Geneva Bible versus Authorised Version

[Eoghan]

As I understand it King James insisted on "Bishops" as the preferred translation. Influencing the translation in this way would not have played well with everyone.

 

[Eoghan]

nor buggerers"

Try reading that in public. That said the ESV footnote is fairly direct

1. 1 Corinthians 6:9 The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts

 

[Tom Hart]

"Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers"

The Geneva gets straight to the point. Buggerer is indeed a more forthright translation.

More forthright, perhaps, but the word has fallen entirely out of use.

 

[iainduguid]

More forthright, perhaps, but the word has fallen entirely out of use.

Not entirely. It's a fairly common swear word in Britain, although I suspect most people aren't thinking of its historical sense. In some parts of Britain it isn't even very offensive, although my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap if I had used it.

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

It's a fairly common swear word in Britain, although I suspect most people aren't thinking of its historical sense.

I believe I Australia it is used in the same way.

Even if a word is no longer frequently in use today, I do believe that we as lovers of the Reformation period and beyond have a responsibility to ensure the language survives. If we lose the words the books die with them, together with their valuable teachings.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

More forthright, perhaps, but the word has fallen entirely out of use.

And? I had never heard the term until the Geneva. It took all of twenty seconds to look it up. Most individuals have a cellphone attached to them like it is a limb. In the time one spends on social media, they could have learned twenty new words in a dictionary app.

 

[Tom Hart]

Not entirely. It's a fairly common swear word in Britain, although I suspect most people aren't thinking of its historical sense. In some parts of Britain it isn't even very offensive, although my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap if I had used it.

Thanks, I was not aware of this. In Canada, some people might use the term minus er, but it's uncommon and the original meaning is mostly forgotten.

Even if a word is no longer frequently in use today, I do believe that we as lovers of the Reformation period and beyond have a responsibility to ensure the language survives. If we lose the words the books die with them, together with their valuable teachings.

I think this is an overstatement, and anyway does not take into consideration the inevitable evolution of language.

And? I had never heard the term until the Geneva. It took all of twenty seconds to look it up. Most individuals have a cellphone attached to them like it is a limb. In the time one spends on social media, they could have learned twenty new words in a dictionary app.

You may prefer the term, but the point is that one really shouldn't have to look it up. The Geneva Bible while an excellent translation, is not suitable for modern pulpits because of its archaic language. I would think that's fairly obvious.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

one really shouldn't have to look it up.

How sad that we live in a day where one "shouldn't have to look up" definitions of words. Especially considering how spoiled we are with information and how instant it is.

 

[Tom Hart]

How sad that we live in a day where one "shouldn't have to look up" definitions of words. Especially considering how spoiled we are with information and how instant it is.

You misunderstand. Language changes. Words fall out of use. You'd probably have a hard time reading Wyclif's Bible, and for a good reason. There are Old English psalms and gospels from King Alfred's day. I'd reckon you don't refer to those on a regular basis.

Look, I'm a big fan of the KJV, and I'm not about to switch to a modern version. But most people I know aren't there. That's OK. I have no problem with them studying modern English Bibles.

By all means, read and study the Geneva Bible on your own. But to ask that the Geneva Bible should be read from the pulpit is to demand an impediment to many people's understanding.

I'll say it again: You shouldn't have to look up "buggerer". It's inevitable that some words would be new to a reader. You'll have to look some things up from time to time. But - let's be honest - the original readers of the Geneva Bible (nearly 500 years ago) would not have had to pull out a dictionary too often.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Buggerer is indeed a more forthright translation.

Not entirely. It's a fairly common swear word in Britain, although I suspect most people aren't thinking of its historical sense. In some parts of Britain it isn't even very offensive, although my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap if I had used it.

In Canada

In New Zealand (and I understand the situation was similar in Australia and Canada) we had a Buggery law in the 19th century. We inherited it from England.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Interesting article by the Bible League Trust comparing the Geneva Bible and the AV. https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/the-geneva-bible-and-the-authorised-version-compared-3/