Zone1 1560 Geneva Bible

[DudleySmith]

Translation accuracy when discussing scriptures is a never ending battle....mostly because of two factors.
The Bible was originally written in a manner that was extremely compact that stated a LOT of information in a very few words. (Paper and ink were extremely expensive and books even more so)

Then you have English as a receptor language which has very little of the same grammar or parts of speech or vocabulary.
Idioms and metaphors? Nada!

So unless you are immersed in cultures from 2,000 to 5,000 years ago on the other side of the planet....it's not going to be easy to understand or translate. There aren't many equivalents available.

Then everyone has their own ideas about translating as English is used across a LOT of geographical areas....each with unique ideas about which words carry more weight or less as time marches on. (English is a living language and the original languages of scripture are dead...except for modern Hebrew)

Before the invention of the printing press hand copying was how things were done and copyist mistakes happened. Wealthy elite usually were the owners of bibles in those days. The Geneva Bible was the first of its kind that was affordable for the common man. It was stable spellings and the same for everyone and notes were clearly notes instead of viewed as scripture itself. (Which happened with hand transcription)

The LXX and Latin Vulgate Bibles all varied greatly among themselves....but enough of them together brought to light what was original and what was added as notes in Priest's personal copies they had copied themselves from another priest's Bible.

Some of the manuscripts collected from Syria, Egypt, and Masoretes have added to the accuracy over the years. Including such copies from Dead Sea Scrolls and Siainiticus. Also from other writings that include quoted scriptures.

The Bible we have today is probably as accurate as the autographed copies....they have done their best. But what is truly remarkable....there aren't many differences between a modern Bible and your Geneva Bible. The scriptures have been preserved.

Thanks, but I will disagree; most of them are over 90% in agreement, and no major differences that change the orthodox theology; Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and Latin aren't complex languages, and are very well known, far better known today than they ever were back then. Spellings and minor punctuation errors are not anything to base tossing out any translation by themselves.


As for the times, there is plenty out there on Jerusalem, the ME, and Jewish culture and society, not giant mysteries left, Joachim Jeremia's excellent works being among the best, all sourced from Jewish writings, and much of both the NT, OT, and histories have been largely verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few other finds.

People that claim it was all 'rewritten centuries later' just want to discredit the orthodoxy so they can claim their own rewrites are just as valid or more valid than the originals, is all. The orthodox versions of the NT were written in the times and places they took place in the texts, no doubts at all, and they were written before A.D. 67, with the exception of Revelations.

 

[BreezeWood]

Translation accuracy when discussing scriptures is a never ending battle....mostly because of two factors.
The Bible was originally written in a manner that was extremely compact that stated a LOT of information in a very few words. (Paper and ink were extremely expensive and books even more so)

Then you have English as a receptor language which has very little of the same grammar or parts of speech or vocabulary.
Idioms and metaphors? Nada!

there is a 3rd, critical - factor ... they did not compile an archive of the material they used to write the 4th century christian bible nor included a single note written by jesus to corroborate any of their attributions used to define their claims particularly that jesus claimed to be a messiah ...

nor mention the true nature of those 1st century events jesus and those people were willing to give their lives for, liberation theology, self determination - as taught by jesus that were heavenly inspired - a repudiation of judaism and their false commandments and narrations of the the events claimed by a&e in paradise.

to claim a certain slant in translation in only the direction they claim in this thread is nothing more than a literary apartheid they relish by its distraction from the truth.

 

[BreezeWood]

Thanks, but I will disagree; most of them are over 90% in agreement, and no major differences that change the orthodox theology;

- as written by the crucifiers and their inturpritation of events than those of their vicim.

 

[JohnDB]

there is a 3rd, critical - factor ... they did not compile an archive of the material they used to write the 4th century christian bible nor included a single note written by jesus to corroborate any of their attributions used to define their claims particularly that jesus claimed to be a messiah ...

nor mention the true nature of those 1st century events jesus and those people were willing to give their lives for, liberation theology, self determination - as taught by jesus that were heavenly inspired - a repudiation of judaism and their false commandments and narrations of the the events claimed by a&e in paradise.

to claim a certain slant in translation in only the direction they claim in this thread is nothing more than a literary apartheid they relish by its distraction from the truth.

We have manuscripts and writings from the turn of BC to AD.....they corroborate perfectly with modern bibles. So....guess what?

We have fewer copies of Homer's writings but you don't see near the fuss about them...

By and large most of the fussing by Atheists is that they don't want the scriptures to be true and accurate.

 

[presonorek]

So the Geneva Bible didn't rewrite anything, it's just another interpretation battle regarding 'Calvinism' vs Vatican politics vs Anglicanism then, and not anything to do with translation accuracy.

Yes. The Geneva Bible was heavily slanted and had a political/social motivation. Accuracy was never the focus.

 

[DudleySmith]

Yes. The Geneva Bible was heavily slanted and had a political/social motivation. Accuracy was never the focus.

So which verses were slanted? All I've seen is people talking about the notes being slanted, not the bible verses. Even the link I posted never cites any verse changes, just interpretations in the side notes.

 

[ActionJackson]

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 .

I had a copy of the Geneva for years. It takes practice reading it. The "f" is the "s" and the "s" is the "f." It's a good version. Not really that much different than the KJV (from what I remember) but I had difficulty reading it quickly so stuck with the KJV 95% of the time. I had around 25 different versions of the Bible but gave all of them to charity (except for my KJV).

 

[presonorek]

So which verses were slanted? All I've seen is people talking about the notes being slanted, not the bible verses. Even the link I posted never cites any verse changes, just interpretations in the side notes.

It’s a fair question. I doubt there is much information about that. Nobody challenges the Geneva Bible anymore because it is basically obsolete. Critics usually go after the newer translations that are widely used.

 

[presonorek]

I had a copy of the Geneva for years. It takes practice reading it. The "f" is the "s" and the "s" is the "f." It's a good version. Not really that much different than the KJV (from what I remember) but I had difficulty reading it quickly so stuck with the KJV 95% of the time. I had around 25 different versions of the Bible but gave all of them to charity (except for my KJV).

Yeah. It is very poor on readability. I guess it is just more of a novelty item that isn’t all that usable.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Standardized spelling wasn’t a thing in 1560 or in 1611. I don’t know when that started but many credit Noah Webster for standardized spelling. Original 1611 King James Bibles have the awkward and inconsistent spellings. I’m not sure when the King James Bible was revisited with consistent spelling. Maybe somebody here knows that.

Academics Sadistically Make Reading Harder

My point is, why don't they modernize all these spellings, which make the writer look like an uneducated retard when read today? It's also hard to read, such as the seminal works by Francis Bacon, an advisor to Queen Elizabeth I.

In Utopia, Thomas More even used different spellings of the same word in the same paragraph.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes. The Geneva Bible was heavily slanted and had a political/social motivation. Accuracy was never the focus.

Inspired by Self-Serving Power Freaks

The same must be said about the entire New Testament. From the first time it was claimed to be Scripture, it was sectarian.

 

[DudleySmith]

Academics Sadistically Make Reading Harder

My point is, why don't they modernize all these spellings, which make the writer look like an uneducated retard when read today? It's also hard to read, such as the seminal works by Francis Bacon, an advisor to Queen Elizabeth I.

In Utopia, Thomas More even used different spellings of the same word in the same paragraph.

When they do pseudo-intellectuals pop up and start sniveling over pointless rubbish like punctuation and word interpretations. . Few translations were written by complete idiots, and some had a whole raft of scholars that had to agree on what was legit and what wasn't. I use a late edition NKJV study bible for that reason; it has multiple cites of verses in question, along with footnotes on historical context. I also reference a chronologically arranged bible, and three concordances as well. The history of the orthodox texts is rock solid.

 

[BreezeWood]

We have manuscripts and writings from the turn of BC to AD.....they corroborate perfectly with modern bibles. So....guess what?

there is a 3rd, critical - factor ... they did not compile an archive of the material they used to write the 4th century christian bible nor included a single note written by jesus to corroborate any of their attributions ...

there are no original manuscripts written during the time of the occurrence they claim to depict - only later day copies claiming the same as the originals ... without doubt edited, or where are the originals.

regardless, without the archive of the material used to write the 4th century christian bible the document then is nothing more than biased speculation from events occurring 400 years previously as history has proven countless numbers of time - the changes that have occurred and those obviously needing to be addressed.

sorry - slavery, misogyny etc etc is not what they died for in the 1st century - the heavenly events.

 

[presonorek]

Academics Sadistically Make Reading Harder

My point is, why don't they modernize all these spellings, …………….?

To my knowledge they have.

 

[presonorek]

slavery, misogyny etc etc is not what they died for in the 1st century -

How can you be so sure? Is there an oral or written tradition that refutes your claim? For example: A religion of antiquity that is only 7 words?

I think not. If there is, I have never heard of it except from one person on the entire planet.

 

[DudleySmith]

How can you be so sure? Is there an oral or written tradition that refutes your claim? For example: A religion of antiquity that is only 7 words?

I think not. If there is, I have never heard of it except from one person on the entire planet.

God didn't give him a pony he demanded when he was 10. He's been butthurt ever since.

 

[presonorek]

God didn't give him a pony he demanded when he was 10. He's been butthurt ever since.

That’s fourth century logic. At least he has developed a solid brand. Maybe he is a marketing major working on his doctorate.

Everybody knows Breezewood for his religion of antiquity and the accusation of the fourth century forgeries that attacked the religion of antiquity from the first century that consists solely of seven words. It’s a memorable brand. I feel commercialized if that is the way to say it. I have received his intended marketed message and brand recognition.

 

[JohnDB]

That’s fourth century logic. At least he has developed a solid brand. Maybe he is a marketing major working on his doctorate.

Everybody knows Breezewood for his religion of antiquity and the accusation of the fourth century forgeries that attacked the religion of antiquity from the first century that consists solely of seven words. It’s a memorable brand. I feel commercialized if that is the way to say it. I have received his intended marketed message and brand recognition.

Just as an FYI....
Since you like bibles....

Try an ISR 98
It stands for Institute for Scripture Research....I like the '98 version.
It was produced by Messianic Jews from South Africa.
I think you might find it an interesting translation.

 

[BreezeWood]

I think not. If there is, I have never heard of it except from one person on the entire planet.

... provide the stone tablets etched in the heaven with 10 commandments claimed by the liar and murderer moses - or remove the false commandments from all three desert religion documents.

 

[presonorek]

... provide the stone tablets etched in the heaven with 10 commandments claimed by the liar and murderer moses - or remove the false commandments from all three desert religion documents.

Why? They are so popular and have a strong written and oral tradition.