2/19: The Geneva Bible - What's wrong with it?

Q 2: The Geneva Bible is close to the King James. What's wrong with using it? God bless you all! - David W. Daniels and Jack McElroy

See all 14 videos here:

[wesleyhay]

The Geneva Bible came before the KJV. It was widely accepted and was the
Bible the people brought as their Bible on the Mayflower. I don't mind saying I like
both of them.

[philipek]

It's easy to just throw it away and say it's bad without presenting any facts or evidence whatsoever.

[isaiahglynn]

My Geneva Bible just came in and I prefer this Bible over any of the other five versions I have.

[michaelboris]

If you, "don't want to get into that right now", and have no examples, you're really just being biased. I think you've persuaded me to look more into the Geneva Bible, than anything else.

[Pastor-Brettbyfaith]

Brother David,
You start to speak on the subject and then say "I don't want to get into that now." Why is that? It has been my experience that the Geneva Bible is an excellent translation, that was translated from the same textual basis as the KJV. It is actually better in some cases. I have a 1560 replica, and while it is hard to read (small print), I see no doctrinal issues within the text.
Can you give an exegetical reason for your belief that it is not on par with the KJV, specifically comparing references to the Greek? Also; can you explain your position without attacking the critical text position? I would love to hear an expository/exegetical defense in favor of the KJV. I do not want to know what is wrong with the modern critical text; but rather, show me what is right with the KJV. Thank you and God's best to you brother.
in Christ always,
Pastor Brett

[guymontag]

OK, I watched the video and I listened carefully, but I still didn't hear what is wrong with the Geneva Bible; other than these two just don't like it.

[obadiahrobinson]

My conclusion is he is holding all other translations up to the King James Version of 1611. If my conclusion is correct and he holds the King James Version above all others, then he should be aware of the facts concerning the "authorized" version of the Biblical Cannon.

The KJV came about when King James ascended to the throne of England in 1604. At the time James became King, the Church of England had been around for a hundred years and came into being after King Henry VIII severed ties to the Catholic Church in 1534 and was established as an Act of Parliament known as the Act of Supremacy. Although the Church was established under Henry VIII, it was Queen Elizabeth II that became the supreme governor of the early Church of England. During the period of 1534 to 1604, there were more than five monarchs that influenced the Church of England, most notably King Edward VI, Queen Mary I, who co-reined with her husband, King Phillip, and Queen Elizabeth I. Each one of these monarchs was considered to be the Supreme Head of the Church of England and each one had differing influences on the Church. Also, it should be noted that each one had, in turn, a Biblical Cannon which they each approved and would bear there names.

Without getting into to much history, the first Bible authorized and used by the Church of England was the Great Bible, the first English bible, which was commissioned by King Henry VIII in 1539, and became known as King Henry's Bible. The next version is known as the Geneva Bible which was not actually authorized by the Church of England but became very popular during this period and was a revision of both the Tyndale Bible and the Great Bible in 1560. The Bishops' Bible followed in 1568 but was never as popular as the Geneva Bible. Several revisions were made to Bishops' Bible up to King James reign.

It was at this time that King James I wished for a Bible that would bear his name and unite the current Bibles to one literary book. He gave the job to 47 scholars all of whom were members of the Church of England. Although they are often referred to as "translators", what they did was simply compare the text of the Bibles and other reference materials that King James had given his approval to use. Very little Greek and Hebrew translation was required by James. He, James, gave the translators instructions intended to "guarantee that the new version will conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy". To alter from these instructions could mean death to the translators. Work began in ernest in January, 1604 and was completely overseen by King James. Under his commission, he gave strict instruction that the text of the Bishops' Bible be used as the primary guide for the translators to use. However, the translators found this approach to be very problematic, therefore King James later authorized a pre- approved list of other Bibles and writings that could be used by the translators. These other writings included the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, and even the Geneva Bible, as well as a few other scholarly writings of the period.

It is important to recognize the purpose of King James wishes in rewriting the earlier versions of the English Bible. First was the idea to consolidate the many versions of the Holy Cannon of the day, second to have a newer version of the Bible for which James could attach his identity to and third to attempt to force a replacement Cannon over the very popular Geneva Bible, mainly due to its political influences that were rejected by James. As the King of England he was considered the highest ranking official in the Church. This gave him all authority to oversee and deem what was permitted to remain in the new writing and that which would not. His paramount desire was to insure the episcopal structure of the Church of England and to remove the Puritan influence of other writings of the day, for which the Puritans were persecuted for before and after James' rule. There is no argument against this! This new cannon, in short, was to reflect James' own beliefs and decisions concerning the Church of England, period. There are volumes and volumes of historical proof to this end.

I will agree that there are far to many "translations" of the Holy scripture today and some are quiet self serving but the same can be easily said of the King James Version of 1611. And for David W. Daniels and Jack McElroy to attack the Geneva Version is absolutely absurd. This is one of the only versions in print today where actual Greek and Hebrew scholars went back to all known sources of original manuscripts and translated directly from these ancient writings to forge the truth for accurate translation. No such attempt was used by the translators of the King James Bible. I do not dismiss the KJV but instead see it as what it truly is; a version of the Bible compiled from the writings of many other translations and Bibles of its time.

Before someone puts forth an opinion or belief they should first be fully aware of their facts and not insert their personal beliefs to replace true facts.

[cheese]

The reason why they don't want you to read the Geneva Study Bible is because it calls out governments of the world, particularly Ezekiel 38, where God calls out Tubal and Meshech. The commentary indicates Tubal is Italy, and Meshech is Greece. Essentially, the Papacy. *mic drop*

[davidazinger]

You say some of the footnotes are downright silly but you fail to mention one of them. Footnotes are no different than listening to a sermon; its there for your understanding. If footnotes are wrong then sermons are wrong. The footnotes are excellent.

[anthonylowder]

The real reason that the 1611 JKV didn't have any notes was because James 1st didn't like the anti-authority commentaries that the Geneva Bible of 1560 had in the margins.

[Bible_bits_]

Examples of Geneva translation being inferior to KJV, please?

[jehovahuponyou]

IF SAM GIPPELY IS AGAINST IT, I WANT TWO OF THEM!

[JAHtony]

Didnt king James ban the Geneva bible cause of its notes against the divine right of kings? Where can i find ur vids on this issue?

[AntiSocialistCommunist]

BIBLE
B - basic
I - instruction
B - before
L - leaving
E - earth

[leronealijacksoni]

They forgot to mention John Wycliffe made the first English version of the bible. William Tyndale made his version of the Holy Scriptures in English after Wycliffe made his, fact.

[doug]

How about making a video about what is correct about the Geneva Bible?

[marialamb]

I absolutely LOVE the Geneva Bible better than the KJV. I find what they’re saying the opposite to be true.
The Geneva Bible is much more specific. The below verse is a prime example. They do not mince words. They say things, I think, much more clearly than the KJV.
One scripture that really gets my goat is Matthew 24:33. The parable of the fig tree in King James they have the ....In place of… ...The kingdom of God…. That’s pretty bad.
The Geneva Bible says it like it is. It doesn’t try to mince words. There are many words that KJV changed.

[Traviesakz]

so it has all the books of the bible in it? I've been looking into buying one for my self... 🤔🤔

[dashinghandsomeness]

they forgot to mention how king james didn't like the marginal notes in the geneva bible, which talked about human rights and ethics, and that kind of flew in the face of his royalty.

when scripture doesn't fit your political agenda, obviously the scripture needs to be changed...  wonder how many times that's happened before...

[clintsequipment]

Note they are cautious not to tell you the history of the Geneva Bible... note their lack of references to the so-called "errors" and "paraphrases" . Note Acts 12:4 that the KJV, in error, mistranslates the Greek with regard to "Easter" rather than "Passover". This is ignorant, Jesuit misdirection at its finest. The Geneva Bible was the Bible that first produced the chapter and verse that the Royal oversight Bible (KJV) used. The KJV, authorized by a monarch, would not include the notes of the Geneva Bible that identified the Papacy as the Antichrist. This is the key issue behind the KJV only bunch. The Jesuits know that anyone who looks at history through the eyes of prophecy will eventually come to some of the same conclusions as William Tyndale, John Huss, John Righteous, And the translators and commentators of the Geneva Bible that preceded the KJV by a generation.