Welcome to our forums...

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.


Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,056

    Exclamation The Wicked Geneva Bible!

    This is the first I have seen this. I saw that it was discussed in the past here but it looks like the thread died quickly and it was when I was moving from the U.S. to here. I decided to give it another go...

    Sam Gipp wrote a book. It is against the Geneva Bible. Here is it's info...


    Click to enlarge
    2006 Geneva Bible - The Trojan Horse - BOOK
    [3430-10]
    $5.95 Quantity:



    by Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Ph.D.

    Description
    The author states:

    Recently a Bible has been promoted as the "1599 Geneva Bible" when, in fact, it is not. Unsuspecting Bible believers may be deceived into thinking it is safe to read and study from the "Grandfather" of the King James Bible. it isn't.
    There are many interesting bits of knowledge about the 2006 Geneva Bible exposed in this book and Michael highly recommends this great little read.

    From the back cover
    Bible believers know the history of their Bible and know that the Geneva Bible was one of the early English translations. It was in the line along with the Wycliff, Tyndale, Camner, Great and Bishops' Bibles which led to the most popular Bible of all time, the King James Bible.

    Recently, a Bible has been promoted as the "1599 Geneva Bible" when, in fact, it is not. Unsuspecting Bible believers may be deceived into thinking it is safe to read and study from the "Grandfather" of the King James Bible. It isn't.

    While the Geneva Bible was a notable translation and popular in its own right, it is still flawed. Examples of such flaws are:

    1.2 Sam. 21:19 where, like many modern versions, the Geneva claims that Elhanan actually killed Goliath, not David,
    2.Psa. 23:6 where the Geneva Bible says we will dwell in the house of the Lord "for a long season," and not forever,
    3.Mal. 2:16 where, instead of informing us that God hates putting away, the Geneva Bible reads, "If thou hatest her, put her away...",
    4.Mal. 3:18 where the Geneva asks the question, "Will a man spoil his gods?" instead of, "Will a man rob God?"
    5.Acts 12:4 where, like most modern versions the Geneva Bible mistranslates a word and contains the word "Passover" instead of "Easter" and,
    6.Strange things happened when the Geneva Bible translators came to "Son of God" and "Son of man."
    These and many more interesting bits of knowledge about the 2006 Geneva Bible are exposed in this book.




    First of, it is not Mal3:18 it is 3:8! Maybe that was just a typo though on the websites side.

    I have never seen someone actually attack the Bibles that came before the KJV. This rather shocked me. I need to get the book to see his reasoning. From what I have seen from the back of his book it is another book where he simply compares it to the KJV and where it is not the same it is the Geneva's fault. Should it not be the other way around? The Geneva was the standard in it's time. according to KJVO theology on comparing this would make the KJV wrong. I think this book shows a double standard.I need to get it to see if this is exactly what it is doing. It is certainly what the back cover is doing!

  2. #2
    Like It, Love it, Gotta Have It
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gulf Shores, Alabama
    Posts
    9,107

    Default "Just add a touch of salt and demogaugery"

    Quote Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought View Post
    Unsuspecting Bible believers may be deceived into thinking it is safe to read and study from...
    Incredible...
    Who is he to tell us that it is not safe to read and study from a Bible? This is the KJVO in a nutshell...

    I'd like to know what is not safe...Will I go to Hell? Will I fail to persevere? Will I slip into apostasy for reading, studying and obeying what is found in the Geneva Bible? Will a grand piano fall on my head while I am walking down the street?

    Too bad many of our forefathers in the faith, who only had the Geneva Bible, were using a Bible that was not safe...

    Perhaps a KJVO can tell us what is not safe and what will happen to those of us who use Modern Versions....
    Providing Free Sunday School Lessons to offset heresy (Semi-Pelagianism, KJVOism etcetera...)


    Quote Originally Posted by OneBook View Post
    FSSL, you know there is no scripture stating the AV1611 is the preserved word of God.

  3. #3
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons View Post
    I Will a grand piano fall on my head while I am walking down the street?
    Watch out for that piano!

  4. #4
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought View Post
    Sam Gipp wrote a book. It is against the Geneva Bible. Here is it's info...




    by Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Ph.D.

    Description
    The author states:

    Recently a Bible has been promoted as the "1599 Geneva Bible" when, in fact, it is not. Unsuspecting Bible believers may be deceived into thinking it is safe to read and study from the "Grandfather" of the King James Bible. it isn't.
    So Samuel Gipp is suggesting that it was not "safe" for the KJV translators to have been reading the Geneva Bible and preaching from it before 1611 and for some of them to have continued to do so after 1611.

    It seems that Gipp thinks that he needs to attack a major portion of the English foundation of the KJV [the Geneva Bible] in order to defend his man-made KJV-only theory.

  5. #5
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,547

    Default

    Other KJV-only advocates have praised the Geneva Bible.

    William Bradley, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The translators changed virtually nothing from William Tyndale’s New Testament in the New Testament of the Geneva Bible” (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva “differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts” (Things That Are Different, p. 48). Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Ibid.). In addition, Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible “is from the same manuscripts as the King James” (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17). Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text that underlies the King James Version” (Which Bible, p. 51). Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot which was the Geneva Bible as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108). H. D. Williams identified the Geneva Bible as being “based on the Received Texts of the original languages of the Bible” (Word-for-Word, p. 238). D. A. Waite maintained that “the Geneva Bible (1557-60) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 48). Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout” (Bible Versions, p. 11). H. D. Williams listed the Geneva Bible as a “literal, verbal plenary translation” (Word-for-Word, p. 121). Robert Sargent referred to it as “a very good translation” (English Bible, p. 197). Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82).

  6. #6
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought View Post
    I think this book shows a double standard.

    Without double standards, would the KJV-only theory continue to exist?

  7. #7
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons View Post
    Perhaps a KJVO can tell us what is not safe and what will happen to those of us who use Modern Versions....
    Don't encourage them...

  8. #8
    Like It, Love it, Gotta Have It
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gulf Shores, Alabama
    Posts
    9,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sawbones View Post
    don't encourage them...
    **smiley with big grin here**
    Providing Free Sunday School Lessons to offset heresy (Semi-Pelagianism, KJVOism etcetera...)


    Quote Originally Posted by OneBook View Post
    FSSL, you know there is no scripture stating the AV1611 is the preserved word of God.

  9. #9
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coverdale View Post
    Other KJV-only advocates have praised the Geneva Bible.

    William Bradley, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The translators changed virtually nothing from William Tyndale’s New Testament in the New Testament of the Geneva Bible” (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva “differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts” (Things That Are Different, p. 48). Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Ibid.). In addition, Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible “is from the same manuscripts as the King James” (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17). Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text that underlies the King James Version” (Which Bible, p. 51). Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot which was the Geneva Bible as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108). H. D. Williams identified the Geneva Bible as being “based on the Received Texts of the original languages of the Bible” (Word-for-Word, p. 238). D. A. Waite maintained that “the Geneva Bible (1557-60) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 48). Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout” (Bible Versions, p. 11). H. D. Williams listed the Geneva Bible as a “literal, verbal plenary translation” (Word-for-Word, p. 121). Robert Sargent referred to it as “a very good translation” (English Bible, p. 197). Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82).
    You certainly have a lot of knowledge crammed in that brain of yours!

  10. #10
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,547

    Default King James and his objections to the Geneva

    McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10). KJV-only author Laurence Vance maintained that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21).

    Pastor Mincy affirmed: "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131). Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people" (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3). KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206). In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97). Kenneth Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147). Do KJV-only advocates such as Samuel Gipp agree with King James's thinking?

    What did those marginal notes say that upset King James I? At Daniel 6:22, the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible has this marginal note: "For he did disobey the king's wicked commandment to obey God, and so did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing whereby God should be dishonoured." At Exodus 1:19, it has this note: "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil." The note at Exodus 1:22 is as follows: "When tyrants can not prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage." In his article in a modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Marshall Foster observed: “the marginal note in the Geneva Bible at Exodus 1:19 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian rulers. King James called such interpretations ‘seditious.‘ The tyrant knew that if the people could hold him accountable to God’s Word, his days as a king ruling by ‘Divine Right’ were numbered” (p. xxv). At Matthew 2:19, the marginal note has the word tyrant [“Christ is brought up in Nazareth, after the death of the tyrant, by God’s providence”]. Its note at Matthew 10:28 stated: “Though tyrants be never so raging and cruel, yet we may not fear them.“ At Acts 12:2, its note again referred to tyrants [“It is an old fashion of tyrants to procure the favour of the wicked with the blood of the godly”]. McGrath maintained that "the Geneva notes regularly use the word 'tyrant' to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word" (In the Beginning, p. 143). At the top of the page that has Isaiah 14, the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has this heading: “The fall of the tyrant.“ At the top of the page that has Ezekiel 32, the 1560 Geneva Bible has this heading: “The end of tyrants.“ The 1611 KJV did have the word “tyrant” in the Apocrypha [Wisdom of Solomon 12:14, 2 Maccabees 4:25, 7:27].

    Perhaps it was not only the marginal notes that caused King James to dislike the Geneva Bible. If it was only the notes that bothered the king, why didn’t he have the text printed without those notes? Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”

    Concerning Genesis 10:8-9, Ovid Need wrote: “Both the text wording and the notes of the Geneva speak harshly against oppressors and tyrants, such as we have today. As I have used the Geneva and compared it with the KJV, I understand why King James wanted to rid Christians of the Geneva” (Biblical Examiner, January, 2007, p. 2). Ovid Need added: “An example is found in Matthew 2:6, KJV says a governor, where the Geneva says, the governor. The strong wording that demands that only one Sovereign, Jehovah God in the form of Jesus Christ was removed from the KJV” (Ibid.).

    It is interesting that those Bishops that heard King James complain about the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible did not mention that the Bishops’ Bible had some similar marginal notes. The Bishops’ Bible had some marginal notes that condemned tyrants or tyranny. The marginal note at Exodus 1:15 in the 1595 edition of the Bishops’ was the following: “Tyrants try divers ways to oppress the Church.“ At Exodus 1:17, the Bishops’ note stated: “It was better to obey God than man.”

    Is it possible that King James I did not want believers to read how strongly God's Word condemns tyranny and tyrants? Did King James think that some might regard some of his actions as being those of a tyrant? Alexander McClure referred to King James as "the tyrant" (KJV Translators, p. 50). Why did the KJV translators remove the words "tyrant,” “tyrants,” and “tyranny” from the text of the English Bible? According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded this change?

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Page generated in 1,416,780,316.61359 seconds with 14 queries

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0