bible in some early editions!

Here

 

[DudleySmith]

Here

Some early editions, not all of them. My old KJV has no notes of any kind. The KJV is a Catholic translation; I prefer the Protestant translations, but keeping some of the language of the old version, which is actually pretty nice. Being 'hard to read' isn't an issue for me.

 

[presonorek]

Some early editions, not all of them. My old KJV has no notes of any kind. The KJV is a Catholic translation; I prefer the Protestant translations, but keeping some of the language of the old version, which is actually pretty nice. Being 'hard to read' isn't an issue for me.

I have heard many people and at least two pastors who are strong advocates of the English Standard Version. Supposedly the translation process had just as many checks and balances as the King James translation team. It also doesn’t have the disadvantage of ancient English and the appearance of a conflict of interest since a monarch was involved with the King James. What other translations have you heard that are given a high level of credibility? I have a Holman Christian Standard Bible but the translation team was heavily slanted with Baptist translators. Some call it the Baptist Bible.

 

[presonorek]

The thing that really fascinates me about the Holman Christian Standard Bible is the use of the word slave is more frequent than in the King James Bible and the entire foundation of the Southern Baptist Convention was based on a split because the Southern Baptist’s advocated slavery. In many verses in the New Testament the word servant was used instead of slave in the King James. The HCSB was finished in 2003. That translation kinda seems like it was making a political point 165 years too late. It cracks me up a little but it would probably only be funny to other nerds.

There is almost an obvious link between the Southern Baptist and the HCSB translation.

 

[JohnDB]

The Geneva Bible was the most influential English Bible for its time. It was made by English refugees in Switzerland who escaped under Bloody Mary's reign.
It flourished under queen Elizabeth's reign. This was the Bible of Shakespeare. It's quoted in his plays often.
The reason why this Bible is of such great importance is because for the first time a Bible was cheap enough for the common man to have one.
Miles Coverdale (royal Bible publisher) was just about out of a job. Even the queen's pirate (sir Francis Drake) had a copy of this Bible. Scotland made it mandatory for every household to have one.

The 1611 KJV (not the current one) was to be chained in place in church for others to freely read in every town.

The Book of Prayers and Psalter were still primarily used for church services. Scriptures still weren't used. The battle over local church authority vx central church authority was over and forgotten.
This was the end of the time when the Catholic Church ruled the world. Especially with pilgrims (AKA missionaries) going over to colonize the New World in America's. Spain and Portugal in the South and slowly England in the North. France went to the Gulf of Mexico.

All of Europe had been and continued to be in something of a guerrilla war. The various denominations were not so friendly with each other. Each declaring the others to be heathens practicing witchcraft and atheists. The Catholics? Wondering where all the people went.

A lot of this warfare later translated into rivalries between the colonies and various beliefs. Many people still believed in God but refused to align themselves with any denomination....they refused to fight. So these people were deemed to be "Theists".
Such was the likes of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and etc.

 

[DudleySmith]

I have heard many people and at least two pastors who are strong advocates of the English Standard Version. Supposedly the translation process had just as many checks and balances as the King James translation team. It also doesn’t have the disadvantage of ancient English and the appearance of a conflict of interest since a monarch was involved with the King James. What other translations have you heard that are given a high level of credibility? I have a Holman Christian Standard Bible but the translation team was heavily slanted with Baptist translators. Some call it the Baptist Bible.

I simply read all the pros and cons of the various translations I could find, and settled on the NKJV, mainly because it was the closest and latest literal translation that was composed by a many scholars, not just some organization's personal opinions. The translation teams were top notch. It isn't absolutey perfect, but closer to the original imho. Most of the criticism of it comes mainly from a pastor that was selling his own translation at the same time, and didn't like the competition.

 

[presonorek]

I simply read all the pros and cons of the various translations I could find, and settled on the NKJV, mainly because it was the closest and latest literal translation that was composed by a many scholars, not just some organization's personal opinions. The translation teams were top notch. It isn't absolutey perfect, but closer to the original imho. Most of the criticism of it comes mainly from a pastor that was selling his own translation at the same time, and didn't like the competition.

Matthew Everhard has a good YouTube channel. He listed KJV NKJV and ESV as the best English translations. I wasn’t surprised by your answer. I’ll post some links in this thread today or tomorrow. I’m dealing with some huge stuff today.

 

[DudleySmith]

The thing that really fascinates me about the Holman Christian Standard Bible is the use of the word slave is more frequent than in the King James Bible and the entire foundation of the Southern Baptist Convention was based on a split because the Southern Baptist’s advocated slavery. In many verses in the New Testament the word servant was used instead of slave in the King James. The HCSB was finished in 2003. That translation kinda seems like it was making a political point 165 years too late. It cracks me up a little but it would probably only be funny to other nerds.

There is almost an obvious link between the Southern Baptist and the HCSB translation.

The Baptist sect was the first to advocate religious freedom and free will. The First Amendment came directly from them.

A Historical Sketch of Thomas Helwys - Helwys Society Forum

Upon reading the mission statement of the Helwys Society Forum, some readers have inquired about the origin of its name. Who was Helwys? Why is he important? Readers may begin with the page entitled Why Helwys? This post will expand upon the information on that page. Although I could say much...

www.helwyssocietyforum.com

Religious Liberty


An important theme to emerge from the writings of Helwys is that of universal religious liberty. In his quintessential work on the subject, Mystery of Iniquity (1612), he argues that all people should have the freedom to choose their own religion, whatever the preferences of governing body. He believed, in the words of William R. Estep, Jr., that the king, “although a king, was but a mortal man and as a mortal man, though a king, had no authority whatever over the consciences of his subjects.”[1]


Later the Baptists and other 'evangelicals' in the First and Second Great Awakenings in the new U.S. voted for Thomas Jefferson almost to a man, for VP and then President, hence the famous 'Letter To The Danbury Baptists', then under siege by the Congregationist sect, Connecticut's govt. sponsored sect and also Massachusetts. The 1st Amendment didn't restrict states' rights to establish a religion for themselves. Later both states finally struck down the laws, Massachusetts the last to do so, in 1834 or so; demographic changes being the reason, not any Supreme Court order.

 

[JohnDB]

The thing that really fascinates me about the Holman Christian Standard Bible is the use of the word slave is more frequent than in the King James Bible and the entire foundation of the Southern Baptist Convention was based on a split because the Southern Baptist’s advocated slavery. In many verses in the New Testament the word servant was used instead of slave in the King James. The HCSB was finished in 2003. That translation kinda seems like it was making a political point 165 years too late. It cracks me up a little but it would probably only be funny to other nerds.

There is almost an obvious link between the Southern Baptist and the HCSB translation.

The HCSB is a pretty good translation. BUT you have to use the one with all the notations and italics and etc. AND you have to understand what each notation and type actually means.

The Bible was written in 4 languages originally. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Early Latin (which is similar to Greek)

All of these languages are full of grammar that varies wildly from modern English. Hebrew and Aramaic are extremely metaphoric languages even if they have phonetic components. Greek and Early Latin are very idiomatic languages.
Even the verb tenses and sex don't really exist in English.

Then there's the common usage of writing styles....we don't use those either in English. We might have a clause in English but not one 4 chapters long.

 

[LibertyKid]

I simply read all the pros and cons of the various translations I could find, and settled on the NKJV, mainly because it was the closest and latest literal translation that was composed by a many scholars, not just some organization's personal opinions. The translation teams were top notch. It isn't absolutey perfect, but closer to the original imho. Most of the criticism of it comes mainly from a pastor that was selling his own translation at the same time, and didn't like the competition.

My understanding is the NASB is the most accurate translation and used some of the older manuscripts to date. If an older manuscript differed from newer manuscripts, it is notated, which I think is valuable to a reader.

 

[The Duke]

My brother gave me a brand new Geneva Bible today. Is anybody familiar with it?

It predates the King James Bible by 51 years and was the preferred Bible of the Pilgrims because they didn’t trust the role of a king. Therefore they thought the King James Bible was sinister. That’s about all I have heard of it. I haven’t even opened it because I don’t want to mess it up. Lol

Maybe I should buy an additional copy for reading .

Just break it in good. Do you know how to break in a book?

 

[JohnDB]

My understanding is the NASB is the most accurate translation and used some of the older manuscripts to date. If an older manuscript differed from newer manuscripts, it is notated, which I think is valuable to a reader.

The NASB comes from a conglomeration of scriptures. The United Bible Society and BHS (forgive my lack of spelling it out....I'll try: Biblical Hebraica Stutengartsia)

BHS is the Old Testament in original languages and UBS is the New Testament in original languages that is translated into English or whatever language in the various nations.

NASB is a "more" word-for-word translation but not completely literal.
NIV is a more "thought-for-thought" translation but not all thoughts can be translated.

English is the absolute worst receptor language for the four original donor languages used to write the scriptures. Most all other languages do much better.

 

[DudleySmith]

My understanding is the NASB is the most accurate translation and used some of the older manuscripts to date. If an older manuscript differed from newer manuscripts, it is notated, which I think is valuable to a reader.

Most all the new ones updated due to the Dead Sea Scroll finds and other discoveries. Once one grasps the literary and logical styles used in both the OT and the NT, and about Jewish culture and word meanings being 'easy to read' is much less of a problem; I like the KJV and NKJV for their use of language as well as their literal translations. Not many Jews actually knew any Hebrew in Jesus's days, it was a sort of cult language among the Babylonian priesthoods. Greek and Aramaic are pretty well known these days among scholars; Aramaic was a sort of international trade language and of course Greek was popular with scholars all over, including Jewish scribes.

New King James Version - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Translation philosophy​

The Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad, addressed textual concerns in a book explaining the NKJV translation philosophy.[6] While defending the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text-type), and claiming that the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Majority Text, he noted (p. 114) that the NKJV references significant discrepancies among text types in its marginal notes: "None of the three [textual] traditions on every page of the New Testament [...] is labeled 'best' or 'most reliable.' The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading."[6]

The main reason I like the NKJV is its providing the three main translations of disputed passages, and the study bible I have goes that several times better. with extensive references to the Greek words and different spellings. It is also the best OT translation, imo.

 

[presonorek]

As promised



Sorry. I had a death in the family and had a lot going on. The Geneva Bible is mentioned in this video but not hailed as one of the best 3. This pastor lists KJV, NKJV, and ESV as the best translations in that order.

 

[JohnDB]

As promised



Sorry. I had a death in the family and had a lot going on. The Geneva Bible is mentioned in this video but not hailed as one of the best 3. This pastor lists KJV, NKJV, and ESV as the best translations in that order.

I'm sorry to hear about your family loss. I just lost my mother this past week.

The ESV is showing his theology preferences. It usually means a person is a Calvinist....usually a theology that kills churches. Most people don't like it as it twists scriptures to form it.