Geneva vs. KJV: The Bible Battle That Changed History
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- Before the King James Bible became the standard for English-speaking Christians, another translation stirred the hearts of reformers and challenged kings-the Geneva Bible. But what sets these two monumental translations apart? Is it just the language, or do their differences reveal a deeper story of politics, theology, and power? Today, we’re diving into the fascinating history and key differences between the Geneva Bible and the King James Version-you might be surprised by what we uncover
Some clarifications. Read this after you watch the video so I don't spoil anything:
I made a blunder at the beginning of the video. On the first point I should have said Elhanan rather than Jaareoregim. Jaareoregim was his father which is clear from the text. The Geneva Bible’s main text sounds like Elhanan killed Goliath.
One other clarification. John 11:35 still might be the shortest verse in the Geneva Bible depending on how you count. If you count by number of words, its not the shortest.
To purchase the Geneva Bible I have in this video. You can use this exclusive affiliate link: amzn.to/4fMLaqm
Also on the first point I should have said Elhanan rather than Jaareoregim. Jaareoregim was his father which is clear from the text.
Scored 10. I love the NKJV as a translation in the great heritage of both the KJV and the Geneva Bible. A few years ago Tolle Lege Press republished the 1599 Geneva Bible. They updated the spelling. It is a very nice edition of the Geneva Bible.
William tyndale helped du around 82 percent of King James around 1530, when he was put to the stake and burned they asked him, what he had to say, he said may God open the king of England's eyes
Jn 8.59 in a 1587 edition does end "and he passed through the midst of them, and so went his way" in the main text. This is a footnote in the 1560 edition.
I have a 1599 Geneva Bible on my phone. The spelling is updated. I love it!! I got 9 out of 10.
Nice. Well done!
Fascinating. Thanks for highlighting the Geneva Bible in your video.
I’ve told several KJV onlyists (letting them know that I am not being serious) that I am Geneva only and if I can simply replace KJV with Geneva in everyone of their arguments… then they need better arguments
😂
I scored 9 out of 10. I have an interest in the various older, English Bible translations. I also want to order an English language Septuagint. Excellent video!
Very good!
When commenting on Isaiah 49:17 you mistakenly say that the KJV uses the word "sons". The actual word used by the KJV is "children". NKJV has "sons". This is one of my favorite videos of yours that i have watched. I too enjoy looking at differences among the early TR English translations and would love to see more comparisons between Geneva and KJV in the future.
Good catch! Thanks!
I enjoy “rescuing” Bibles from second hand book shops. I recently found this particular 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible for £2, so “rescued” it. There is very little interest in Bibles or anything Christian in most book shops these days, so they are usually eventually sent away to be pulped, which is very said. Some book shops do not even put them on the shelves and simply send them straight off to be pulped. I won’t get into a a discussion as to which translation is the “best”. I have most of the various revisions of the KJV (the AV, the RSV, the NRSV, the ESV, the ASB and the NASB the NKJV) and if there is any text which I wish to understand better, I find that looking at all of them usually makes it all clear. The notes are always useful - they might explain, for example, that a word appears to be missing, or not properly copied in the original text and the notes usually explain why the text has been translated the way it has, with a mention of other possible translations. I find that the KJV and its various revisions are enough - however, I enjoy reading other translations, simply because I prefer the style used by the translator. My favourite is Monsignor Knox’s translation from the Vulgate. He translated the whole Bible himself, without any assistance, so that the translation style is very consistent and does not read as if it had been put together by a committee, as is the case with most translations. I have the three volume study version, with a full set of notes, with explanations as to where the Vulgate does not correspond with the best available original texts now available.
I recently read that book sellers have been reporting a significantly larger amount of sales in Bibles.
@@Mark3ABE I got an 1881 Edition of the Revised Version on eBay a few years ago for $27.
@@kdeh21803 The RV was more common in England. In the USA the ASB and then the NASB were more popular.
@Mark3ABE what was neat ilon the preface was it talking of W&H like they were alive (then they were).
Great video! Thank you so much!
Glad it was helpful!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews God Bless! Do you know of any websites that have the stone edition tenach for free? or something similar I can access real quick? Im looking at Eze 14:9 and wondering if they translate it different from the other versions. Sort of like we saw with Dut 32:5 in this video (the spot of/not being his children) where the stone bible actually clarified it.
100%. I own a 1560 Geneva bible and I love it. It’s not my primary bible, but it’s fun to read.
Great job!!
Thanks for information
Scored 70, I like the KJV because it is the one I was raised reading, but also look at the Geneva when studying
Nice score!
I got 10 out of 10 questions right but I do own the same Geneva Bible translation as you do, the Hendrix translation. The Geneva 1560 is my favorite Bible translation. Thank you for this Bible quiz and this video is very good.
Thanks! Great job on the quiz!
90%, I was/am already familiar with the history of the Geneva Bible. Very cool video, very informative.
Awesome! Thank you!
I use the 1599. It would be interesting to discuss the differences from the earlier version.
That’s a good idea.
Any translation that is attempting to be as "close" as possible to the originals is worth our consideration.....we "all" love the Word of God and believe in Inspiration but I have seen many many folks destroying good folk over this issue...... We don't need to be shooting and wounding or killing our own soldiers that use a variety of different weapons.
Just 8. Enjoyed the quiz anyway. The Geneeva Bible is on my list for purchase this year. Thank you for your channel.
Great job!
Thank you for your presentation, I was able to get 7 out of 10 questions correct. In the book of Genesis, the king James version states that God commanded Noah to make the ark from gopher wood, but Geneva Bible states God commanded Noah to make the ark from pine trees.
Great job!
Just 8: 59 in the 1599 version Says, " and he passed through the midst of them, and so went his way. "
Good catch. I mention later in the video that everything I’m saying in way of comparison is against the 1560.
Great video! I have the same 1611 edition. I enjoy flipping through all the notes in the New Testament, highlighting every instance where it references the Apocryphal books. The 1611 translators were aware of this, but it seems to have been forgotten over time by Protestants.
Thanks! Yes, the original KJV and the Geneva included the Apocrypha. I think those of us who do not consider the Apocrypha to be part of the canon, would still do well to be better familiar with it.
@ It’s not just included, but also noted. In your 1611 edition, turn to Hebrews 11:35, and you’ll see the translators added a footnote mentioning that St. Paul references 2 Maccabees 7:7. This was acknowledged in 1611, yet today, it’s a common belief that “the New Testament doesn’t reference the Apocrypha,” even though the translators were aware of this in 1611.
@ I’m aware of allusions such as that. I’ve looked for direct quotes. Have you found any in your study?
Please don’t misunderstand my question. It’s not a “gotcha question” because I don’t think that would settle the issue one way or the other. I’m just genuinely curious. I’ve been looking for one.
The "apocrypha" is inspired and we use them. the Septuagint is the Authority in our synagogue. I prefer the Geneva over the KJV
Good information. 10 out of 10
Geneva bible is connected to Calvin, and Calvinism have a grasp there.
Great video. The Geneva Bible, the 1609 Douay Rheims and the 1611 King James Bible were the three Bibles of our American founding. Geneva in the northern colonies, King James in the Southern and the Douay Rheims in the mid colonies, especially Maryland.
Roman catholic bibles are tampered with by the Vatican. Cannot be trusted. It’s as bad as the Mormon bible or the JW’s so-called “translation”.
Douay Rheims is a Roman Catholic translation and sure to biased towards their doctrines.
9/10. The maps one got me.
You did great!
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽great video
You forgot to show the maps😢😢😢
A lot of this is Septuagint correction and I see the double volume behind you. I am trying to learn Konea Greek and thought I would get a Septuagint and a New Testament Greek. What do you recommend as closest to autographs in Greek for both?
Zoe Brotherhood Edition published by The Church of Greece.
@peterpapoutsis496 Is that NT?
Also get "Basics of Biblical Greek" 4th ed, by Mounce.
@@mach1553 Thank You! Do you think it's better or in addition to [Beginning with New Testament Greek] by Benjamin Merkle and Robert Plummer which I have?
Nice presentation. God bless!
Thank you!
9/10 - interesting quiz , thanks 😊
Very good!
At 7:56 when referring to Luke 17:36 you state that the KJV 'translators were aware of this textual variation' as if the Geneva translators were not aware of it. Verse 36 is included in the marginal note of the 1560. So they were certainly aware of it. The verse is actually included in the main text of the 1599 edition. The ecact same thing happens in John 8:59. The 'missing' part of the verse is in the margin of the 1560, yet appears in the main text of the 1599. I realize you are only comparing the 1560 edition and it's easy to miss things in the crowded marginal notes.
Good observation. I didn’t intend to imply that the Geneva translators were unaware of it. But I’m sure it could have sounded that way. Thanks. That’s what makes the comment section helpful.
Hi Man.What Was King James Motive For His Version Of The Bible?
I suppose being an armchair historian as well as a Calvinist helped me out, because I scored a 100 (even though I guessed on a few of the answers).
I was surprised that none of the questions were about the chapters and verses being in the Geneva Bible first, but I suppose that was not a difference from the KJV.
Great video! Interesting topic.
Great job!
@ thank you!
Sir do you know where I can purchase a Geneva Bible.
Easy to get a facsimile copy of the Geneva 1560 but harder to get the 1599 Geneva facsimile. Tolle Lege Press brought out an updated spelling 1599 in 2008 but they're all sold and very exspensive and hard to find secondhand. Its available digitally.
"see what you know about the Geneva bible" - funny enough, the whole reason i clicked this was to find out
Hope you found it informative!
Thank you for presenting this comparison. I like to read many translations, although I ultimately settle on the KJV, and second, the NASB for accuracy. I have tried to read the Geneva Bible on occasion, but the letters are strange on occasion. f and s , u and v and so forth. I suppose I might eventually get used to it, but still, its a distraction. I was wondering if the version you were referring to - which looks like a magnificent rendition - does it have the traditional rendering, or plain english grammar? Thank you once again for your investment of time. Very fascinating.
The one I have retains the traditional spellings. Thanks for watching!
I picketed up a New England Primer (there's a pdf file on line) is a reader they used to teach middle English. It works it might be the best text book you ever read I can't recommend it enough.
It seems like I heard that King James also wanted a new Bible because the Geneva was too divisive.
Unfortunately my favorite early Bible never really made it and and copies are really rare, the Charles Thomson Bible.
Brother man! Thank you so much for this video.
I am on a treasure hunt right now concerning prophecy.
My one question is, can you tell me, if the marginal notes in the 1560 Geneva edition are the same marginal notes in the 1599 Geneva?
This is really important for me to find out.
I have yet to buy a Geneva but plan to this week.
Once I have the answers I'm in search of, I will be able to reveal what the treasure I'm being led to find.
Subscribed. Thanks again.
Be blessed.
A storm in a teacup! The "problem" is solved by reading the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20:5 of the Authorised Version where it has in the text the words: "Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite". I am not a KJV Onlyist but a complementary approach creates no problem. The italics in 2 Sam 21 are justified by the text of 1 Chron 20. Thanks for the interesting facts about the Geneva Bible.
Thx for the information you shared.
God bless you.
I only answered 2 questions incorrect.
I'm generally a KJV only reader, yet i love to read versions that are true to the original Septuigent as possible.
10/10, great video! Is there a Geneva Bible (with the marginal notes included) in modern English readily available for purchase?
Not that I’m aware of. The marginal notes are the kicker. Canon Press does a New Testament, without the marginal notes, that has been modernized. Great job on the quiz!
Bible Gateway app has the Geneva Bible with modern spelling. No footnotes.
YouVersion app has the Wycliffe Bible with modern spelling.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews what about the 1599 by Tolle Lege Press? From what I remember, I think it has modern spelling. Not sure if it has the Apocrypha though.
Of course, I think it’s better to just get a facsimile copy, and learn how to read it. 😅
Also, I have a 1599 facsimile as well as the 1560. The 1560 has the missing part from John 8 in the margin notes, and the 1599 includes it in the text itself.
@ I’m honestly not sure. I wish I had that edition but I don’t.
17:30 I think the word Elohim can be translated either as "God" or as "gods" and I actually think in the passage in question ("a little lower than...") "gods" would be at least just as correct as the others. "angels" would be a (correct) interpretation of that translation, but still a little more than a translation.
I've Been Reading Mostly The Modern Versions. I Used To Go By KJ V Bible, Until I Recently Learned About The Geneva Bible.
It’s a neat Bible
40% Great Video ❤
Thanks for taking the quiz and sharing the score!
Both added the phrase in Acts 21:25 “and concluded that they observe no such things (KJV)” or “and determined that they observe no such things (Geneva)” to Scripture. This short addition caused a seismic shift from what was written in Acts 15:19-21!!!!
Other Bible versions do not have this addition and thus remained faithful not only to the Ancient Greek texts but also to its context.
Beware!!!!
My score is 3. English is not my mother's tongue. I learned a lot from the quiz. Thanks .
Pretty good for English not being your first language
95, I knew it wasn’t the Latin, but I thought it was the Septuagint
Nice!
“I made the nations shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell and together with those who descend into the Pit; and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the depths of the earth.” Ezekiel 31
“The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” NKJV
Who is King James to approve a bible? you don't think that the text was modified to benifit the king ?
I routinely use 12 different Bibles and mounces.. The Dialect difference in time period correct definitions. Poses more difficulties than the text. Bibles fall into 2 main categories word as specific and meaning specific. Always printed for lexile rating of the time
14:55 do you have the link for this video? Greetings from the Netherlands!
Thanks for watching. Here is the link: th-cam.com/video/EkRYMTJl3to/w-d-xo.htmlsi=HICWs0tzuJQQkxXr
80% i think. I dig the geneva and i enjoy their commentary
Nice!
Shimea
brother of David
Is shimea another name for Jessie??
Missed one by guessing, but, you gave the answer too fast on one of the questions and I may have missed that one otherwise.
You did great
Actually, regarding the word "tyrant", it does appear three times in the KJV, in the Apocryphal section:
Wisdom of Solomon 12:14 - “Neither shall king or tyrant be able to set his face against thee for any whom thou hast punished.”
II Maccabees 4:25 - “So he came with the king’s mandate, bringing nothing worthy the high priesthood, but having the fury of a cruel tyrant, and the rage of a savage beast.”
II Maccabees 7:27 - “But she bowing herself toward him, laughing the cruel tyrant to scorn, spake in her country language on this manner; O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education.”
Good catch. I didn’t search the King James Apocryphal section. I didn’t think too. That’s what makes the comment section nice. Adds clarity and correction!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I'm glad I could be of help. That's why hearing or seeing so many different voices can be beneficial to the body of Christ and to further our knowledge of the scriptures and topics related to it. 👍
Dennis Prager, would suggest that the midwives were Egyptians, from his Rational Bible onward Exodus
I didn’t know that. Interesting
I got 8 out of 10 right. I could have answered almost all of the questions without multiple choice prompts, because I love the hiſtorie (sorry, history, I got carried away there for a second) of the English Bible, and I have facsimile editions of both the Geneva NT and the 1611 KJV Bible.
Speaking of which, my _Geneva Bible: The Annotated New Testament, 1602 Edition_ was published by the Pilgrim Press in 1989. In Luke 17:36, the verse is included, with no marginal note about it one way or the other. "Two ſhalbe in the field : one ſhall be receiued, and another ſhall be left."
As for John 8:59 in the 1602 Geneva, "Then tooke they vp ſtones to caſt at him, but Ieſus hid himſelfe, and went out of the Temple : And hee paſſed thorow the mids of them, and ſo went his way."
That's a great score! Good work!
100%. I have the 1560 and 1599 version of the GNV. The 1599 that I have uses modern letters. I do have the facsimile 1611 KJV as well.
Nice score!
Most people I talk to are surprised to learn the the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha and the 1620 KJV does not.
I had thought the KJV included the apocrypha far longer than 1620. Interesting
I confess that I've never read the Geneva Bible. The KJV and DR Bible, but not the Geneva Bible. I should probably try to find a complete edition in print and rectify that for culture's sake, but I every edition I see in a store omits the Apocrypha, and I've resolved not to buy any Bibles that omit it and originally had it so as not to be a party to sin.
I have tended to stay away from the Geneva Bible on account of its association with Calvin, but while my opinion of him has not softened over the years, my judgment on the soundness of the prejudice has gone to thinking I need to read it. King James, after all, readily murdered people over Bibles.
For the variants, I think the Geneva Bible got 2 Sam 21.18-19 right. I think the KJV's _interpretation_ is fundamentally right, but I don't think textual emendations belong in the text but in the footnotes.
For Jesus sneaking, I would agree with you that it probably shouldn't be in a reading Bible. Interestingly, it's in the PT, so it's going to be a reading heavy in the lectionaries, but I also have an arbitrary number (completely arbitarary) in which I automatically take a reading that has 90%+ agreement, so this reading shows the arbitrariness of that standard.
I'm not sure Ps 8.5 is a slip-up. If translating from Hebrew, it probably should be "God" or "gods." There are several occasions where the LXX replaces 'elohim with angels, probably to avoid polytheism. It was pastorally wise then, and I can point to several such small changes in the text (e.g. the LXX omits Joshua praying to the Ark by omitting the phrase "before the Ark"). However, I'm not sure this is wise now given the state of things and the things that are happening now.
For the questions, I was able to guess a lot of them by recalling the KJV and inferring from contrast the answer, but I did not know them.
Always appreciate your insights, brother! The 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible that I have contains the Apocrypha.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thank you. In that case, it is in place three or four (depending on what happens) for my "buy Bible" list. I've got a few purchases lined up. :)
Interesting video. Not enitrely sure I'd label the Geneva bible a calvinist bible and the KJV not. Both were used by the broad reformed church.
But, I enjoyed the video. I didnt get seeing as mamy of your videos last year, youtube wasnt recommending them to me. Really looking forward to seeing what all you have coming this year.
Thanks! And to be clear, I was only designating what group was responsible for the translation of the Geneva, without making making any claim regarding the the KJV
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews no worries! Just with the nature of the comparison video, it seemed like another contrast. Again, I enjoyed the video, and I hope you are keeping well.
@gastie1 hello brother. There were Calvinists involved with the KJV. I have read where the Puritans and King James were Calvinists.
6 right 4 wrong. Good video
Not bad. Good work!
I missed a couple first there's Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
It actually was the marginal notes that gave the Pilgrims the resolve, confidence, and courage to leave for the New World.
100%
A bit confused on John 8:59. Pickering claims 99% of manuscripts line up with the KJV, while 1% (𝔓66,75, א, B, W [NA throws in Θ* too]) agree with Geneva on this one. Was there a different textual variant you had in mind?
Interesting interrelationship between the two. James charged the translators with using existing English translations. They weren't altogether faithful to that stipulation, as 39% is new material, but of the historic Bibles, Geneva was used most, with 19% of the KJV sourced to it, followed by Tyndale's work 18%, Coverdale's work 13%, and wrapping up with the Bishops' Bible and Wycliffe 4% each (source: intro to a Geneva 1560 facsimile)
This is interesting. However I have heard very different percentages then the ones you give here. I have not verified this. Do you have a resource to recommend on this topic?
@@wepreachchrist6685 I'm using Wilbur N. Pickering's The Greek New Testament According to Family 35 (Pickering holds that a particular Byzantine family of manuscripts is most likely to be close to the autographs. I don't buy his argument, but he does provide manuscript percentages for the variants in his footnotes) and cross-referenced with the Nestle-Aland, 28th Edition, which I have in a volume where the NA28 is on the left page and the equivalent ESV English on the right page that faces it.
I'll take the Geneva with all it's notes.
I am dreaming of a cheap bonded leather Majority Byzantine Text - Septuagint based Bible with many TR,CR & Masoretic footnotes with center column references and all cap quotes.
I might die of old age before this Bible becomes available.
9 correct. Interesting video
Great work!
70 - have both Bibles, plus 20 others
Nicely done!
I use both the KJV and the Geneva Bibles. One thing that has always bothered me is that King James wanted to keep control of not just England but also the Church. The Geneva Bible was supposedly dedicated to Elizabeth and it became very popular. So how is what King James did in assembling a group of translators to bring forth a new translation, an Authorized translation any different than say a Pope calling together a group to produce a Catholic Approved Bible? Both are in charge of their respective churches and desire control or loyalty. While the Geneva Bible was compiled by folks in exile from persecution and was 'for the people', the KJV seems to be more for the King and Church and people are secondary. There are sites that claim the KJV is divinely inspired and the only true word of God and ALL others are corrupt. Is such a view bordering on idolatry?
I thoroughly enjoyed this video and the quiz. I just subscribed. Thanks!
King James didn't compensate, as promised, to the translators of the KJV Bible. It should be a red flag.
Also instead of the word TYRANT that appears in Geneva, it was replaced with subtle term as TERROR.
Thanks for watching !
Geneva 2 Samuel
chapter 21verse19
And there was yet another battel in Gob with the Philistims, where
Elhanah ⭕️the sonne of Iaare-oregim, ⭕️
a Bethlehemite slewe Goliath the Gittite: the staffe of whose speare was like a weauers beame.
I scored 10. I really love the Geneva Bible and find it easier to understand in some passages than the KJV (which i also love).
Great job. Oddly the Geneva sometimes is easier to understand. You are right
Scored 10. Love the Geneva and use 1599 Tolle-Legge press version digital and hard copy as my primary Bible. I value greatly the margin notes. I also purchased facsimile of 1560. A treasure. I actually find it easier to read than KJV.
Very well done!
With respect to the issue arizing from question 10, I personally, in view of what Paul writes in Phil.2, am inclined to believe that the term ‘elohim’ in the Psalms is a reference to YHWH rather than ‘disembodied spirits’ (‘angels’) or at least, that’s how Paul understood it?!
For the record, 80% of the answers I knew for certain. The other 20% I was uncertain but I didn’t get them wrong. Every day a school day! 😀👍 Thanks
Simonline 🏴🤔🙏😀👍🇮🇱
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that one! Interesting!
Geneva 2 Samuel
chapter 21verse19
And there was yet another battel in Gob with the Philistims, where Elhanah the sonne of Iaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite slewe Goliath the Gittite: the staffe of whose speare was like a weauers beame. .
Taking online Bible quizzes i score 90 - 100%. I know my Bible, but I don't know the Geneva Bible. I got 5 correct, but I confess, most were guesses.
Next Bible is a Geneva Bible.
Not bad! It’s a pretty obscure subject!
I got a 100%🎉 Also King James did not agree with Calvinism; that being another reason he didn’t like the notes.
Nice score!! Well done!
excellant
Thank you! 🙂
i have both the 1599 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV
Scored 100%
Wow! Nicely done!
9 out of 10 for me.
Nicely done!
Why do many people continue to use “it’s” as a possessive? It’s is a contraction for “it is.” Asking for a friend 😂
As a teacher and editor for two newspapers, this bothers me as well. No matter how you try to teach/explain this, there are people who equate the apostrophe as possessive, disregarding the exceptions. Also, I see so many people trying to use the apostrophe and then an s for plurals, such as gorilla's. Another thing, you will see stores use the apostrophe and then s for describing something, such as "men's changing room" as being possessive rather than descriptive, "mens changing room".
@@Colorado_Native Ok teacher, can you explain why men is pluralized with an s when "men" is the plural form of a "man" already?
Romans 9.5 and 2 Peter 1.1 -- BIG difference between Geneva and KJV.
Perfect score😀 Geneva Bible truly bears protestantism flag
Wow! Great work!
Ps 8:5 Elohim occurs 2606 times and is translated "God" 2346 times and "god" 244 times. It is only translated "angels" in that one spot. The Septuagint and the Syriac use angels. Neither is really wrong. Divine being or heavenly being is better. The problem is modern theology really does not handle the plurality of the word Elohim well.
I Think It Was Rediculas For King James To Go With His Version Because Of The Marginal Notes.
What was Mary 1 role in persecuting Calvinists? Was it rivalry, Monopoly in religion?
Mary I persecuted Calvinists to restore Catholicism, aiming for religious monopoly. It was about rivalry and enforcing Catholic doctrine.
I only got 7 right...
I prefer the 1599 version I have over that 1560 one
Very nice!
90% didn't respond fast enough on the map question. There is a Geneva Bible 1599 with modern spelling instead of arcane spelling. Really enjoyed reading it. Personally, I believe the Geneva is better than the KJV because they didn't try to have flowery speech like KJV.
Nice score!
I scored 9 out of the 10. The one about Jesus wept! I just didn’t know the answer.
Great job!
Don't worry about it, just read it. God made sure that we could see the entire word of God in the first word in scripture. Barasheth or in the beginning. He speaks to us in letters numbers music and pictures in every Hebrew letter. A lot of translations are corrupt whether intentionally or unintentionally. The Holy Spirit will protect you and guide you into all God's truth... fear not selah ❤
Sadly 9/10. One I didn't know, so no guess.
That’s really good
I prefer to go with the Geneva Bible because it sounds like it was not taken from any texts that were in the hands of the Catholic cult for hundreds and thousand something years I don't trust texts that have been in the hands of the Catholics so therefore I much prefer the Dead Sea scrolls though the Geneva Bible wasn't taken from the Dead Sea scrolls cuz I hadn't been discovered yet it seems to match up more to the Dead Sea scrolls then any of the King James versions and as much as I love Martin Luther and think of him as a man of God he was a former Catholic priest and probably use text that were in the hands of Catholics . Can you suggest a reliable modern copy of the Geneva and where I can get one and also I refuse to have a Bible with her bar coder QR code in it it's getting really hard to find Bibles that don't have that . Thank you for your video
It wasntJaare orgim , it was Elhanan. easy to pronounce. What's the purpose of the quizzing? Are you going to show the differences?
Yep good point! My mistake. I’ve pinned a comment correcting it.
100% 😂 I’m a nerd it turns out.
Haha yes I think that means you qualify.
Neither are a correct translation.
10 ~ prefer ESV
Very nicely done!!
First off, the marginal notes that King James didn't like were the non, or anti-monarchy notes. Secondly, i noticed that you didn't mention that the KJV was also translated by Calvinists. Thirdly, it wasn't just the Calvinists per say, that fled to Geneva, it was Protestants under "bloody" Mary that fled to Geneva.
Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to contrast the KJV and the Geneva in regards to what groups translated them. I think you are right to say that it was mostly Calvinists that worked on the KJV. I'm not sure if all of them were. Thanks for adding some context here!
2 Samuel chaper 21 verse19 verse 21 KJV
[19]
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines,
where. Elhanan ⭕️
the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite,
slew the brother of Goliath⭕️
the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
[21] And when he defied Israel,
Jonathan the son of Shimea the⭕️ brother of David⭕️
slew him.
I got 9 Right
I thought France instead of Swiss.
Well done!!