All:
In my first post on this topic, I took to task the promotion efforts used to market the Geneva Bible. I did not mention the fact that on the front cover of the box cover that contains a new Geneva Bible is a quote by the late Dr. D.J. Kennedy, which states: "Publication and promulgation of the Geneva Bible will help restore America's rich Christian heritage and reclaim the culture for Christ."
Contrary to the platitudes given the Geneva Bible, a more important question is, Do its promoters use it themselves for study, for teaching, or for preaching? I know for a fact that Dr. Kennedy never used it from the pulpit!
In fact, none of the individuals that endorsed the Geneva Bible used the Geneva Bible for preaching or teaching. I doubt that they even used it for personal devotion or study as well. Do not be so naive as to believe the P.R. campaign that endorses a Bible. There is always an agenda to market a Bible, even to comp a celebrity for his flowering words. Don't believe it? I assure you it happens more often than you may think. I know from my years in the publishing industry and having been a store manager for the Family Christian Store chain. Back in the day it was customary to comp for an endorsement $50 to $200.
In the first paragraph of my post you will note that I underlined two statements of Dr. Kennedy's remarks. These are "Kingdom-now" or "Dominionist" buzz words that identify an author or speaker's larger covert agenda.
The Geneva Bible is a Presbyterian Bible in contemporary understanding. The quotes on the box cover are all by known Presbyterians. The original Geneva Bible was first published by what is known as a "one group" translation. That group was the Puritans, followers of John Calvin. Today, they are Presbyterians. The 2006 Geneva Bible is as much a Presbyterian Bible as was its ancestor of 1560.
If you open up a 2006 Geneva Bible and read who sponsored the "1599 Geneva Bible Restoration Project" you will find the project's backers were all Presbyterians and Calvinists.
On the Forward on page iv you will find that the theological bent is also decidedly Post-Millennial. Why is this fact so important I ask you? This is important but the buyer of the Geneva Bible will most likely not be able to tell you why. I doubt that the so-called "Scripturalist of the Lord" can answer this question either.
Peter Lillback, chairman of the advisory board of the "1599 Geneva Bible Restoration Project" does not believe in the "Blessed Hope" of Titus 2:13. In fact, he does not believe a lot of what the Apostle Paul said, like: Christ Jesus returning to take His church home to heaven before a seven-year tribulation, followed by Him, Christ Jesus ushering in a Millennial reign on Earth as revealed in Revelation 19-20. He does believe that Christians using the 2006 Geneva Bible are going to usher in the Millennium and then Christ will return.
The promoters of the 2006 Geneva Bible believe God is going to use it to usher in the millennium. If they don't believe that they they are consciously lying in order to sell books or eliminate the KJV Bible.
If the answer to my question to you hasn't become self-evident or obvious, allow me to explain. Presbyterians, of all stripes, interpret Scripture Allegorically. They do not believe in Dispensationalism, or a literal reading of the text for basic understanding. They do not believe in the Pre-Trib Rapture, the seven-year Tribulation of Daniel's 70th Week.
The study-notes of the Geneva Bible are so shaded and biased to the Post-Millennial view, or Amillennialism. The Amillennial view is that there is no rapture at all, of any form or fashion. People who drink from this well of the Geneva Bible are drinking from a poisoned well!
One of the artificial praises, stolen from the KJV Bible and bestowed on the Geneva Bible, is the claim that it was "the Bible the Pilgrims carried with them on the Mayflower". They were Puritans. They were Calvinists. It (the Geneva Bible) was all that was available, as I noted in my first post. They had their very own translation of the Bible, that being the Geneva Bible. The Pilgrims landed here in 1620 with a Geneva Bible under their arms. But by 1644 their Bible was out of print. There were no newly printed Geneva Bibles available after 1644, none whatsoever!
By 1776 when the colonies declared their independence from England, there had not been a Geneva Bible printed for 132 years! Truth be known, it was the KJV Bible upon which the USA was founded. When this credit is bestowed upon the Geneva Bible it is false and most likely intentionally misleading.
I'm afraid those like the "Scripturalist for the Lord" and those cheerleaders for the Geneva Bible have been duped, as they say, into buying the hype that this Bible is printed in 1599 (2006, actually) and pretend that the most popular Bible of all time never existed. I'm referring to the KJV Bible which has stood the test of time of now over 400 years of reliable service to the Lord.
Men like Dr. D.J. Kennedy, Lillbeck, and nearly a dozen Presbyterians would likely be very successful selling freezers to Eskimoes, especially if it meant commissions and royalties for hyping an obsolete Bible.
The Post-Millennial bias of the Geneva Bible project manipulates the reader into believing a Bible that already had denigrated the Dispensationalist hermeneutic of understanding the Bible. What is of even more profound importance is the fact that theological institutions do have policies for their students as to what Bible is used in classroom work. I have several seminary degrees from academic institutions which practiced this policy. Every name on the Geneva Bible project are ALL Post-Millennial in their eschatology. They are all of the "Kingdom-now", "Dominionist", "Reconstructionist" camp. Furthermore, by deep investigation, will reveal them to be brothers of the "Lodge" - to the very man on the committee.
They all sing from the same choir book, and again quoting from Revelation 20, continue to call God a liar.
One could make a case for deceptive advertising with the 2006 Geneva Bible, were it not for the small-print disclaimer on the first page of the Preface. You see, right on the front cover of the newest edition of the Geneva Bible it has "1599" printed above the words "Geneva Bible". Obviously that makes the reader think it is an authentic copy of a 1599 Geneva Bible. It isn't so my friends. In reality it is a 2006 edition of the Geneva Bible. In fact, the publishers of the 2006 Geneva Bible didn't even take a 1599 edition and update or clarify it. They actually started with a failed publication of an updated version that was published in 2003 by L.L. Brown Publishing House. How do I know that you ask? It states so on the first page of the "Preface" where it plainly states, "our source copy was published by L.L. Brown (the 1599 Geneva Bible, Ozark, MO: L.L. Brown Publishing, 7th printing, 2003)."
Why is this edition not an authentic 1599 Geneva Bible?
They have radically modernized the spelling. For example, In the 2006 Geneva Bible, John 3:16 reads as follows:
John 3:16, 2006 Geneva Bible: "For God so loved the world, that he hath given his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life."
In an authentic 1599 Geneva Bible it reads as follows:
John 3:16, 1599 Geneva Bible: "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geven his only begotten sonne, that whosoever beleueth in him, should not pershe, but have euerlasting lyfe."
I know that proponents of the 2006 Geneva Bible will respond that the "1611" KJV Bible that we use today has also had its spelling updated over the years and that, in fact, we actually use a "1769" edition rather than a true "1611". True, but they don't have "1611" printed on the front cover.
Why didn't the proponents of the "1599" reproduce the "1577" "original" Geneva Bible? If that wasn't suitable, why didn't they use the final edition of "1644" as the Geneva Bible in its purest form and reproduce it? The answer is embarrassingly simple. The "1599" was the most convenient because it had already been done in 2003 by L.L. Brown Publishing House.
There is no purest desire to reproduce the "perfect word of God" here. They simply reproduced the most available. Chances are if L.L. Brown had reproduced either the "1557" or the "1644" or any edition, in between, then the proponents of the Geneva Bible would have simply heralded that one as the "Bible that changed the world". They don't really care about the Geneva Bible. They really care about making money and getting you to believe and use something other than the King James Bible.
Another reason this 2006 Geneva Bible cannot be a true authentic "1599" is revealed in a simple statement, made on page xx, "We have changed the spelling of proper names in the Bible to that of the NKJV," Now, explain to me, how can it be a "1599" Geneva Bible if it changes the spelling of proper names to those of a Bible printed in 1982?
One of the clearest testimonies of what the new Geneva Bible is, is found on page xxiv where it is referred to as follows: "This 2006 edition of the 1599 version of the Geneva Bible........" on page xxv are recorded these words, "The 2006 edition of the 1599 Geneva version goes a step further; while keeping the Bible text and notes accurate word-for-word with the 16th-century edition, spelling has been updated and type reset in an even easier-to-read form."
I submit to you that 6-point Roman type face is NOT easier to read. It is much more difficult to read. It precludes a whole generation that have difficulty with type smaller than 12-point. It is infinitely more difficult to read. However, there is a hidden plus here that you are not aware of. Using 6-point Roman will reduce the amount of paper and press time by 40%. It reflects a total disregard for the buyer of this Bible. Hence, a larger profit margin for the publisher and its associated parties involved. From the get-go this so-called "1599" Geneva Bible has been a marketing fraud, designed to part the buyer from their money. It not only was designed to deceive the customer; to undermine theological doctrine; to undermine sales of the KJV Bible; and to imply this Bible was in some way responsible for the idea that the Geneva Bible changed the world. It is not superior in any way, but rather a step back in every way possible.
My basic point is that all early English translations are imperfect, and among the lot, the KJV Bible is by far superior to the Geneva Bible and for that matter, all early English Bibles.
In the next post on this question we will examine many of the discrepancies of the Geneva Bible. Just to provide you an example of the short comings of the Geneva Bible, I will give you an example of a major major flaw that simply blows it out of the water and reflects upon the translators of the Geneva Bible.
In the Bible (KJV, and most others), Zechariah 9:9 reads, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."
Although the Old Testament Jews missed it, we know this is a prophetic reference to Jesus Christ entering Jerusalem on the back of an ass's foal and bringing salvation with him.
This great truth is not found in the 2006 Geneva Bible which reads in Zechariah 9:9, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion: Shout for joy O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and saved himself, poor and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."
Not only does this errant translation eliminate the bringing of salvation to all who believe but it inserts into the text of Scripture another contradiction. It says He "saved Himself" which is the one thing Jesus didn't do. As the song says, "He could have called ten thousand angels," but instead chose to freely give Himself a sacrifice for our sins. The Geneva Bible is greatly in error here.
The Geneva Bible is loaded with similar inept and incompetent translation errors, which are not in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The Geneva Bible as such is the prime example of a poor job of translating the Hebrew text. Recalling the fact that John Calvin was originally a Catholic, it becomes evident that they were poor translators of the original Biblical languages.
I'm at a loss as to explain why anyone would trade perfection for imperfection. I would hope that someone that knows the "Scripturalist of the Lord" at the other prophecy forum site would wake him up to the truth about the Geneva Bible fraud he pontificates from as if it is God's Truth.
God bless,
Pastor Bob