Geneva Bible

[Kubel]

The Geneva Bible was the most popular English translation in England before the KJV. It was the first to use verses. It was also one of the translations used that the KJV derived much of its wording from. And it was the version we (colonies) used for a long time until things cooled down between the US and England. It took about 50 years for the KJV to replace the Geneva in England.

The main reason it was replaced was because of the biased margin notes (these weren't just translator notes or alternative words you find in the 1611 or MV's, they were paragraphs of peoples interpretation of scripture, mostly Puritan and Calvinistic in nature).

[Will]

The Geneva Bible messes up in Acts 12:4, but we discussed this in another thread. The first edition had it right, and then they messed it up and went to "Passover" instead.

Second edition was right. I've already proven that the author of Acts(Luke) was known for equating the entire feast of unleavened bread as being the Passover. And in the 17th century, Passover was known as "Easter" in the Christian church.

[pneu-engine]

Second edition was right. I've already proven that the author of Acts(Luke) was known for equating the entire feast of unleavened bread as being the Passover. And in the 17th century, Passover was known as "Easter" in the Christian church.

You gave your opinions but you have proven nothing. :roll:

Chevvie '58 gave an excellent argument as to why "Easter", in the book of Acts has to be translated "Easter" and nothing else.

[Will]

You gave your opinions but you have proven nothing. :roll:

Chevvie '58 gave an excellent argument as to why "Easter", in the book of Acts has to be translated "Easter" and nothing else.

Indeed I have. Luke stated in his Gospel that the feast of unleavened bread was known as "the Passover." Ergo, it is not unreasonable to believe that he was talking about Passover as opposed to Easter.

And as I stated, in the 17th Century and prior, "Passover" was known as "Easter" in the Church.

[John81]

Thank you for your replies; they have been most helpful!!!

Any idea why the Geneva Bible is making such a "comeback" at this time?

[kevinmiller]

Maybe people are trying to distance themselves with the radical wing of the KJVO movement... :frog

[John81]

I have noticed some KJV-Preferred folks who are trying to distance themselves from the radical-wing of the KJV-Only folks; but that's another story! :lol:

[kevinmiller]

I was KJV-only. But I think I'm gonna be TR-only like they always accuse me of being. :D

[Will]

Thank you for your replies; they have been most helpful!!!

Any idea why the Geneva Bible is making such a "comeback" at this time?

The "New Reformation."

[John81]

Okay Will, you know my response must be:

What "new reformation?"

[kevinmiller]

I think Will is playing with our minds. :frog

[Will]

I'll start a new thread on the issue.

[kevinmiller]

Any KJV discussion has to be here. :frog
This thread could get long. :lol:

[Guest Guest]

Indeed I have. Luke stated in his Gospel that the feast of unleavened bread was known as "the Passover." Ergo, it is not unreasonable to believe that he was talking about Passover as opposed to Easter.

And as I stated, in the 17th Century and prior, "Passover" was known as "Easter" in the Church.

And I profoundly, profusely and prolifically refuted your statements.

[kevinmiller]

Yup, everybody refuted everyone's statements. :D