Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: The Bard
Prior to the King James Bible of 1611, there was not a “Bible” as we know it.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The Geneva Bible pre-dated the KJV by 50 years, which by the way was also translated from the Majority Texts.

14 posted on 08/07/2003 12:19:11 PM PDT by Frumanchu (mene mene tekel upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Frumanchu
Prior to the King James Bible of 1611, there was not a “Bible” as we know it.

Hey! Wait a sec! I thought Catholics forbid people to read the Bible until the Protestants did their own translation??? Now I find out that no Bible existed before 1611??? What's up with that?

15 posted on 08/07/2003 12:33:04 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Frumanchu
Prior to the King James Bible of 1611, there was not a “Bible” as we know it.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The Geneva Bible pre-dated the KJV by 50 years, which by the way was also translated from the Majority Texts.

I would argue somewhat on this. From what I've been finding, the Geneva Bible dates 1599, so while it did predate the King James, it was not by 50 years.

Second, I still stand my my statement. As I have never done an indept study on the Geneva Bible, I may not have all my facts correct. From what I have read, it was the first to start using the the Chapter/verse numbering, so cross referencing it with a King James (or other bibles) might be easy enough. It included up to 300,000 additional words of Commentary (increasing the size by up to 1/3). While it would be a wonderful study tool, these comentary were in the margins, not in the form of footnotes or study helps at the back of the book.

I don't know if modern copies of the Geneva Bible has put this into a modern format for readers, but for me to pick up one of the original Geneva Bibles and compare it to my Bible today, it would be "different". Not to say that it wouldn't be a wonderful study tool (as my interest has been tweaked into getting a copy), but I believe it would have a different feel from bibles in use today. I have a copy of a 1611 King James. While some of the spelling is different, when compared to a King James of today, it is still a word for word match (scripturally).

Of course I may be wrong, and if so, will gladly admit it and will update my notes. I try to make sure that my research is as accurate as possible. I would have to agree that it appears there was nothing closer to our modern day bibles than the Geneva Bible, and in regards to it using majority texts shows that it was not a "puppet" bible that the Catholic church wanted put out, Of course, from what I have studied, the Catholic church in general was against anyone having a bible during those times. That has somewhat changed today.

BTW, I don't know if you are aware of this website, but check it out: http://www.tribulationforces.com/bible.shtml. In additionto the King JAmes online, they have an online version of the 1599 Geneva Bible. It is not the full Geneva Bible, but it does contain the specific verses of each book of the Bible in which a margin note applied.

23 posted on 08/07/2003 1:26:27 PM PDT by The Bard (http://www.reflectupon.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Frumanchu
Adding, the first English translation was complete in 1382 by John Wycliffe.
31 posted on 08/07/2003 7:14:50 PM PDT by snerkel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson