# Geneva Bible versus Authorised Version



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 4, 2019)

I am interested to see what people think of the Geneva Bible as opposed to the Authorised version. I understand the Puritans preferred the Geneva Bible even after the Authorised version was produced.

Is the Geneva Bible inherently more 'Puritan' than the Authorised version or is this a little overrated? Is one translation more accurate than the other? Is one more readable than the other?

Interested in your thoughts. 

While I was preparing this post my cat came and sat on my lap. He told me one translation was more purrrfect than the other, but he would not specify which one

Reactions: Informative 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Jun 4, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> While I was preparing this post my cat came and sat on my lap. He told me one translation was more purrrfect than the other, but he would not specify which one

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 4, 2019)

I absolutely love the Geneva. I don't believe "Puritan" would be accurate as the Geneva predated the Puritan movement. With that being said, the notes are very Protestant. There are instances I prefer the Geneva over the Authorised. I often wonder why the Geneva gets so little attention in our day, especially in the Reformed community. The Geneva has been called the "cornerstone of the Reformation." I personally use the Tolle Lege leather 1599 edition. It is not perfect by no means but it is great for my devotions.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jun 5, 2019)

I am not very qualified to comment on the Geneva Bible versus the Authorized Version, but one thing I must attempt to set straight: _verses _versus _versus._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 5, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I don't believe "Puritan" would be accurate as the Geneva predated the Puritan movement


I understand the reason why the Puritans were linked to the Geneva Bible is because the last edition of the Geneva Bible was the 1599 edition. By this time the Puritan movement was growing.


Reformed Bookworm said:


> There are instances I prefer the Geneva over the Authorised


Can you give specific examples. Thanks.


Reformed Bookworm said:


> I personally use the Tolle Lege leather 1599 edition


Yes I saw that the RHB sold them at a good price


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 5, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> _verses _versus _versus._


Thank you Mr Grammar Policeman. Did the mention of my cat propel you to purrrfect my gramma? Or were you trying to get me to put words in their correct "cat"alogue?

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 5, 2019)

Hello Stephen,

I believe the Geneva eventually lost favor because many of its notes were of a political nature, and for a spiritual book to have such would not hold up well in the storms of time.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Logan (Jun 5, 2019)

If by "political nature" you mean the idea that even kings should be subject to God's authority, then yes, but I don't think those ideas would have any problem weathering the storms of time!

I really like the Geneva. I find it more down to earth than the KJV, and in many instances more straight-forward to understand. It truly was a Reformation Bible, being translated in Geneva with direct access to Calvin, Beza, and Stephanus with his TR manuscripts. I have a lot of admiration for it but only wish there were a better edition than the Tolle Lege one, which is rather cheaply made and their Kindle version is incredibly difficult to navigate (can't directly go to any chapter).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## kodos (Jun 5, 2019)

Count me as one to have a certain fondness for Geneva over the King James. I also find Geneva easier to read (for whatever reason). I am sad that there hasn't been a better edition. I use the edition in Logos but would like to have a physical copy.

I'll echo the sentiment that I do not find the notes political, but very Puritan / Presbyterian.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 5, 2019)

On the whys, King James didn't like the 'political notes' but my guess is that it was simply the regular getting used to it and generational passing of the older to newer usage. By Gillespie's writing English Popish Ceremonies in the mid 1630s, he would refer to the AV as 'our English version' or something like that. Dickson's sermons on Lamentations in 1628 or 29 I haven't been able to for sure determine if he was using the GB or not. And the Westminster Assembly in all its work making sure accurate bibles were published, never sought to reprint the GB. The last edition I think was circa 1640 before the assembly took its seat.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 5, 2019)

I know William Perkins was very fond of the Geneva. In his works, he uses the GB or his own translations. That may be by default as he died nine years before the KJ came to fruition.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 5, 2019)

A coworker and I have been in discussion of working on a new edition of the GB as a personal side project. He collects GB's and also shares my lament over the lack of a solid edition. Maybe if enough people show interest, we will move forward with the project.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Jun 5, 2019)

kodos said:


> I use the edition in Logos...



I use this edition, too, although there are many strange characters that make for difficult reading sometimes.


----------



## kodos (Jun 5, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I use this edition, too, although there are many strange characters that make for difficult reading sometimes.



Yes. I have noticed the same issue. Maybe @Reformed Bookworm can figure out how to get a better physical edition published. He'd have my support!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 5, 2019)

Is there not some complexity here given revisions? I may be wrong but the notes were varied over editions.


Reformed Bookworm said:


> A coworker and I have been in discussion of working on a new edition of the GB as a personal side project. He collects GB's and also shares my laments over the lack of a solid edition. Maybe if enough people show interest, we will move forward with the project.


--- Post updated ---
Is there not some complexity here given revisions? I may be wrong but the notes were varied over editions.


Reformed Bookworm said:


> A coworker and I have been in discussion of working on a new edition of the GB as a personal side project. He collects GB's and also shares my laments over the lack of a solid edition. Maybe if enough people show interest, we will move forward with the project.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 5, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Is there not some complexity here given revisions? I may be wrong but the notes were varied over editions.
> 
> --- Post updated ---
> Is there not some complexity here given revisions? I may be wrong but the notes were varied over editions.


There indeed would be some complexity to such a project. He has experience editing and correlating manuscripts with originals. I am certainly comfortable reading early manuscripts. There are some that propose major challenges due to defects in the manuscripts. I do not want to derail this thread. Although, I do believe younger individuals need to start training in reading these originals so the torch may be passed and these precious works continue to be published for generations to come. As I said, it has only been a discussion at this point.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 5, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I am not very qualified to comment on the Geneva Bible versus the Authorized Version, but one thing I must attempt to set straight: _verses _versus _versus._



I thought this was another attempt at him trying to be punny.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jun 5, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Thank you Mr Grammar Policeman. Did the mention of my cat propel you to purrrfect my gramma? Or were you trying to get me to put words in their correct "cat"alogue?



"Grammar Policeman"? Nay, sir. This is a matter of orthography!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 5, 2019)

It's sort of what I do too. I won't derail further but this is a project that could work with a new series/publishing endeavor and we can take it private if this is of any interest. Send me a note if so.


Reformed Bookworm said:


> There indeed would be some complexity to such a project. He has experience editing and correlating manuscripts with originals. I am certainly comfortable reading early manuscripts. There are some that propose major challenges due to defects in the manuscripts. I do not want to derail this thread. Although, I do believe younger individuals need to start training in reading these originals so the torch may be passed and these precious works continue to be published for generations to come. As I said, it has only been a discussion at this point.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 5, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> It's sort of what I do too. I won't derail further but this is a project that could work with a new series/publishing endeavor and we can take it private if this is of any interest. Send me a note if so.


I certainly will. The amount of respect I have for your work could not possibly be stated. Talk with you soon, sir.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Jun 5, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> a new series/publishing endeavor



A high quality GB would be a perfect crowdfunding project.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 5, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> A high quality GB would be a perfect crowdfunding project.



That was my thoughts as well.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 5, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> A high quality GB would be a perfect crowdfunding project.



I agree, but Durham on Revelation first, please!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 5, 2019)

Inching forward; at least I'm doing some editing. Some technical issues prevent launching the site so if things don't start moving faster and as soon as I have video, I may just start on Kickstarter. The plan is to issue the first of 3 volumes of the Durham first and this year, as I say, if I can get things moving faster.


TheOldCourse said:


> I agree, but Durham on Revelation first, please!

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jun 5, 2019)

The Geneva translation of 1 Cor 6:9 is very blunt to say the least. I would prefer the Geneva or the AV over any modern translation due to the texts used in the translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Jun 5, 2019)

Blueridge Believer said:


> The Geneva translation of 1 Cor 6:9 is very blunt to say the least. I would prefer the Geneva or the AV over any modern translation due to the texts used in the translation.



_nor abusers of themselves with mankind_

This echoes Paul’s description of homosexuality in Romans 1.

Edit: I looked up the word used in the original (I can not read Koine, but used software to translate), and in the manuscripts it is one word, ἀρσενοκοῖται, sodomite.

I don’t disagree that a sodomite is someone who abuses themselves with mankind, i.e Romans 1, but why would the translators use a description rather than the one word literal translation?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 5, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Inching forward; at least I'm doing some editing. Some technical issues prevent launching the site so if things don't start moving faster and as soon as I have video, I may just start on Kickstarter. The plan is to issue the first of 3 volumes of the Durham first and this year, as I say, if I can get things moving faster.



Ah that's too bad, it seemed like the beta test went smoothly from my end, what was the hiccup?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 5, 2019)

It won't do data export, which is fine for one or two orders. The technical issues and going nearly 2 months now on back and forth with support, have soured me quite a lot on the product.


TheOldCourse said:


> Ah that's too bad, it seemed like the beta test went smoothly from my end, what was the hiccup?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 5, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> _nor abusers of themselves with mankind_
> 
> This echoes Paul’s description of homosexuality in Romans 1.
> 
> ...



"Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers"

The Geneva gets straight to the point. Buggerer is indeed a more forthright translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 6, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> _verses _versus _versus_


I have now fixed it. Thank you for pointing it out; I was not aware of the difference

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 7, 2019)

As I understand it King James insisted on "Bishops" as the preferred translation. Influencing the translation in this way would not have played well with everyone.


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 7, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> nor buggerers"



Try reading that in public. That said the ESV footnote is fairly direct


1 Corinthians 6:9 The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts


----------



## Tom Hart (Jun 7, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers"
> 
> The Geneva gets straight to the point. Buggerer is indeed a more forthright translation.



More forthright, perhaps, but the word has fallen entirely out of use.


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 7, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> More forthright, perhaps, but the word has fallen entirely out of use.


Not entirely. It's a fairly common swear word in Britain, although I suspect most people aren't thinking of its historical sense. In some parts of Britain it isn't even very offensive, although my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap if I had used it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Jun 7, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> It's a fairly common swear word in Britain, although I suspect most people aren't thinking of its historical sense.



I believe I Australia it is used in the same way. 

Even if a word is no longer frequently in use today, I do believe that we as lovers of the Reformation period and beyond have a responsibility to ensure the language survives. If we lose the words the books die with them, together with their valuable teachings.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 8, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> More forthright, perhaps, but the word has fallen entirely out of use.


And? I had never heard the term until the Geneva. It took all of twenty seconds to look it up. Most individuals have a cellphone attached to them like it is a limb. In the time one spends on social media, they could have learned twenty new words in a dictionary app.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jun 8, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> Not entirely. It's a fairly common swear word in Britain, although I suspect most people aren't thinking of its historical sense. In some parts of Britain it isn't even very offensive, although my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap if I had used it.



Thanks, I was not aware of this. In Canada, some people might use the term minus _er_, but it's uncommon and the original meaning is mostly forgotten.



Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> Even if a word is no longer frequently in use today, I do believe that we as lovers of the Reformation period and beyond have a responsibility to ensure the language survives. If we lose the words the books die with them, together with their valuable teachings.



I think this is an overstatement, and anyway does not take into consideration the inevitable evolution of language.



Reformed Bookworm said:


> And? I had never heard the term until the Geneva. It took all of twenty seconds to look it up. Most individuals have a cellphone attached to them like it is a limb. In the time one spends on social media, they could have learned twenty new words in a dictionary app.



You may prefer the term, but the point is that one really shouldn't have to look it up. The Geneva Bible while an excellent translation, is not suitable for modern pulpits because of its archaic language. I would think that's fairly obvious.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 8, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> one really shouldn't have to look it up.



How sad that we live in a day where one "shouldn't have to look up" definitions of words. Especially considering how spoiled we are with information and how instant it is.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jun 8, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> How sad that we live in a day where one "shouldn't have to look up" definitions of words. Especially considering how spoiled we are with information and how instant it is.



You misunderstand. Language changes. Words fall out of use. You'd probably have a hard time reading Wyclif's Bible, and for a good reason. There are Old English psalms and gospels from King Alfred's day. I'd reckon you don't refer to those on a regular basis.

Look, I'm a big fan of the KJV, and I'm not about to switch to a modern version. But most people I know aren't there. That's OK. I have no problem with them studying modern English Bibles.

By all means, read and study the Geneva Bible on your own. But to ask that the Geneva Bible should be read from the pulpit is to demand an impediment to many people's understanding.

I'll say it again: You shouldn't have to look up "buggerer". It's inevitable that some words would be new to a reader. You'll have to look some things up from time to time. But - let's be honest - the original readers of the Geneva Bible (nearly 500 years ago) would not have had to pull out a dictionary too often.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 9, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Buggerer is indeed a more forthright translation.





iainduguid said:


> Not entirely. It's a fairly common swear word in Britain, although I suspect most people aren't thinking of its historical sense. In some parts of Britain it isn't even very offensive, although my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap if I had used it.





Tom Hart said:


> In Canada


In New Zealand (and I understand the situation was similar in Australia and Canada) we had a Buggery law in the 19th century. We inherited it from England.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 19, 2019)

Interesting article by the Bible League Trust comparing the Geneva Bible and the AV. https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/the-geneva-bible-and-the-authorised-version-compared-3/

Reactions: Like 2


----------

