The 1599 Geneva Bible: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

   The 1599 Geneva Bible has won the hearts of patriots, history enthusiasts, and King James Only-ists, but is it truly the Christian-America cornerstone that it claims it is?

"This Bible changed the world"
-Kirk Cameron, Actor

"The publication and promulgation of the 1599 Geneva Bible will help restore America's rich Christian heritage and reclaim the culture for Christ."
   - Dr. D. James Kennedy

   Has the Geneva Bible really changed the world?  --  Will it really help restore America's Christian heritage?  --   Can it truly reclaim our culture for Christ?   --  These are some bold claims. 
  I stated at the beginning that the "1599 Geneva Bible" has been widely accepted by KJV Only-ists. How can this be? Ask a King James Onlyist if they would consider studying from a modern version. After being laughed at and receiving a look as though you have four heads, you will probably spend the next few minutes listening to why they use only the King James Version and how they would never accept one of the new corrupt translations. Then present them with a Bible that portrays itself as the "1599 Geneva Bible" and suddenly they will become thankful for your thoughtfulness. Why should there be danger in studying from a version that "preceded" the 1611 King James Version? The next you know the once King James Onlyist has started reading the "1599" Geneva Bible and begins questioning the KJV translator's choice of words, and soon thereafter, their trust in the KJV has been damaged by doubts, variations, and unanswered questions: they have been deceived by the Wolf in Sheep's clothing.

HOW KJV ONLY-ISTS LOOK AT MODERN VERSION
We KJV only-ists hate every English translation printed after the A.V. 1611, starting with the R.V. of 1881, all the way to present day modern versions. We view other versions as enemies that seek to undermine the authority of the Authorized Version (KJV). We look at other versions and see that their manuscript lines are corrupt, that they are completely untrustworthy, and are nothing less than tools of Satan himself.

HOW KJV ONLY-ISTS LOOK AT  EARLY ENGLISH VERSIONS PRINTED BEFORE THE KJV
While versions printed after 1611 are seen as enemies, Bibles that were printed before the King James Bible are looked at in a different light. We see them as friends. They are predecessors, and forerunners of the King James Bible.  -  Honest and good, but not quite perfect translations that paved the way for the completed, perfected KJV.
 A King James Onlyist would never study from a modern version like the RSV or ASV, but that's not the case with an early English version such as the Taverner, Great, Cramner, Coverdale, or Geneva. He would accept this early ally with open arms.

We reject modern versions for three reasons:
1). The are flawed.
2). They are based on the incorrect Greek text.
3). They seek to undermine the authority of the King James Bible.
Because the Geneva Bible is based on the correct Greek text, and because it is in the line of Bibles preceding the King James Bible, we consider it an ally. Sadly, this early ally has been corrupted and points 1 and 3 now apply to it.
I will now turn a critical eye toward the Geneva Bible and expose the fraudulence that now surrounds it. Quite frankly, I am rather angry that I am having to approach the Geneva Bible the way that I will in this article, for I feel as though I'm being forced to shoot a friend.

A Little History of Early English Translations

  Desidirus Erasmus collated the available Greek texts and published his first Greek New Testament in 1516. Four other editions came after the initial publication in 1519 -- 1522 -- and 1527. Over successive editions by other editions this text aquired the name "Textus Receptus" ("Received Text") and is still called that to this day. The Textus Receptus was the basis for the early English giants like Tyndale's 1525 -- Coverdale's 1535 -- Matthew's 1537; 1560 -- Taverner's 1539 -- the Great Bible 1539 -- the Geneva Bible in 1560 -- and the King James Bible in 1611.

Why were none of the early English versions used as the perfect word of God?

  I am not God, therefore, I am unsure of His divine reasoning behind why he waited until 1611 to perfect His word (I do find it interesting that there were seven monumental early English translations preceding the A.V. 1611. Could it be because "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." - Psalms 12:6). However, I can give a few reasons as to why the early English versions were not chosen as God's perfect word.

1). The Instability of the English Language
  Though the early English versions were written in English (hence, "early English"), the English language still wasn't completely stable. Actually, it wasn't until the late 1500's - early 1600's that the English language solidified.
  Many people, even advocates of the KJV, are under the impression that the true 1611 Edition KJV was written in "old English". This just isn't so. In fact, it wasn't even "Middle" English. The 1611 KJV was written in modern, solid English. Sure the way the sentences are formed might sound like something British royalty would say, but "thee" and "thou" are hardly old English. Take a look at real old English as compared to the wording of the A.V. 1611, and the 1769 KJV.

John 1:5
1526 Tyndale (Old English)
"And the light fhysneth idarctnes/ad darctnes coprheded it not."

1611 KJV (Early Modern English)
"And the light fhineth in darkneffe, and the darkneffe comprehended it not."

1769 KJV (Early Modern English, Spelling Updates)
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

  As you can see there is a textual difference between the early English version and the King James Version. At first, it looks like there is a difference between the 1611 and the 1769, however, the only difference is the 1769 has updated spelling, there are no textual differences.
  The 1526 Tyndale is alot easier to read as I've typed it here than it would be if you were reading it in it's original Gothic style font.

  "The Geneva Bible was written during a period where the English language was transforming from Middle English to Early Modern English...English was also going through a shift in pronunciation that was caught in the printing press...Grammar was also changing, due to influence from other languages, the printing press, and from natural simplification...Sentence structure also changed..."  
   - [Bennett, Introduction to The 1599 Geneva Bible, 2003, xv-xvii]

 In this quote, taken from the Preface of the 2006 (Falsely dated "1599") Geneva Bible, Bennett admits to the instability of the English language during the time of the early English Bibles, including the Geneva Bible.

2.) Exlusive Translations
  Early English translations were products of either one-man or one-group translations. Looking at the names of the Bibles also gives this impression (i.e., Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale). The Great and Bishop's Bibles were translated exclusively for the Church of England. The Puritans were solely responsible for the translation of the Geneva Bible (which explains why it was so loved by early English-American settlers). The King James Bible, however, was translated from a mixed council of Anglicans and Puritans. To put that in perspective, that's like saying Cats and Dogs, Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, Capitalists and Socialists, night and day . . . get the picture? These two groups were complete opposites. The Anglicans would have been more at ease burning the Puritans at the stake than translating a Bible with them. So why did they do it? Well, generally in a monarchial government when the King gives an order, you don't genereally question it. King James I was a wise King for making the decision to make the Anglicans and Puritans collaborate on the translation of the Authorized Version (KJV). The presence of the Anglicans kept the Bible from being a duplicated Geneva Bible, and the presence of the Puritans kept the Anglicans from creating another Bishop's Bible under a new name. This ensured that the resulting translation would be accurate and bi-partisan. The King chose this method because he wanted a version that wasn't for use solely by the state or by the church, but for the common man.

3). They Were Flawed 
   As I have already covered, early English translations were good and honest attempts at the perfected word of God, but they were critically flawed. Every single one of them. Not intentionally flawed, but flawed nonetheless. For example:

1 John 2:23 KJV
"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

1 John 2:23 Geneva Bible
"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."

  The italicized words in the last half of the verse in the King James Version indicate that the translators added those words without any authority from a Greek text (or any other text for that matter). That's right, the second half of this verse is not in the Textus Receptus ("TR" Men, Originals Only-ists, and Scholarship Only-ists have a complete stroke right here). The translators added this half of the verse because they were moved of the Holy Spirit to add it. Not coincidentally at all, this "added" second half was found later on as more manuscripts were discovered. That half of the verse belonged in the text the entire time even though it wasn't in the "originals". The last half of this verse is also in Cramner's, the Great, and Bishop's Bibles. Even John Wycliffe put it in his Bible. William Tyndale and the Puritan's Geneva Bible missed this revelation.

The "1599" Hoax

  So far it looks as though the Geneva Bible is just like the other early English versions. Honest, unintentionally flawed attempts. So why am I writing this article to "attack" the Geneva Bible? Well get ready for the surprise! You ready? The 1599 Geneva Bible is a 2006 modern translation. That's right folks. There's nothing historic about the "1599 Geneva Bible", as a matter of fact, it doesn't deserve to be called a Geneva Bible at all, because it isn't. This Bible is just as evil as an NIV, RSV, ASV or any other modern version.
  The translators will even tell you that they lied when the put "1599 Geneva Bible" on the cover.

In the preface of the 1599 Geneva Bible we find written, "Every word, as well as exact sentence structure, of the source edition is retained." Really now? Well don't stop there, he's about to tell you the truth. "We added apostrophes for possessives...For instance, where the source text read 'God his mercy' this edition reads 'God's mercy' "

"We have also changed the spelling of the proper names in the Bible to that of the NKJV."
How could this truly be a 1599 edition Bible if they changed the spelling of proper names to that of a Bible that was printed in 1982?

"What seems like a spelling difference sometimes indicates a distinction in meaning that the original translators intended."
 How could Tolle Lege Press possibly know the intent of the Puritan translators?

"Occasional words or passages in the original-source Geneva Bible are beyond the realms of subtle ambiguity or theological debate. For example, in Matthew 3:16, the source Geneva reads that John saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and 'lightning' upon Jesus. Because the inteded word is so clearly 'lighting" we made the change."

"The Geneva Bible of 1560...has many archaic words. The purpose of this edition is to let the reader see what they are, not to see how we decided to translate them."

"There have been occasions when we simply could not discern the meaning of a word . . . In those few cases, we have used ellipses to indicate omitted text."
    After looking carefully, you can see that they are admitting to having made changes and even omissions. But wait! There's more.

  Right there on the front cover we see Tolle Lege Press has printed "1599 Geneva Bible"... but is it really a 1599? No. It most certainly is not. Tolle Lege Press labeled this book as a "1599 Geneva Bible" to intentionally deceive the naive reader into thinking that they possess an authentic copy of a 1599 Geneva Bible. Realistically, what they have is a 2006 modern version, and they tell you that on page xxiv, "This unique 2006 edition of the 1599 version..." It's not even a "clarification" of the 1599. It's another edition of a failed Geneva Bible publication in 2003 by L.L. Brown. Don't believe me? Look for yourself, they plainly say it on the first page of the Preface: "Our source copy was published by L.L. Brown (the 1599 Geneva Bible, Ozark, MO: L.L. Brown Publishing, 7th printing, 2003)".

  The spelling in the 2006 Geneva Bible is radically different to that of a true 1599 Geneva Bible.
John 3:16 2006 GB: "For God so loveth the world, that he hath given his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:16 1599 GB: "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne, that whosoever beleueth in him, should not peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

  Proponents of the Geneva Bible will respond and say that the 1611 King James Bible underwent spelling changes as well, and that we actually use a 1769 edition KJV today. All of that is true, however, 1769 KJV's don't have "1611" printed on the cover. They are often referred to as "1611's" because that is the year they were first printed. The Colt 1911 Automatic Pistol can still be bought today. It has many modern features that were not present on the firearms in the year 1911, however, it is still called a "Colt 1911" because of the year it was first manufactured. This is the same principle that applies to the "1611 KJV". So why doesn't that same rule work for the Geneva Bible?  The first Geneva New Testament was completed in 1557. The whole Geneva Bible was completed in 1599. The last Geneva Bible was printed in 1644. There have been several textual differences in these continued editions. The John 3:16 that we just quoted from the 1599 GB does not match that of the original 1557 edition.

John 3:16, 1557 GB "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne, that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."

So why didn't these guys just reprint the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible? Or, atleast the final printing edition of 1644? The answer is simple. The 1599 had already been done by L.L. Brown in 2003. That was the edition that was most readily available. If the motive was truly pure and L.L. Brown had reproduced a 1557 or 1644 or any edition in between, then the everyone would have praised that one as the "Bible that changed the world". Unfortunately, the motive here is less than pure. They goal isn't to reproduce the Geneva Bible or to give the people a "perfect word of God", the goal is to get you to read something other than the King James Version. They couldn't care less about the Geneva Bible, they care about the King James Bible. They care about getting you to read something, anything other than the King James Bible.

 Beware of the 2006 Geneva Bible: a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.

Article by: Mason Burchette