The 1599 Geneva Bible

a reply to: OptimusSubprime

Indeed, I know it's rather archane, but it has it's sides, like Disraeli noted above here.

ETA: It does hold credit for being the first printed bible to have been completely translated from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Contrary to the 1611 KJV. And the Geneva is extremely rich in cross references and scholarly notes. And I think it was the first bible to have numbered chapter and verses, but I may be mistaken.

Just as a sample using esword program with a click of the mouse I can compare the different bible verses . John 3:16 (ASV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

(Bishops) For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not perishe, but haue euerlastyng lyfe.

(Darby) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal.

(ESV) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

(Geneva) For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

(ISV) "For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.

(KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(KJV+) ForG1063 GodG2316 soG3779 lovedG25 theG3588 world,G2889 thatG5620 he gaveG1325 hisG848 only begottenG3439 Son,G5207 thatG2443 whosoeverG3956 believethG4100 inG1519 himG846 should notG3361 perish,G622 butG235 haveG2192 everlastingG166 life.G2222

(KJV-1611) For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

(RV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

(Webster) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(YLT) for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

a reply to: dollukka

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

(Geneva) For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

(Geneva 1599 with "modern" spelling) 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.

I only have a few versions downloaded but there are about 20 or more I could get . There is a good selection of commentaries and dictionaries as well . Like you I have my old Strongs but my eyes are not what they once were so the ability to expand the screen and just mouse over the strongs reference saves time . a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Yea I just checked and my version is a 1587 a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Thanks for the reference, downloading e-Sword right now,

another program which may interest you and which I already have and will now use in conjunction with e-Sword is a program called the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer, available for free DL at: www.scripture4all.org...

It shows the original Hebrew/Greek text alongside the AV and has a built in Strong's Concordance.

Thanks and God bless

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Have you looked up the story of Adam and Eve?
I believe that's the version where they "made themselves breeches".

Haha, yey, they DID make themselves breeches here. Wonder if they didn't have it already?!? Like did Adam have a bellybutton?

It was referred to as "the Breeches Bible" on that account.

On the question of Adam's bellybutton, I'll take the word of Old Jack Hamilton. He was the preacher that baptized me lo those many years ago. he was a "Reformation preacher", preached reformation doctrine (think Calvinism, and you're on it). He had retired as pastor of a big church, and came to preach at the little church I went to in those days, as it was more in line with his own doctrine. He refused to accept any money for preaching at the church, and ran a little antiquarian bookshop as a hobby and for spending money, I reckon. One day, he was sitting in the bookshop pricing some "new" (to the shop) books he had bought at an estate sale. Someone asked me if I knew so and so, and I replied "I wouldn't know him from Adam". Jack never even looked up from his work, he just said "Adam didn't have a navel." I kinda looked at him crazy and said "huh?" Brilliant response, I know. Anyhow, Jack maintained that only a man born of woman has a navel, since it's the scar from the umbilical cord. Adam wasn't born of woman, so he didn't have one.

Jack's world was sometimes simple and straight to the point like that. There's a lot to be said for it.

I fell in love with the Geneva Bible after reading in one at a library in the 80's. Now I've got an electronic copy of it as one of the versions in my "BPBible" program ( a variant of the aforementioned E-Sword). Some passages in it are far more down to earth (Perhaps at times downright "earthy"), less flowery, and hence more readable and understandable (to me anyhow) that the King James Version.

I believe that originally it had the "Apocrypha" all gathered into one place, and bound in the center between the two testaments, just as the original KJV did. At some later point, the Apocrypha was taken out of the bindings of those bibles and published separately, as a separate volume. Vast herds of protestants nowadays are entirely unaware that there even IS a King James Version of the Apocrypha. Protestants viewed the Apocrypha as non-cannonical, but valuable for reading... but most today (especially the fundamentalist KJV-thumpers) don't even know it exists in their own version of the Bible.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: JustMike
a reply to: godlover25
The first complete, printed Bible in English was the Coverdale Bible from 1535.

How can this be when:

Gutenberg was the first European to use movable type printing, in around 1439.

?

Gutenburg printed in German, I believe, whereas JustMike specified that the first complete English edition was the Coverdale.

a reply to: nenothtu

I stand corrected - the Gutenburg Bible was in Latin, not German. It was an edition of the Vulgate.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: JustMike
a reply to: godlover25
The first complete, printed Bible in English was the Coverdale Bible from 1535.

How can this be when:

Gutenberg was the first European to use movable type printing, in around 1439.

?

Gutenburg printed in German, I believe, whereas JustMike specified that the first complete English edition was the Coverdale.

The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible, the Mazarin Bible or the B42) was the first major book printed in the West using movable type. It marked the start of the "Gutenberg Revolution" and the age of the printed book in the West. Widely praised for its high aesthetic and artistic qualities, the book has an iconic status. Written in Latin, the Gutenberg Bible is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Johannes Gutenberg, in Mainz, Germany, in the 1450s.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here they place the first printed book as late as the 1450's Sure not the mentioned English bibles were hand styled?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Yea I just checked and my version is a 1587 a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The obvious difference in these two verses serves to show the extent of the transformation English language and many other European languages were going through at around the time of the advent of movable type printing. Compared to modern presses, these primitive Gutenberg-presses were extremely slow and it would take a skilled typesetter about 20 minutes setting and correcting a bible page. And then came the printing itself. With the bible we're talking about 2000+ pages so let's say they could print one bible in around two months, still much faster than hand copying, and lots more accurate and predictable. Not sure if these numbers are fully accurate, I only share what I've heard from old lead setters at the pub (all the typographers moved from the presses to the pubs in the beginning of the 80's at the advent of off-set printing).

I had a good friend that had a big array of old printing presses and worked in his shop till the day he died ( probably from led poisoning ) Some of the work he did was real slow but it had a different quality to it that the newer devices couldn't replicate . Something that has been on my mind as of late goes to the Book of Isaiah and the copy of that book they had in the dead sea scrolls . I heard it said that comparing our modern day version to it , it comes to the same translation . I am sure even the Hebrew language has changed but like the two versions of the Geneva in a short time has a noticeable difference the message remains the same .

They did take extra care in hand copying and would count the letters and would even do a total number value of the letters along with the number of letters . They also made notes to any changes in spelling from the old to the new so they were quite detailed .It's only been in recent years that sort of stuff has any interest for me ,and I guess when you think about it you have a better appreciation for the work and dedication . a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: the2ofusr1

There's a Norwegian organist and freemason who is also an amateur cryptographer-- Petter Amundsen. He has found a well of intricate geometrical patterns and codes in Shakespeare's first folio, which lead him to an island in Canada, Oak Island I think, where they found amazing stuff, like millstones placed in the pattern of the sefiroth of the Kabalistic tree of life. Theory is, that hidden beneath the structures they found beneath the earth there, anything from the Templar's treasure, to the Ark of Covenant, to Shakespeare's complete bibliography stored in tanks of quicksilber.

Anyway, the stuff he has found in the first folio is a mazing, and shows how the Gutenberg press opened up a well of possibilities to encode all kinds of ciphers and geometry. It was quite common, especially in the early days.

Pretty far out these notes that often make out up to 1/4th of the pages in this print. Very doctrinal and the references are often what should I say, quite spartan and rather zealous it turns out. It's like the bible is also a doctrinal manifesto and dictionary. This book is a Protestant powerload. I can easily see why the Lutheranians prefered this bible.

I sort of live in the neighborhood of Oak Island and visit the south shore of Novia Scotia in the summer on my way back up around The Bay of Fundy . I have read a few threads about Oak Island and found most of them to be more speculation then with anything substantive .It has lots of intrigue and taking the route I do there are lots of places that have tales and a strange feel about them .I like finding some of the older grave yards and putting the dates and names in a historical context that is not quite the same narrative as the local history books .Most people today don't stop to consider what the earliest time for the French/English settlers were actually like .The road systems were rivers and Native path systems leading to other rivers .Still today some of the places still carry the Native names but for the most part the Natives have been assimilated or just on the reserve system .
Saint Pierre and Miquelon en.wikipedia.org... would seem to be out of place and I always wondered if the British and the French didn't decide to play things out the way they did in order to distort the history ...I guess I am just rambling out loud ...peace
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Saint Pierre and Miquelon en.wikipedia.org... would seem to be out of place and I always wondered if the British and the French didn't decide to play things out the way they did in order to distort the history ...I guess I am just rambling out loud ...peace
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

From the article:

The first European discovery of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon was on 21 October 1520, by the Portuguese João Álvares Fagundes, who bestowed on them their original name of "Islands of the 11,000 Virgins", as the day marked the feast day of St. Ursula and her virgin companions.

Now that beats even the most generous interpretation of the Koran.

Like I said sometimes you look at what is in a area and especially the grave sites and names and dates and it makes you wonder . It was on that Island that a Jesuit Priest first developed a written word for the Migmaw language . a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The team's metal detectors responded for gold at the bottom of a lake they drained. Guess there will be enough for everyone.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: JustMike
a reply to: godlover25
The first complete, printed Bible in English was the Coverdale Bible from 1535.

How can this be when:

Gutenberg was the first European to use movable type printing, in around 1439.

?

Gutenburg printed in German, I believe, whereas JustMike specified that the first complete English edition was the Coverdale.

The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible, the Mazarin Bible or the B42) was the first major book printed in the West using movable type. It marked the start of the "Gutenberg Revolution" and the age of the printed book in the West. Widely praised for its high aesthetic and artistic qualities, the book has an iconic status. Written in Latin, the Gutenberg Bible is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Johannes Gutenberg, in Mainz, Germany, in the 1450s.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here they place the first printed book as late as the 1450's Sure not the mentioned English bibles were hand styled?

The very first Bible in English WAS hand written, and was produced in the 1380's by John Wycliffe. It was an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, which at the time had become very corrupted. There was a death penalty at the time for anyone who read the bible in any language other than Latin, meaning that one could conceivably be killed for reading it in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The Pope was not amused by Wycliffe, but evidently couldn't get hold of him at the time, and 44 years after Wycliffe's death ordered that he be exhumed, his bones crushed, and scattered into a river.

There is also an electronic edition of Wycliffe's bible available for the E-Sword program. I have a copy of it in my BPBible installation. There are print editions of it available now it seems, because I have a friend who reads no other version of the bible than the Wycliffe.

The first non-Latin Vulgate to be printed was produced in 1516, by Erasmus, and was a corrected version of the Latin Vulgate translated from the original Greek, which was printed along side the Latin for verification. This translation was only the New Testament.

William Tyndale's translation of the New Testament (from Erasmus's printed edition in Greek and Latin) was produced in 1525-1526, and was the first English edition of the New Testament to see print. He had to translate it on the run, evading inquisitors and bounty hunters because of his efforts to translate it into English. There were subsequent editions of the Tyndale New Testament produced in the 1530's. The Tyndale New Testament is also available in an electronic form for the aforementioned programs, and is present in my installation.

King Henry VIII resisted the distribution of the Tyndale, yet a copy of it somehow came to rest in his bedchambers. There were burnings of copies of both the Tyndale and the Wycliffe bibles - the pyre used to burn John Hus at the stake was kindled by Wycliffe Bible manuscripts. One could be burned at the stake for the crime of merely possessing a Tyndale New Testament... unless one were king, it appears.

The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of the original Tyndale translation.

Today there are only two known copies of the 1525/26 Tyndale. Tyndale successfully evaded the inquisitors for 11 years, printing his edition of the bible on the continent and smuggling it into England. He was betrayed, caught, and strangled then burnt at the stake in 1536. three years later in 1539, King Henry VIII allowed and even funded the printing of the bible in English, which edition was known as "the Great Bible".

The first complete bible (both old and new testaments) to be printed in English was printed in 1535, the "Coverdale Bible". The source for it was Luther's German text and the Latin.

More Reading

a reply to: nenothtu

Tyndale actually had a copy of Martin Luthers translation of New Testament which gave him an idea to do translation in to english ( you can´t dismiss the influence Luthers writings in english version ).