# Linguistic Superiority between Geneva and KJV?



## RamistThomist (Jan 9, 2008)

Which translation is linguistically better in terms of the English language?


----------



## D. Paul (Jan 9, 2008)

I'm probably not the one to answer the question on a technical basis, but I am quickly falling in love with my newly-purchased 1599 Geneva. Since it retains the structure of the Geneva but updates spelling, I find it a beautiful read. 

Now, on to those who are actually qualified to give answer rather than opinion...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 9, 2008)

One thing I noticed about the Geneva Bible is that there are commas where I really didn't expect them to be. This has the practical effect--at least for me--of pausing my breath or making a mental stop, if for only a split-second, where I see a comma. In other words, I stop mid-sentence while the train of thought is still running. It did get distracting at times. My version of the AV doesn't do this and on that point it is easier to read.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 9, 2008)

Well there's the word "Easter" in the KJV in Acts 12:4. The Geneva translates it as Passover.

Plus the "breeches" in Genesis. On those two points, I'd go with the Geneva. 

Otherwise, I think they are both good reads.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 10, 2008)

Spear Dane said:


> Which translation is linguistically better in terms of the English language?



KJV


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 10, 2008)

Me likes them both!!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 10, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Which translation is linguistically better in terms of the English language?
> ...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2008)

I have seen it asserted that the KJV employs a more "elevated" style. 

I can't even find my KJV since my recent move so I guess I'll have to buy a new one if it doesn't turn up soon.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 10, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> I have seen it asserted that the KJV employs a more "elevated" style.
> 
> I can't even find my KJV since my recent move so I guess I'll have to buy a new one if it doesn't turn up soon.



RE buying: Cheaper is sometimes better. I picked up a good, utility hardback at BaM for 15 dollars.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2008)

Spear Dane said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen it asserted that the KJV employs a more "elevated" style.
> ...



They have a paperback for about $5 on the clearance table too. However, if I have to buy another one, I'm thinking I may break down for a Thompson Chain Reference since I don't have one.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 10, 2008)

If I had the money when I was buying Thompson would definitely be it. Avoid paperbacks.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2008)

Spear Dane said:


> If I had the money when I was buying Thompson would definitely be it. Avoid paperbacks.



Scripture Truth, a site Fred pointed me to a while back, has probably the lowest prices on Thompsons.


----------



## etexas (Jan 10, 2008)

King Jimmy all the way!


----------



## D. Paul (Jan 10, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> Well there's the word "Easter" in the KJV in Acts 12:4. The Geneva translates it as Passover.
> 
> Plus the "breeches" in Genesis. On those two points, I'd go with the Geneva.
> 
> Otherwise, I think they are both good reads.



It's lonely for us, isn't it?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 10, 2008)

Spear Dane said:


> One thing I noticed about the Geneva Bible is that there are commas where I really didn't expect them to be. This has the practical effect--at least for me--of pausing my breath or making a mental stop, if for only a split-second, where I see a comma. In other words, I stop mid-sentence while the train of thought is still running. It did get distracting at times. My version of the AV doesn't do this and on that point it is easier to read.



Commas, really? Apart from the issue, raised by some, of TR vs. CT, I still think, some words, only a few, perhaps, should be updated, for the sake, of readability.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 11, 2008)

If the AV was good enough for the Apostle Paul to use then it's good enough for me!


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2008)

King James


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 11, 2008)

Family Edition, 400th Anniversary, 1599 Geneva - all the way! 

(This is an uneducated opinion and not a scholarly comment in any way, shape or form.)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 11, 2008)

Well Rich, Paul _did_ have the _authorized version_ (i.e., he wrote part of it, and had the _authorized_ writings of the other NT writers -- those that were written and available to him at that time); but it wasn't in English yet! No uppercase A and V! I suppose the real question is, was his authorized version equivalent to our Authorized Version?

About “breeches” in Exodus, Leviticus, and Ezekiel (not Genesis): what’s a better word? Drawers? Britches? Loin cloth? Breech cloth? It’s a Biblical word – a technical word – for what the priests wore under their garments.

About Easter being an error in Acts 12:4:

I post links to some interesting articles on this. First, Will Kinney’s, which I consider the best. Then Jack Moorman’s, which although good, is based on what I believe to be faulty research by Alexander Hislop in _The Two Babylons_. Sir James G. Frazer, in his, _The Golden Bough_, does confirm Moorman’s excerpted passages re the myths/religions involving Tammuz and Ishtar (Astarte), but I do not think there is any substance to the allegation Herod was into their worship. Kinney addresses this. (Ezekiel 8:14 does show there were some in Jerusalem who worshipped Tammuz, but this is not relevant to the matter at hand.) Pastor Moorman is almost always spot on, and this is a rare exception. Then there is a link to an article (in PDF) from _The Christian Research Journal_ of 2000 which scrutinizes the work of Hislop, and finds it wanting. This is a significant article as many Christians use Hislop’s work as though it were reliable, and it is not.

Kinney: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html

This is from Jack Moorman’s book, _Conies, Brass & Easter_

The excellent critical review of _The Two Babylons_: http://www.equip.org/atf/cf/{9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215}/DC187.pdf

I think Kinney ably defends the use of Easter in Acts 12:4, for those interested in this.

Incidentally, I don't have a hard copy of the Geneva, and would like to get one, it being a highly significant version.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 11, 2008)

The translation that the Puritans brought with them to America is the better choice.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 11, 2008)

It is surprising that so many on PB admit to using ANYthing other than the Greek (whether TR, CT, or MT).

KJV may edge out the Geneva on literary grounds, but wow were those notes in the Geneva great.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Jan 11, 2008)

I have always used the Bible that God has blessed for almost four hundred years. I do like the Geneva though as it lines up with the same corrupt manuscripts of the King James translaters and Reformers neither was a pen knife used *but* now that the oldest and best manuscripts have been discovered we are going to new limits. 

The Geneva is not as _majestic_ and I question John 1:3 
All things were made by it, and without it nothing was made that was made.


----------

