# The End of the KJVO debate...



## LadyFlynt (Oct 20, 2006)

1599 Geneva Bible


----------



## Ivan (Oct 20, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> 1599 Geneva Bible



Well, if it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 20, 2006)

What?! You mean Paul didn't use it?!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Oct 20, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> 1599 Geneva Bible




I am on pins and needles waiting for mine. I approach my mailbox with great anxiety. However, the KJVO debate will be here for quite some time to come I fear, especially since the Geneva will have the dreaded Apocrypha. I bought a New Cambridge Paragraph Bible just so I could get the Apocrypha. I am currently reading through it for the first time in my 23 yrs. as a christian. I know it's not part of the cannon but I've enjoyed Wisdom of Solomon greatly.
I still probably stick with my KJV though. When you've read a Bible for that long it becomes part of you.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 20, 2006)

The Geneva has the Apocrypha? I didn't know that.

I had just received our Vision Forum catalog in the mail yesterday on the way to the store...I got to that page, showed it to hubby, and you should have just seen the drool and googoo eyes  As soon as we got home, he was on the computer ordering it.

I know it doesn't really end the KJV debate...I just HAD to point it out to an IFB friend of mine though. I'm particular with my versions (KJV and ESV are really the only two I'll touch...I'm glad to see the Geneva back though).


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 20, 2006)

I go back and forth over whether or not I should get one.

I have so many study Bibles, and I really do not prefer ye olde English.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2006)

What's the difference between this Geneva Bible and the NKJV Geneva Study Bible? Is it just the translation? Are the notes the same, pretty well, or are they different too? 

I think you're right about the KJVO debate, Colleen. Isn't it kind of curious, though, that the whole matter is resolved by a bit of real history rather than which translation source is the best?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Oct 20, 2006)

JohnV said:


> What's the difference between this Geneva Bible and the NKJV Geneva Study Bible? Is it just the translation? Are the notes the same, pretty well, or are they different too?
> 
> I think you're right about the KJVO debate, Colleen. Isn't it kind of curious, though, that the whole matter is resolved by a bit of real history rather than which translation source is the best?




Hey brother, please take the time to read this. There is a huge difference between the Geneva traslation and the New Geneva study bible. Get one and enjoy it>

http://www.tollelegepress.com/gb/geneva.php


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Hey brother, please take the time to read this. There is a huge difference between the Geneva traslation and the New Geneva study bible. Get one and enjoy it>
> 
> http://www.tollelegepress.com/gb/geneva.php



Yes, I guess my post was not written as well as it should have been. Allow me to rephrase my question: are the notes in the NKJV Geneva Study Bible the same, close, or a far cry from this new edition of the Geneva Bible? Translation aside.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Oct 20, 2006)

JohnV said:


> Yes, I guess my post was not written as well as it should have been. Allow me to rephrase my question: are the notes in the NKJV Geneva Study Bible the same, close, or a far cry from this new edition of the Geneva Bible? Translation aside.



I have a New Geneva and a facsimile Geneva. I haven't compared all the notes but I'm sure that they're similar on reformed doctrine. Its just something about reading a bible with study notes from Calvin, Knox, Coverdale and Whittingham that excites me. No offence to brother Sproul and associates.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 20, 2006)

JohnV said:


> Yes, I guess my post was not written as well as it should have been. Allow me to rephrase my question: are the notes in the NKJV Geneva Study Bible the same, close, or a far cry from this new edition of the Geneva Bible? Translation aside.



One major difference is the notes is found in the approach to eschatological interpretation. The old Geneva Bible annotations are historicist; wrt the New Geneva Study Bible: "The introduction to Revelation, for example, summarizes the three major millennial perspectives without stating that any one position is the Reformed position."


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2006)

Thanks. 

I have a number of translations already. To me the KJO debate has about as much impact as the Presuppositionalism Only debate: a lot of cart-before-the-horse stuff. I would tend to think that the Geneva translation itself would not add very much to the texts I already have. Each one has its value, some more, some less. The important thing has always been to keep priorities in their place. 

Andrew, when you say that the Geneva Bible has an eschatological approach that is historicist, to what in particular are you referring? The New Geneva summarizes the three major millennial views; but the old Geneva Bible prefers one over the others? Is this not more of a historical circumstance than a major difference? I.e., the delineation between the three views was not as clearly defined as today. What used to be Postmillennial can now be more described as Amillennial, when put side-by-side with the more triumphalist views. Isn't this difference more of a dating thing, showing the time in which it was written, as far as eschatological differences are concerned?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 20, 2006)

JohnV said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Andrew, when you say that the Geneva Bible has an eschatological approach that is historicist, to what in particular are you referring? The New Geneva summarizes the three major millennial views; but the old Geneva Bible prefers one over the others? Is this not more of a historical circumstance than a major difference? I.e., the delineation between the three views was not as clearly defined as today. What used to be Postmillennial can now be more described as Amillennial, when put side-by-side with the more triumphalist views. Isn't this difference more of a dating thing, showing the time in which it was written, as far as eschatological differences are concerned?



For example, the Geneva annotators (Calvin, Junius, et al.) specifically identify the Antichrist with the Papacy, consistent with the original Westminster Confession, while this view is not endorsed by RC Sproul and company.


----------

