Jump to content

Photo

The Geneva Bible


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
18 replies to this topic

#1 JohnnyGotham

JohnnyGotham

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 01 February 2006 - 04:48 PM

I need some information on the Geneva Bible. Whay did King James ban it, why did the puritans carry it to the new world, and was it relaible?

#2 Kubel

Kubel

    Senior Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
6
Neutral

Posted 01 February 2006 - 06:02 PM

Why did King James ban it?


He felt the annotations were politically biased against his throne.

Why did the puritans carry it to the new world


Because it was pro-puritain.

Was it relaible?


It's fairly close to the KJV, but with a more direct translation.


King James disapproved of the Geneva Bible because of its Calvinistic leanings. He also frowned on what he considered to be seditious marginal notes on key political texts. A marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders, and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshipping an idol. The King James Version of the Bible grew out of the king's distaste for these brief but potent doctrinal commentaries. He considered the marginal notes to be a political threat to his kingdom.



#3 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 01 February 2006 - 08:19 PM

Wow, more anti-KJV retoric, with nothing to back it up...

The King may or may not have liked the notes in the Calvinistic Geneva Bible - but that is NOT the reason for the translation of the King James Bible. It is just someone looking for another reason to slander the KJV.

#4 lettheredeemedsayso

lettheredeemedsayso

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,431 posts
9
Neutral

Posted 01 February 2006 - 09:28 PM

here is some info


http://www.biblebeli...com/Vance5.html

#5 Kubel

Kubel

    Senior Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
6
Neutral

Posted 02 February 2006 - 07:12 PM

Wow, more anti-KJV retoric, with nothing to back it up...

The King may or may not have liked the notes in the Calvinistic Geneva Bible - but that is NOT the reason for the translation of the King James Bible. It is just someone looking for another reason to slander the KJV.



You seem rather upset. It's not rhetoric or slander. It's history. I'm sorry you disagree. I don't see how this piece of history threatens KJVO doctrine or the KJV in any way. I'm failing to see why you are getting so defensive over a little piece of history.

King James proposed that a new translation be commissioned to settle the controversies; he hoped a new translation would replace the Geneva Bible and its offensive notes in the popular esteem.



http://en.wikipedia....g_James_Version

You will find that article backed up by several sources at the bottom of the page.

The Geneva translation had notes that the king saw as threatening to his throne and his state-church. The KJV came about- with specific requirements- that it not contain margin notes unless those notes were absolutely required. Why? Because the notes of the Geneva Bible were politically and religiously slanted.

History is a very important subject to study. Changing or denying history to support a belief was something the communists and nazis did a while back. There is no need to resort to that.

#6 dwayner79

dwayner79

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,106 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 02 February 2006 - 07:36 PM

Jerry,

I see nothing Anti-KJV in Kubels post? Can you point it out? You may not like the source for his facts, but I would not accuse him of not giving facts. He even posted the link to the "fact".

I think you were a bit off on this one.

#7 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,519
Excellent

Posted 02 February 2006 - 10:33 PM

Wikipedia is not a good source for facts, what be on the pages of it can be written by anyone regardless of their views or prejudices.

And those who bash the KJ Bible are not a good source of facts either, they have their agenda, it seems to be to argue and argue as much as they can about this no matter what the facts are.

I left 2 groups because there was always people coming along and basheing and putting down the KJV Bible and those who use and support it.

Seems to me like those who do this would just gather together and talk their talk together. Why would I say that? Because I do not go to sites that love these MV's of the so called bibles and preach to them why they are wrong and why they should change.

I feel I can expect the same respect from them. And I believe that is why they have the rules in place here that they do. But I suppose wishing they would abide by them is expecting way to much respect from them.

My opinion.

May the Lord Bless,
Jerry808

"Let not your heart be troubled"
John 14:1 (KJV)

#8 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 03 February 2006 - 05:17 AM

King James disapproved of the Geneva Bible because of its Calvinistic leanings. He also frowned on what he considered to be seditious marginal notes on key political texts.



This is part of why I arrived at the conclusion I had arrived at. It says he had a problem with the Geneva Bible and ALSO with the notes. That means the first part of the quote is stating King James DID have a problem with the text of the Geneva Bible as well. Though I did misread into how that effected the translation of the KJV.

#9 Kubel

Kubel

    Senior Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
6
Neutral

Posted 03 February 2006 - 02:00 AM

I sent both Jerry's a private message. Please read.

God Bless.

#10 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 03 February 2006 - 05:10 AM

Granted, I dont agree with Kubel's position (of preference on the KJV), but I believe I misread what he was getting at here. I apologize for overreacting. Maybe I am looking at some of his posts too critically that I jump to wrong conclusions.

Yes, there were those - maybe even the king himself - that had problems with the notes in the Geneva Bible, but it was not the king that was pushing for a new translation of the Scriptures - others (like Rainolds, I think his name is) came to the king requesting this.

That being said, the removal of the notes of previous versions (due to having problems with them) does in no way reflect on the translation of the KJV. I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions and read your post wrong - but I have read others that state he had a problem not only with the notes but with the actual text of the Geneva Bible, and therefore pushed for his own translation with different wording in those "disagreeable" passages. I read your post with that thought in mind - going back over it, I see that is not what you said, and I apologize.

#11 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,519
Excellent

Posted 03 February 2006 - 06:07 AM

Me sorry to, but, I did feel this was leading to a trashing once again of the KJ Bible. That is why I made my post, I'm just tried of hearing it trashed, even on a great message board.

May the Lord Bless,
Jerry808

"Let not your heart be troubled"
John 14:1 (KJV)

#12 Psalms18_28

Psalms18_28

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,506 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 13 February 2006 - 01:44 PM

I need some information on the Geneva Bible. Whay did King James ban it, why did the puritans carry it to the new world, and was it relaible?



Were puritan using the Geneva Bible at the time when they were hunting down witches?

Just wondering because I can't see why a christian would kill people who if they don't allow them to seek salvation.

I could understand why it was banned. I truly believe this is The LORD doing. He will gather his army (in KJV's case, a group of scholars) to make sure we will preach the right message.

#13 Scribbler

Scribbler

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 18 February 2006 - 04:30 PM

Were puritan using the Geneva Bible at the time when they were hunting down witches?

Just wondering because I can't see why a christian would kill people who if they don't allow them to seek salvation.

I could understand why it was banned. I truly believe this is The LORD doing. He will gather his army (in KJV's case, a group of scholars) to make sure we will preach the right message.



The burning of witches happened some years after they arrived in the new world, and by that time the Puritans may well have been using the KJV (I'm not a historical scholar). In any case, the sad truth is that sometimes Christians do not live in accord with what the Bible teaches, but rather against it, no matter what translation they are using. Posted Image

#14 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 18 February 2006 - 04:37 PM

Weren't the Puritans also part of State churches? Therefore they wouldn't have been doing anything different than what the Reformed churches were doing.

I believe it was wrong for a professing "Christian" church to put people to death - however, the Bible does teach that the Government (at least the Israelite government) was to put witches to death, among other crimes.

#15 SisterHolly

SisterHolly

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 14 March 2006 - 08:49 AM

Is the Geneva Bible accurate or is it wrong too just like the modern versions? :?:

#16 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 14 March 2006 - 09:06 AM

From my understanding of the issue, it is similar to the KJV (though I have never sat down and compared them word for word) - but the notes are Calvinistic in nature. It would probably be useful for study purposes - but obviously God put His hand on the King James Bible, which was the end product of all those prior English translations.

#17 preacher_gary

preacher_gary

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 94 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 07 April 2006 - 09:39 AM

Ummm, I'm pretty sure we don't get the authority to burn witches after Christ's time on Earth from the KJV.

And, even if we did, how do we determine an actual witch, unless she/he actually claims to be one and then proves it. I know the OT says 'suffer not a witch to live', but I truly don't recall a similar passage in the NT.

Personally, I'd much prefer to bring such a person to Christ. I've raised two foster sons now, both of which came to us as teens who claimed to be followers of Paganism and both have come to the Lord through careful guidance. If they could be reached can't someone who claims to be a witch, whether Wiccan or the more traditional type?

#18 Kubel

Kubel

    Senior Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
6
Neutral

Posted 07 April 2006 - 05:30 PM

Is the Geneva Bible accurate or is it wrong too just like the modern versions? :?:



Sticking with the text, they are fairly similar. The differences here are pretty much what you can expect throughout most of the translation:

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and lo, there was a great earthquake, and the sun was as black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon was like blood. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, as a fig tree casteth her green figs, when it is shaken of a mighty wind. And heaven departed away, as a scroll, when it is rolled, and every mountain and isle were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in dens, and among the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the presence of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of his wrath is come, and who can stand?



And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island was moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?



But when you get to verses that discuss salvation, you are bombarded with notes that promote Calvinistic and Puritan beliefs. But putting the notes aside, I would say it's very much like the KJV.

#19 bibletotingunslinger

bibletotingunslinger

    The Bible Totin Gun Slinger

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
3
Neutral

Posted 07 April 2006 - 08:06 PM

Wow, more anti-KJV retoric, with nothing to back it up...

The King may or may not have liked the notes in the Calvinistic Geneva Bible - but that is NOT the reason for the translation of the King James Bible. It is just someone looking for another reason to slander the KJV.




:goodpost:




The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500