SITE NOTICE | MORE..Android Version 2.1 Update! We've already released our first update to the Android app which includes auto-retry of playback after network interruption, maps support in tablets, stability fixes, and more! .. click for more info!
Why would anyone want to pay this rediculous amount of money for a bible. Isnt the content the same as any other good reformed bible(the reformation study bible would be a good place to start). Its the word within that can change lives not who once used used the bible. The covenaters were men who died for there beliefs. Its appaling that people should be profitering from what was a period in time when Christians were martyred for there belief.
The King James Bible copied great swaths of material from the Geneva Bible. It was also disliked because of the anti-Catholic comments in it (not politically correct) and because people did rise up against kings (also not politically correct.)
Quite a good commentary on the Geneva bible can be found here,"Part I: From Wycliffe to King James (The Period of Challenge)"
Wayne M. wrote: Wasn't the Geneva Bible translated basically from the same manuscripts as the Authorized KJV 1611?
"The Geneva Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the l6th and 17th centuries, which was printed from 1560 to 1644 in over 200 different printings.
In addition to being the reason for its popularity, the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible were also the reason for its demise. These strongly Protestant notes so infuriated King James that he considered it "seditious" and made its ownership a felony. James I was particularly worried about marginal notes such as the one in Exod 1: 19, which allowed disobedience to Kings. Consequently, King James eventually introduced the King James Version, which drew largely from the Geneva Bible (minus the marginal notes that had enraged him). During the reign of James I and into the reign of Charles I the use of the Geneva Bible steadily declined as the Authorized King James version became more widely used. In 1644 the Geneva Bible was printed for the last time." [Dr. C M McMahon]
Tony Borrelli wrote: If Hume was a Covenanter, we can surmize that this is a Geneva Bible. Many of us KJV folks sometimes forget that the people we admire most, the Puritans despised the "Authorized" version because it was commissioned by King James due to his dislike for the "Christ Alone Is King" slant. We should recall that when we are unduly harsh to those who prefer a version other than the KJV.
I don't think we should be harsh with someone using a modern version, but let me ask you: Wasn't the Geneva Bible translated basically from the same manuscripts as the Authorized KJV 1611? If so, the Puritans could not have gone wrong in continuing to use the Geneva Bible. The difference between those early English versions and the modern versions of today is the modern versions are based upon the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts discovered in the 1800s. These deviate from the Received Text in about 5000 places in the New Testament.
I don't think King James I was involved in producing the KJV 1611, other than the fact he commissioned the work to be done by learned men.
"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth." Rev. 1:5a KJV 1611
If Hume was a Covenanter, we can surmize that this is a Geneva Bible. Many of us KJV folks sometimes forget that the people we admire most, the Puritans despised the "Authorized" version because it was commissioned by King James due to his dislike for the "Christ Alone Is King" slant. We should recall that when we are unduly harsh to those who prefer a version other than the KJV.