I know that the Geneva Bible was greatly loved by many Puritans. I was wondering did many well known Puritans use the KJV?
The Geneva version is acknowledged as a faithful reformation Bible. However, the AV was a significant improvement upon it. Note what the preface to Poole's Annotations says: "About the year 1640 some deliberations were taken for the composing and printing other English notes (the old Geneva Notes not so well fitting our new and more correct translation of the Bible)."
Much of the interest in the Geneva version is nostalgic, due to the revival of interest in Puritanism. As noted above, it is a myth that the Puritans preferred the Geneva over the AV. As the AV is more accurate, it by default became the standard Bible of the Puritans, and indeed of the English speaking world for nearly three centuries.
Thank you Ed. That was helpful. I understand the Puritans at the Westminster Assembly largely used the AV.The King James Bible, or Authorized Version, was actually requested by the Puritans at the Hampton Court Conference. It's not like the AV was an anti-Geneva project to start out with. Sure, once the project was under way, the King and non-Puritans wanted to limit some of the language found in the Geneva bible. But the AV is largely an improvement over the Geneva. For this reason, the Puritans, over time, used the AV over the Geneva.
It's worth noting that in many places. the KJV isn't very different from the Geneva. Consider Gen 1:26-28Thank you Ed. That was helpful. I understand the Puritans at the Westminster Assembly largely used the AV.
Thanks. This would make sense. The Westminster Standards used the KJV, and I guess Puritans after (approx.) 1640 also did so.Thinking about it, makes sense that 1640 being the approximate time the 1611 AV overtook the Geneva in popularity, since the Confessions were composed beginning in the late 1640s.
Both the Geneva Bible and the KJV come from the rich Tyndale tradition.It's worth noting that in many places. the KJV isn't very different from the Geneva.
I guess they would miss the Reformed and spiritually rich Geneva Bible notes though.I'm sure there are some places where the changes were more controversial, but you can see why even Puritans might accept it as an obvious improvement over the Geneva.
Beza made arguments for why the current editions couldn’t be correct, and stated that he restored it to what was surely the original wording as he found in “an ancient” manuscript. We don’t know what manuscript that was, as we don’t have it now (which has led some scholars to say Beza mistakenly claimed that). I believe there is a pre-Bezan version with this reading also.Both the Geneva Bible and the KJV come from the rich Tyndale tradition.
I guess they would miss the Reformed and spiritually rich Geneva Bible notes though.
There is one interesting verse that the Geneva Bible gets right - Rev 16:5
"And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: and Holy, because thou hast judged these things."
The CSB agrees " I heard the angel of the waters say, You are just, the Holy One, who is and who was, because you have passed judgment on these things."
However the KJV, following Beza's textual emendation reads:
"And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus."
Most translations following the original agree with the Geneva Bible.
But I am sure you are right - there are many places where the KJV is an obvious improvement over the Geneva Bible.
Like many, Matthew decided to trim his online presence several years ago. He does occasionally read the board but no longer is active or logs in.I remember Matthew Winzer, as do many here. Whatever happened to him, anyway? He just sort of disappeared from the site.