# Accuracy of the Geneva Bible



## BibleCyst (Jul 10, 2011)

A while back, I posted a thread titled Accuracy of the KJV. It was a real interesting read! So now, I ask the same of the Geneva Bible. Putting aside differences in manuscripts, how accurate is the GB in comparison to the KJV and (to have something modern to compare to) the NASB?

I've noticed several passages in the GB that sound odd compared to the KJV reading. Specifically, John 1:1-4.

(Differences in bold.)

KJV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

GB: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and *that* Word was God. *This* same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by *it*, and without *it* was made nothing that was made. In *it *was life, and the life was the light of men.

These things may seem minor, but I've been reading the GB a lot this week and I keep noticing things like this.


----------



## Christopher88 (Jul 10, 2011)

King James opposed both the Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible. He Opposed the Bishop Bible as he would claim it was a lazy mans interpretation, and the Geneva Bible because of all the Puritan quotes. Now it was the Puritans that brought fourth the idea of a new bible, but King James was very serious about sticking to an accurate translation with out commentary.

King James Bible had many scholars working on it, from all backgrounds but with the vast crew of men of differnt creeds working on it, it remained true or very close to the (what was of) the original documents on scripture. 

Thou I love the Puritans, because I lack knowledge on how the GB was translated (Thou I doubt the Puritans would allow junk in the word) I would read from the King James before any prior English translation. 


Not really an answer to your question but it may help.


----------



## PreservedKillick (Jul 18, 2011)

I was under the impression that James I was trying to supplant the Geneva Bible with the AV for political reasons--that he was trying to buttress his notion of the divine right of kings while denying the Puritans the complete Reformation they were asking for. James himself was a hater of the Puritans and, although scholars still debate it, living in sin and leading a grossly immoral life (one reason the Puritans and others despised him.) Has anyone read more on this? My Tudor-Stuart England courses were a long time ago. Also not really an answer to your question as far as accuracy and manuscripts go, but I know James would privilege any translation that would support bishops and his own political power over the Church of England.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jul 18, 2011)

Joe Morecraft talked about this, and said it was translated this way to point to the Word, rather than the Father. If I recall correctly the Greek could go either way, but correct me if I'm wrong. I think Tyndale did this also.


----------

