Geneva Bible

[Alen]

They will claim the

[chev1958]

I have it. It's an excellent translation, and was preferred by pretty much all "regular" Christians until the Crown stopped allowing it to be printed. It was the Bible brought over on the Mayflower.

I'm not up on version history as I should be, but I thought this letter to World Net Daily was interesting. WND has been advertising the Geneva Bible, insinuating that it was actually a better Bible than the KJV. Anyway, back to the letter:

King James Bible was on the Mayflower
February 2, 2007

Today, when the Pilgrims are mentioned, there is a great, misleading half-truth that many are promoting. Notice an example of this half-truth:

"In 1620, the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth with their Bibles and a conviction derived from those Bibles of establishing a new nation. The Bible was not the King James Version." (Gary DeMar, "The Geneva Bible: The Forgotten Translation," www.reformed.org)

I wonder how many "Thanksgiving sermons" contained a sentence or two that stated that the early Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower did NOT possess or use the Authorized Version (King James)? These preachers have simply repeated what they have heard from others. Notice the real truth about the Bibles the Pilgrims had when they arrived on the Mayflower as stated at the Pilgrim Hall Museum:

"Among the books in Pilgrim Hall are four Bibles of unusual interest. One belonged to Gov. William Bradford, the Pilgrim governor, and one to John Alden. These are among the very few objects existing today which we feel reasonably sure 'came over in the Mayflower.' ... John Alden's Bible, rather surprisingly, is the 'King James' version authorized by the Church of England. ... No. 90 in the Pilgrim Hall catalogue designates the Bible which once belonged to John Alden. Some of the leaves are missing, but the colophon at the end of Revelation shows that the New Testament was printed in London by Robert Barker, 'Printer to the Kings most excellent Majestie,' in 1620. The Concordance was printed by Bonham Norton and John Bill in 1619. This is not a Geneva Bible, but the 'King James' or 'Authorized' version. ... The firm of Barker in London printed both King James and Geneva Bibles, sometimes using the same decorative material for both."

The early Pilgrims had both versions! Although the AV was new at the time, it would quickly outshine them all and become the cornerstone of civilization in the New World. Therefore, W.A. Criswell was correct when he stated:

"And when they [the Pilgrims] came to America, they brought with them this Bible, the King James Version of the Word of God. It had been placed in their hands, been translated just nine years earlier. ... So the little colony began with the Christian home, built around the Bible; with a Christian church, preaching the infallible Word of God; and a school whose textbook was the King James Version of the Bible."

Of course, the Pilgrims were not limited to only the books that they were able to bring over on the original Mayflower voyage. For example, William Brewster, their beloved minister, had a regular supply of books shipped to him yearly:

"While living in his log house in Plymouth, built by his own hands, he [brewster] yearly received supplies of newly published books in Latin and English, and his library was inventoried at his death in 1644 at 400 volumes." (Lyman Denison Brewster, "William Brewster, The Mayflower Descendant," 1902)

Although the Plymouth Pilgrims used the AV and the Geneva (e.g. Gov. Bradford's "Journal" quotes the Geneva version), the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, on the other hand, used the AV as their primary text (not the Geneva). The same thing is true of the separatists and the first Baptists in the New World who went out into the wilderness from them. For example, John Wheelwright's Fast Day Sermon in 1636 quoted from the AV, not the Geneva.

Likewise, John Clarke (1609-1676), who is called the father of American Baptists, used the AV instead of the Geneva (see his "Ill-Newes From New England"). And the rest is well-known history. The AV would soon become "Our Version," and its fruit and authority in the lives of American Christians has been thoroughly documented elsewhere.

Therefore, when your children ask you, "What meaneth this black Book? Why do I have to sit still in church as this old, black Book is read and preached?" we must answer that this Holy Bible was here from the start! It is God's Book. It soon outshined all other versions. They decreased and it increased; and so did our nation as long as it believed, honored and obeyed this Holy Bible.

Joey Faust

Again, I've not studied the histories of the different English Bibles, so I really have no comments to add. I thought posting the letter might add to this discussion.

Mitch

[Kubel]

If it was brought on the Mayflower during her third attempt, it would have been hot off the press (it was printed in 1620, and the Mayflower departed that year too). It also wouldn't have been too popular amongst the Separatist Puritans. The King and his Church were the last things they wanted- that's what they were trying to escape.

...It [The Geneva Bible] was the household Bible of all England. It became the household Bible of the New England families who carried it from Scrooby to Leyden and across the waters with the founding of New Plymouth and the Pilgrim Church. For seventy-five years the Geneva Bible held the foremost position...

Four Early Bibles
Pilgrim Hall Museum, 14 July, 1998
http://www.pilgrimhall.org/PSNote9.htm

[IM4given]

They will claim the

[Randy]

It's a good thing for them that the Emporer Constantine was never converted to Islam - or else their Quran would have been written in Latin and kept from their people for the next 1700 years!

Which would end about 300 years from now - I would look at that as a plus :mrgreen:
.

[Will]

I'm not up on version history as I should be, but I thought this letter to World Net Daily was interesting. WND has been advertising the Geneva Bible, insinuating that it was actually a better Bible than the KJV. Anyway, back to the letter:



Again, I've not studied the histories of the different English Bibles, so I really have no comments to add. I thought posting the letter might add to this discussion.

Mitch

http://logosresourcepages.org/History/geneva_bible.htm

[Guest Guest]

For anyone who may be interested you can visit http://www.studylight.org for an online Geneva Bible (1587). You can also read several other pre-1611 Bible versions there: Wycliffe (1395), Tyndale (1525), Coverdale (1535) and Bishops' (1568) are all available online.

[ltl]

Thanks for the link, Keith! Do remember to introduce yourself in the Introduction forum.

[Guest Guest]

Is the Geneva Bible an accurate translation?

As far as I know, I've never actually seen or read a Geneva Bible. For some reason, I am seeing the Geneva Bible advertised and talked about a lot.

One advetisement said the Geneva Bible was "the Bible of the Reformation." Another ad stated the Geneva Bible was the Bible of the American colonists. Another ad mentioned the Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Puritans.

Any enlightenment on this issue would be most appreciated. Thank you!

They would probably say that, if it was the Bible used by John Calvin. I know nothing about it, however I typically go with the non-denominational Bibles. They tend to be less biased.

[PreacherBen]

Then you might want to be careful with the HIGHLY Anglicanized AV1611. I read the book, 'God's Secretaries,' about the translating of the KJV and there was a literal war between those influence by the Puritan Reformers, who prefered the Geneva, and the majority Anglican influence. The Anglicans favored their Bishops Bible and alot of it was retained in the KJV. Having said all that, I believe the Lord was in charge and our KJV is pure and preserved, but it is definately influenced by Anglican thought.

[Jerry]

That book was written to discredit the KJV and make the translators and others involved in it look petty and imply that they translated with an agenda. It slanders the KJV translators over and over - that certainly is not someone trying to defend the KJV, but usurp it. The King James Bible does not promote Anglican theology, regardless of how many Anglicans or Puritans may have been involved in it.

[brandplucked]

Brother Marty Shue has written an article showing that the Pilgrims did in fact bring a King James Bible with them on the Mayflower. Here is his article. Sorry about the black triangles with question marks. I'm not sure how to fix them.

Will K

Pilgrims and The Geneva Bible
By: Martin A. Shue
At one time there was a member in this club that heavily promoted the Geneva Bible. In fact, he has a website dedicated to the promulgation of the Geneva Bible. While I believe the Geneva Bible to be far better than any of the modern translations I find it to be inferior to our Authorized Version. This, however, is not the subject of this article. What I hope to answer is some of the fanciful claims made by several websites regarding history and the Geneva Bible.

Our former member has a link on his site titled ?Geneva Bible History?. I clicked on this link and read the article (An Introduction to the Geneva Bible) with absolute amazement. This is perhaps one of the worst researched articles I have ever read in my life. The lies and inaccurate statements found in this article are simply too numerous to list and too numerous to respond to. The article is devoid of historical facts altogether. It is really quite sad that anyone can put up a website?.write a few articles?.and pretend to be some sort of authority on a matter. If there is any interest I will gladly respond to more points the article raises. But for this post I only want to discuss the opening paragraphs of the article. Part of what follows was taken from a personal email I sent to the writer of the article.
My interest was sparked on this matter by a recent conversation I had with a man concerning the Bible issue. In the course of our conversation he made mention of the Pilgrims and the Bible that brought to the new world. He asked if I knew what that Bible was and I politely said, ?Yes?. Given the opportunity to respond I stated that there were not just one Bible brought to the new world as he supposed but two. I stated that the Pilgrims brought the Authorized Version as well as the Geneva Bible along with them. At this he said I was re-writing history and asked for facts to prove what I was saying. Emphatically he stated that the Geneva Bible was the only Bible brought with the Pilgrims and that it was the ONLY Bible used by the Pilgrims. I promised I would produce my facts and moved on to another matter. I will say, just as I said to him, it really makes no difference to me what Bible William Bradford used or any of the Pilgrims for that matter. However, when I find certain individuals purposely covering the facts or intentionally lying about history I take exception to that. I am not accusing this man of doing that but others who claim to be authorities on this matter are. It is these people that I have a problem with.
After our conversation I did some additional research on the matter and below is a sampling of what I found.
At the site http://www.nohoax.com listed under the link ?Geneva Bible: The Bible of the Pilgrims? I found the following statements:
?Now available for the first time in 394 years, this is the Bible the Pilgrims carried when they landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620. The Puritans of that era considered the King James bible a ?government issue? publication. King James banned the Geneva Bible in England and made its ownership a felony.?
At http://www.reformed.org/documents/geneva/Geneva.html we find the following:
?In 1620 the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth with their Bibles and a conviction derived from those Bibles of establishing a new nation. The Bible was not the King James Version. When James I became king of England in 1603, there were two translations of the Bible in use; the Geneva Bible was the most popular, and the Bishops' Bible was used for reading in churches.?
http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-b ... -leaf.html had this to say concerning the Geneva Bible:
?The Geneva Bible was the first Bible taken to America, brought over on the Mayflower? it is the Bible upon which early America and its government was founded (certainly not the King?s of England?s Bible!) The Geneva Bible was also the first English Bible to break the chapters of scripture into numbered verses, and it was the first true ?Study Bible? offering extensive commentary notes in the margins. It was so accurate and popular, that a half-century later, when the King James Bible came out? it retained more than 90% of the exact wording of the Geneva Bible.?
Lastly, I want to reproduce 2 paragraphs from the website and article I mentioned at the onset of this post:
?For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today's Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the newer Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.
The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland,* William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively."
As you can see, it appears everyone is adamant that the Bible of the early Pilgrims was the Geneva Bible and ?certainly not the King?s of England?s Bible!?. Perhaps the record should be set straight as to whose Bible this was. It was certainly not the King of England?s Bible. For far too long this rhetoric has been spouted. King James had nothing to do with the translation of this Bible nor did he even come up with the idea to produce a new translation. Here are the historical facts of the matter as laid down by Samuel Bagster in the wonderful book, ?An Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures? (published ? 1841).
Soon after James I ascended the throne on March 24, 1603 a petition in the name of more than 1,000 ministers was brought before the King. The petition, called the ?Millenary Petition?, was separated into 4 headings; 1) Things connected with the Church service; 2) Church ministers; 3) Church living and maintenance; and 4) Church discipline. Promptly, a letter was written in answer of these matters and sent to the King by the University of Oxford. Because of this James I decided to bring the matter to a public conference. Delegates representing the Anglicans and those of the petitioners were invited to the palace of Hampton Court the following January. The delegates representing the 1,000 ministers were Dr. John Reynolds, Dr. Thomas Sparke of Oxford, Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Knewstubbs from Cambridge. At the conference Dr. Reynolds took on the role as chief speaker and brought before the King a request ?for a New Translation of the Bible? on the second day.
Prior to this day there is no historical record that the King had entertained such a notion as a new Bible translation. Dr. Reynolds? suggestion (which was really the suggestion of the 1,000 petitioners) found favor in the King?s eyes and James I heard Reynolds and the others concerning the matter. During the conference, the Anglican delegates, led by Archbishop Bancroft, opposed the idea of a new translation. Despite Bancroft?s efforts King James I gave permission to Dr. Reynolds and the delegates with him to proceed with the process of rendering a new translation of the Bible into the English language. ?The method proposed by the king was this; that the version should be made by some of the most learned men in both the Universities, that it should then be reviewed by the bishops and other of the most learned ecclesiastics, that it should then be laid before the Privy Council, and last of all be ratified by Royal authority, so that in the whole Anglican establishment this translation so made should be used, and no other (Bagster, ?An Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures?, p. 149).?
For long King James I has been blamed for the removal of the notes found in the Geneva Bible. This is not an entirely true statement and the facts have been misrepresented as have most ?facts? that are reported by the other side. While the King didn?t necessarily agree with some of the notes there is absolutely no indication that he planned to force the translators to remove them. If anyone can produce information to the contrary I would be delighted to have it. Interestingly enough, the idea to have the notes removed entirely came from Archbishop Bancroft and not Dr. Reynolds, King James I or any of the petitioners. So, the next time you hear or read the lie that King James I wanted a new Bible because he didn?t like the notes or that he was responsible for their removal you can present the facts. As I stated earlier, James I didn?t like some of the notes but it wasn?t until after Bancroft suggested that they be withheld from the new translation that James I commented on them.
I find it most unfortunate that this Bible, produced by the most learned prelates of history, has been branded with the name ?King James Version?. If you were able to travel back in time to a date prior to 1856 you would find that no one would know what Bible you were talking about if you made reference to ?The King James Bible?. According to the research of Michael Maynard the term ?King James? Version? wasn?t coined until 1856 by C. Spurgeon. And the term ?King James Version? (no apostrophe) wasn?t coined until 1889. When this great Bible was produced it carried the simple title ?The Holy Bible?!
The last site I quoted above stated that, ?Most of the newer Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.? Those in this club will most assuredly find this statement laughable. The reason for this is because you already know the facts and the fact is the RSV is not simply an update of the ?King James?. The truth of the matter is that the RSV is an entirely different translation based upon entirely different Greek and Hebrew texts than was our Authorized Version. In the New Testament the RSV follows that Greek text fabricated by Westcott and Hort while the AV follows the Traditional Greek text as does the Geneva.
The site goes on to say, ?none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free". This is quite a fanciful statement and one that is far from the truth. Those acquainted with the facts would easily identify these statements as utter nonsense. The problem appears to be that very few are acquainted with the facts as the other websites I listed attest. It is astounding at how a lie on one site can be repeated as fact on a hundred others. Following is an excerpt from a letter I wrote answering this false statement to the site recommended by our former member as a good source to obtain the ?Geneva Bible History?.
Onboard the Mayflower among other notable Pilgrims was Mr. John Alden. John Alden would soon become a great statesman in the new world. To date there are 2 noteworthy Bibles found in the Pilgrims Hall Museum, located in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Concerning these Bibles they state, "These are among the very few objects existing today which we feel reasonably sure came over in the Mayflower." One of these Bibles belonged to Mr. John Alden and the other belonged to Mr. William Bradford. It will undoubtedly interest you to know that the Bible belonging to Mr. John Alden was not a Geneva Bible as you falsely state on your website. The only Bible Mr. Alden deemed necessary to bring with him to the new world was a King James Bible. Not only did Mr. Alden use the KJB but many other Pilgrims did as well. Admittedly, most Pilgrims preferred the Geneva Bible but not all. The King James Bible was very much a part of Pilgrim life as was the Geneva Bible.
It is pretty easy to see that most sites are attempting to re-write history by presenting the facts incorrectly. Further evidence of this can be seen by the following quote: (again taken from the article ?An Introduction to the Geneva Bible?)
James ascended the English throne in 1603. He wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the Bible in order to deny the common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva Bible. That James I wasn't going to have any marginal notes to annoy him and lead English citizens away from what he wanted them to think is a matter of public record.
The writer further states, ?James didn't want those pesky marginal notes cropping up, not even once.? As you can readily see these statements have no historical basis whatsoever. Though they may appeal to the Geneva Only crowd they are placing their faith in nothing more than phantoms of their imaginations. As the writer of the article proclaims, ?The blind are once more leading the blind.? To this I say a hearty AMEN!
I hope this little article sheds some light upon some often distorted facts. May God bless you as you ?study to shew thyself approved?!

[Philip]

I have a 1599 Geneva and love it. It compares pretty well with the KJV, and the original notes of various Reformation leaders makes it even more of a read. I got mine through Tolle Lege Press. I also just bought my second Old Scofield. The first I had I got 30 years ago at TTU, and it was simply falling apart. I use it and the Geneva all the time. Love them both.

[nymusicman]

I'd still like to get one someday...know of any cheap editions?

Go visit the Sword Project by the Crosswire Bible Society (not all the software that can run the sword engine is on the sword project download site). Get the modules from The Sword Project and Software to run the modules from the Crosswire site. They have a very accurate KJV, Tyndale, and Geneva version. They also have a few other versions but you don't need to download them.
Crosswire:
http://www.crosswire.org/index.jsp
Sword Project:
http://www.crosswire.org/sword/index.jsp

[nymusicman]

I want one of those KJV 1611s that is in the old type-set and everything..you know..made to look like the ones when they were first printed. A few months ago' date=' I won a free Bible of my choosing from a website...and I could've picked that one, but instead chose one of the old Scofield reference bibles. I didn't want to pick one overly expensive because I was getting it for free...didn't want to be greedy when they were being so generous...but I still reallllllly want one of those Bibles. Just to have one that is in the old-style binding and typeset..just 'cause I think it would be cool.[/quote']


Barnes and Noble got it for $30. Or you can support any Christian book store of course. This is the version I have. I bought it for $20 from a Christian bookstore going out of business. I believe they were originally selling it for $40. It's hard cover.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/1611-K ... 1565631601