Resource 1560 Geneva Bible pdf - bookmarked by book and chapter 2014-01-09

King James outlawed the printing of the Geneva Bible after the KJV 1611 came out; therefore, you're at odds with the king!

I've also heard that the pilgrims on the Mayflower wouldn't even consider the KJV because King James presided over its translation -- in modern terms, this would be like having BHO dictate how a new translation was to be done.

Apparently, the king and "liberal" scholars disdained the scholarly translation and hard-hitting commentaries that didn't "close one eye" to sin.

 

Some more very interesting information about the Geneva Bible. The text below is copied from this link:The Reformed Reader introduction to the geneva bible for the historic Baptist faith.​

The Geneva Bible
An Introduction to the Geneva Bible ​

For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today's Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the newer Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland,* William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively.

Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva Bible, though he quotes the Geneva Bible in his own writing, As a Professor Eadie reported it:

". . . his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favor with his English churchmen." 1
​

The irony goes further. 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. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication.

First, King James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. 2 Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even chance that James was the product of adultery* (G.P.V. Alerigg Jacobean Pageant p.6.). Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been scotched. 3

Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburg. King Henry survived the explosion, only to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England. 4

To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.

This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent placed in the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere dithering of dissidents.

First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage," (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James

Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era, religion was controlled by the government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious "choices":

1. Roman Catholicism
2. Silence.
3. The Inquisition.

The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous.

England wasn't much different. From the time of Henry VIII on, an Englishman had three choices:

1. The Anglican Church.
2. Silence.
3. The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form of persuasion.

The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of their own were simply punished according to the royal whim.

Henry VIII, once he had appointed himself head of all the English churches, kept the Roman Catholic system of bishops, deacons and the like for a very good reason. That system allowed him a "chain of command" necessary for any bureaucracy to function. This system passed intact to his heirs.

This system became a little confusing for English citizens when Bloody Mary * ascended to the throne. Mary wanted everyone to switch back to Roman Catholicism. Those who proved intransigent and wanted to remain Protestant she burned at the stake - about 300 people in all. She intended to bum a lot more, but the rest of her intended victims escaped by leaving the country.

A tremendous number of those intended victims settled in Geneva. Religious refugees from other countries in Western Europe, including the French theologian Jean Chauvin, better known as John Calvin, also settled there.

Mary died and was succeeded to the throne by her Protestant cousin, Elizabeth. The Anglican bureaucracy returned, less a few notables such as Archbishop Cranmer and Hugh Latimer (both having been burned at the stake by Bloody Mary). In Scotland, John Knox led the Reformation.

The Reformation prospered in Geneva. Many of those who had fled Bloody Mary started a congregation there. Their greatest effort and contribution to the Reformation was the first Geneva Bible.

More marginal notes were added to later editions.

* Daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. She became queen in 1553 after her brother, Edward VI, died.
​

By the end of the 16th Century, the Geneva Bible had about all the marginal notes there was space available to put them in.

Geneva was an anomaly in 16th Century Europe. In the days of absolute despotism and constant warfare, Geneva achieved her independence primarily by constant negotiation, playing off one stronger power against another. While other governments allowed lawyers to drag out cases and took months and years to get rid of corrupt officials, the City of Geneva dispatched most civil and criminal cases within a month and threw corrupt officials into jail the day after they were found out. The academy that John Calvin founded there in 1559 later became the University of Geneva.

Religious wars wracked Europe. The Spanish fought to restore Roman Catholicism to Western Europe. The Dutch fought for the Reformation and religious freedom. England, a small country with only 4 ? million people, managed to stay aloof because of the natural advantage of the English Channel.

The Dutch declared religious freedom for everybody. Amsterdam became an open city*. English Puritans arrived by the boatload. The 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible was printed in Amsterdam and London in large quantities until well into the 17th Century.

*At the time Geneva, was a city-state. Geneva did not become part of Switzerland until 1815.
​

King James, before he became James I of England, made it plain that he had no use for the "Dutch" rebel who had rebelled against their Spanish King.

Another of the ironies left us from the 16th Century is that freedom of religion and freedom of the press did not originate in England, as many people commonly assume today. Those freedoms were first given to Protestants by the Dutch, as the records of that era plainly show. England today does not have freedom of the press the way we understand it (There are things in England such as the Official Secrets Act that often land journalists in jail.)

England was relatively peaceful in the time of Elizabeth I. There was the problem of the Spanish Armada, but that was brief Elizabeth later became known as "Good Queen Bess," not because she was so good, but because her successor was so bad.

Elizabeth died in 1603 and her cousin, James Stuart, son of Mary Stuart, who up until that time had been King James VI of Scotland, ascended the throne and became known as King James I of England.

James ascended the throne of England with the "divine right of kings" firmly embedded in his mind. Unfortunately, that wasn't his only mental problem.

* In those days an "open city' was one in which the inhabitants were allowed to believe in or print what they preferred
​

King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject.

The King was queer. The very people who use the King James Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out of their congregations.

The depravity of King James I didn't end with sodomy. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it "hunting." Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying.

James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in 1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland. James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners.

One "witch" Barbara Napier, was acquitted. That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court on May 10, 1591, ordering a sentence of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the King himself presided at a new hearing (which could hardly be called a trial) and was gracious enough to release them without punishment when they reversed their verdict.

<...snip...>
Read the rest at The Reformed Reader introduction to the geneva bible for the historic Baptist faith.

 

I've been looking for a discussion about the 1560 Geneva Bible for several years! I read from my 1560 Geneva Bible everyday now. I also read the King James Version, but prefer the 1560 Geneva Bible.

I'll have some questions about a few strange words and phrases I've found ...

 

I'll have to sit down and go through my 1560 Geneva Bible and jot down some notes ..... Will post when I have some questions ready ...

 

I looked through my 1560 Geneva Bible and found these strange words:

Job 5:26 - ricke of corne

Job 9:19 - plaide

Isaiah 1:31 - towe

Isaiah 4:20 - sloppes

Isaiah 4:22 - wimpels

Isaiah 4:23 - launes

Jeremiah 1:17 - trusse

Jeremiah 2:24 - snoffeth

Proverbs 6:6 - pismire

I'll find more words soon .....

 

Melbo. I mean this with all sincerity. You are one truly multi-talented and unique dude.

 

Naw sorry, Number one: I don't know her ( Although I'm sure she's a fine woman) Number two: We need to keep you humble and browbeaten as all married men are so that you can keep doing the fine job that you are. I've read a lot of the older posts and you and the others have covered a lot of important subjects to get people on the right track. Enjoy that glass of wine!

 

Thanks! It didn't take me long to figure out that the letters "u" and "v" are interchangeable, and "s" looks like an "f". Other peculiarities are the abbreviations for "the" and "who", and é which means the hidden letter "n", and of course many variations in spelling, which makes for interesting and a little more challenging reading ....

I've been studying Middle English too, but I still run into words that aren't in my glossary. I've also started reading the Wycliffe Bible (1395).

 

Isaiah 4:20 - sloppes: A type of pants worn during the 1500's also called slops went to the knees...


What are Paned Slops?

Slops (also known as "paned slops", "pluderhosen", "pumpkin breeches", or, less vulgarly, "round paned hose") are clothing for men. They are short pants, worn over tights or other long pants. They are characterised by being made up of 2, usually contrasting, layers; the inside layer acting as a stuffing to give the characteristic pumpkin shape and the outside layer being made of strips of fabric which let the inner layer peek through.

 

Isaiah 1:31 - towe: Tow is a coarse, broken fiber such as flax, hemp, or jute


Isaiah 4:22 - wimpels: The wimple is a garment of medieval Europe worn by women around the head. It is a cloth which usually covers the head and is worn around the neck and chin. At many stages of medieval culture it was unseemly for a married woman to show her hair. A wimple might be elaborately starched, and creased and folded in prescribed ways, even supported on wire or wicker framing (cornette). Italian women abandoned their headcloths in the 15th century, or replaced them with transparent gauze, and showed their elaborate braids. Both elaborate laundry and elaborate braiding demonstrated status, in that such grooming was being performed by others


Job 9:19 - plaide
The word plaid, derived from the Scottish Gaelic plaide, meaning "blanket",

 

works for me...

 

I set aside some time each day for this forum and continue to be astounded by the diversity of subjects, intellegent discussions, common interests and burried treasures.

Thanks for sharing the .pdf melbo, this is a keeper.

 

First, I appreciate the post Melbo. It's a interesting read that helps us reflect on the early (or "late early") church that got us to where we are.

I understand the history of how the KJV came about and the controversy with Geneva notes. My issue is- who cares what's in the notes?

I think one of the most misunderstood things in the Bible is the relationship with Gov't v. the relationship with Christ. Because these seem to be at odds in the Bible, a lot of "patriots" disregard the Bible and Christianity as a simple way to control people. They may be right in regards to a tyrannical gov't, but being a Christian, no authority is as great as God's.

My point is Romans 13....

From the Geneva Bible:
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; and the powers that be, are ordained of God.
From the New American Standard:
1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

As can be seen from the two translations, there is isn't much difference. Most modern translations translate off the earliest available texts. Since they are generally translated into an easier to understand modern English, you really don't have to jar your brains trying to understand "olde" English. The real question being- are you concerned with margin notes or actual Bible content?

As for the Bible be for/against tyrannical rule, as can be seen from the above passage, the Bible warns against tyrannical rule and states that there is only one true Authority. The New Testament, being written at a time when the gov't was at odds with Christianity, presents a "turn the other cheek" attitude toward gov't. The reason is simple- God will do His plan regardless of the earthly authority. He has worked through non-believers before and will in the future as needed. If He deems it necessary to over-turn the gov't, He will... afterall, He is God.

The only reason why I post this is because there are a lot of people that espouse violence and use the scripture as a reason for violence (ie, "I'm doing God's work. This gov't is unGodly"). The opposite extreme is those who use the Bible to depict our worldly leaders as an extension of God (the comparison of BO as the messiah being a good example). I believe the truth lies in the middle. If the government is doing things at odds that test your beliefs, you should follow the higher authority. Of course, I believe the higher authority can be found in the Bible.

With that in mind, I present this- what are you prepared to kill/murder over? I say kill/murder because it will depend upon whether you are following a worldly or Divine Authority.

Anyways, I think this is a great post. Every Christian should read for himself and do some research into the early church and texts. Once you do, it really opens your eyes into how He is an active God and how things do happen for a reason (His reason).

I just found out about this book an it will be one of my near term reads:
Amazon.com: Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (9781595551382): Eric Metaxas, Timothy J. Keller: Books
I read the Glenn Beck interview with the author, Eric Metaxas, and it really sounded interesting. Particularly the difference in dead religion of 1930s Germany compared to the Spirit in the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem.
Glenn Beck: Why Dietrich Bonhoeffer Matters - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

 

I would agree. Allow governance until the elected officials stray. the next question to be asked is what do we do when they stray? Do we take up arms over worldly ideas? Do we vote them out and vote in new? Do we pray over our elected officials (there is Biblical principle to praying for them)?

It's a tough question to answer. One of these answers for the wrong reasons goes against God more than the original encroachment by the government. How wrapped up in worldly authority should we be? Is the majority of our time spent dwelling over these issues or the more divine issues with our own salvation?

My head hurts