Members MountainChristian Posted September 14, 2016 Members Share Posted September 14, 2016 173 changes to the 1st chapter of Matthew. I used e-Sword for my versions. It would take me 20 years to track the whole Bible. I hope I get to shake Benjamin Blayney's hand. He done all that work with pen and paper!! I'd like to thank the good Lord for giving us computers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted September 14, 2016 Author Members Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said: Now, I think that you may have received your answer(s)...and others may still yet chime in. Even so, may I do a "turnabout is fair play"? I don't remember which copy of the Geneva Bible you use, but I know there were many...including one (somewhat recently) which uses modern language. I have the 1587 Geneva Bible on my Bible program...simply because that's the only one that was offered. Do the revisions of the Geneva Bible bother you; in that, they did make changes? IF my understanding is correct, the first Geneva was done in 1557 (a New Testament), and the full edition of 1560 (Old and New Testaments) had revisions even from the New Testament done only 3 years earlier. I further understand that there were over 100 revisions to the Geneva Bible. I don't know its history, nor do I claim to...but it has undergone many more revisions than the King James. Which do you use? It can't be the 1557, because that was just the New Testament. The New Testament was changed in subsequent editions (if I'm correct). Does that not bother you that you don't use the original from 1557? Isn't the 1599 version the most popular...and it came after many revisions. Those are serious questions and not meant to stir up strife. No strife taken. I use the 1560 edition in facsimile. It is not at all similar to the 1557 put out by one man - Wittingham I believe - and to my knowledge the original text (1560) has only had minor revisions - changing of a few words in the OT for so-called clarity. As for the 1599 and it being the most popular? It was, but it doesn't have the original Geneva NT, the 1599 translation uses Bezas Greek ONLY and does not use other sources to confirm the words - by one man named Laurence Tomson. Doesn't even read well. And yes I do have a 1599 both facsimile and modernly printed. The NT is quite different where it is important. I know there were a multitude of different printers and type setters with opinions for changes. Just like the KJB had. And obviously changes with fonts. That's why I stick to the 1560 edition - I feel the other 'revision' texts are not 'doctrinally' accurate and are flawed. And just like the 1611 KJB there are typos - but very few - it was well done for the time. In my opinion (and the Historical Catalogue of the British and Foreign Bible Society) there are only 3 revisions - 1. The original 1560 edition and other editions using the exact same text, 2. The 1560 with the wrong NT (Sir Laurence Tomson), and 3. The various editions put out by so-called 'cheap' publishers, who didn't really care about accuracy, and rushed the process to 'get'em out' using either of number 1 and number 2 above. One man writing the preface to the 1599 facsimile said the Geneva Bible went through many editions, adding more notes til there was no more room for them, made that up. There are only two sets of notes - the one's matching the 1560 edition - then the one's matching the 1599 - except for the notes on Revelation - they varied between the 1560 to the 1576 (Tomsons first edition) and Tomsons later edition where he used Notes from a man named Francis Junius. Edited September 14, 2016 by Genevanpreacher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MountainChristian Posted September 16, 2016 Members Share Posted September 16, 2016 763 changes in Matthew 1-5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MountainChristian Posted September 16, 2016 Members Share Posted September 16, 2016 Mat 6:23 But if thine eye be euill, thy whole body shall be full of darknesse. If therfore the light that is in thee be darkenesse, how great is that darkenesse? Mat 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted September 17, 2016 Author Members Share Posted September 17, 2016 5 hours ago, MountainChristian said: 763 changes in Matthew 1-5 Punctuation only or word differences included? I did the book of Romans a few years ago. I will look in my old brief case and find out the diffs later. I didn't look at punctuation, just word differences and meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MountainChristian Posted September 17, 2016 Members Share Posted September 17, 2016 Punctuation and spellings. Genevanpreacher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted September 17, 2016 Author Members Share Posted September 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said: I did the book of Romans a few years ago. I will look in my old brief case and find out the diffs later. I didn't look at punctuation, just word differences and meaning. Sorry - that was differences between the KJB and Geneva. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.