Textual differences between the KJV and its main English source--the Geneva

[logos1560]

The 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV along with other pre-1611 English Bibles are placed on the KJV-only view's "pure" stream of Bibles or good tree of Bibles. The fact of actual textual differences on the KJV-only view's "pure" stream would be a serious problem for their two-separate-streams-of-Bibles argument or two separate lines-of-Bibles argument.

How would it be possible for there to be any actual conflicting textual differences or textual corruption in a 100% pure stream or line of Bibles?

I know of no source that provides a list of the actual textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and 1611 KJV that some have claimed are "practically identical" or are basically the same Bibles. I have seen mention of a couple differences in some non-KJV-only sources such as at Luke 17:36 or at John 14:1, but no suggestion that there was over 20 textual differences. All these differences are not found in those later editions of the Geneva Bible that had Laurence Tomson's 1576 New Testament instead of the 1560 Geneva Bible NT.

For example, Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger also wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe of thy Word, p. 566). Riplinger asserted that “generally speaking, the early English Bibles are the same” (p. 130; Hidden History, p. 37). Riplinger asserted that “the words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 859). Riplinger even indicated that those previous early English Bibles “were no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJB” (Hidden History of the English Scriptures, p. 59). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text underlying the King James Version” (Which Bible Is God‘s Word, p. 51). Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot [which was an edition of the Geneva Bible] as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108). Riplinger claimed: “According to the rules of translation, the [KJV] translators’ final authority was early English Bibles, particularly the Bishops’” (Hidden History, p. 41).

This is not presented as being a complete list. This will give those interested in learning the facts and the truth some starting places to check in comparing the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV.

While some of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles have other textual differences because based on Erasmus's earlier Greek editions such as not having Mark 11:26, Revelation 21:26, and a textual difference at Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:22, this list will also serve to indicate some of the actual textual differences in the varying Textus Receptus editions and in the Greek manuscripts on which those TR editions were based.

Likely Textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV
Matthew 1:11 "Jacim. And Jacim begat" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible are not in the 1611 KJV] [see also 1611 edition's marginal note]

Matthew 26:26
and when he had given thanks [1560 Geneva Bible]
and blessed it [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Mark 8:14
And they had forgotten [1560 Geneva Bible]
Now the disciples had forgotten [1611 KJV] [the 1769 KJV edition would put "the disciples" in italics by comparison to the 1550 Stephanus TR edition, but this textual difference is found in an edition of Beza likely followed by the KJV translators]

Mark 8:24
I see men for I see them walking like trees [1560 Geneva Bible]
I see men as trees, walking [1611 KJV]

Mark 9:16
among yourselves [1560 Geneva Bible]
with them [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Mark 15:3 "but he answered not" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles]

Luke 10:22 "Then he turned to his disciples" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible are not in 1611 KJV's text] [see 1611 marginal note]

Did the KJV remove words from the text of the pre-1611 consensus English Bible and put them in a marginal note?

Luke 17:36 [this verse in the KJV is not in the 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]
The 1560 Geneva Bible has a verse 36 but it is what is verse 37 in the KJV. [see 1611 edition's marginal note]

John 8:6 "as though he heard them not" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]

John 8:59 "going through the midst of them, and so passed by" [these words in KJV are not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]

John 14:1 "And he said to his disciples" [1560 Geneva] [these words found in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles are not in KJV]

Acts 25:6
no more than ten days [1560 Geneva]
more than ten days [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Romans 5:17
by the offence of one [1560 Geneva]
by one man's offence [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Romans 8:11
because that his Spirit [1560 Geneva Bible]
by his Spirit [1611 KJV]
[see 1611 marginal note, and see Edward F. Hills' book KJV Defended, p. 222 where he presented this as a textual difference between the TR editions by Beza and those by Erasmus and Stephanus]

Romans 16:20
with you. [1560 Geneva Bible]
with you. Amen. [1611 KJV]

1 Corinthians 15:31
our rejoicing [1560 Geneva]
your rejoicing [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

James 2:18
out of thy works [1560 Geneva Bible]
without thy works [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

1 John 2:23b
[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also
[this second half of this verse in KJV is not in 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]

1 John 3:16
love [1560 Geneva Bible]
love of God [1611 KJV] [the 1769 KJV would later put the words "of God" in italics based on the 1550 Stephanus, but Greek words for "of God" may be in an edition by Beza]

Revelation 2:24
I say, the rest [1560 Geneva]
I say, and unto the rest [1611 KJV] [According to what I have read, one or more of Beza's TR editions have an "and" not in earlier TR editions]

Revelation 5:11
elders, & there were thousand thousands [1560 Geneva Bible]
elders, and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands [1611 KJV]

Revelation 16:5
and Holy [1560 Geneva Bible]
and shall be [1611 KJV] [KJV followed conjecture introduced by Beza in his Greek text]

Revelation 17:5
mother of whoredoms [1560 Geneva Bible]
mother of harlots [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

Can anyone present a list of claimed textual differences between the KJV and the NKJV that are greater than those listed above between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV that KJV-only advocates have asserted are "basically the same Bibles" or are "practically identical" and that are placed on the same pure stream of Bibles?

Do these facts suggest that there would be a stronger case for the NKJV being on that pure stream of Bibles than for the Geneva Bible?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

How would it be possible for there to be any actual conflicting textual differences or textual corruption in a 100% pure stream or line of Bibles?

The differences constitute elements less that 100% pure.

Thus the Peshitta, in a 3-way comparison with the pure Bible and the Alexandrian corruptions, is about 75% pure.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[logos1560]

How would it be possible for there to be any actual conflicting textual differences or textual corruption in a 100% pure stream or line of Bibles?

The differences constitute elements less that 100% pure.

Are you admitting that the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles is not actually absolutely pure? 

How can there be any impurities at all in Bibles placed on an absolutely pure stream?

Are you admitting that the KJV was based on sources that were not completely pure?

Do the Scriptures teach that one exclusive group of Church of England scholars can bring a 100% pure or clean thing out of multiple, varying sources that are somewhat unclean or impure since they have textual differences and are not 100% pure?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Are you admitting that the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles is not actually absolutely pure?  How can there be any impurities at all in Bibles placed on an absolutely pure stream?  Are you admitting that the KJV was based on sources that were not completely pure?

Putting aside the loaded questions  (nothing is being "admitted", this has always been my sharing).. of course. If a stream were absolutely pure, you would call it absolutely pure.

This is not very complicated.  I doubt that there is a single person who defends the AV who sees the Peshitta as in the pure stream, that would claim that therefore the Peshitta has zero impurities. I wonder why you belabor the obvious?

The Peshitta is pure by comparison to the ultra-corrupt texts that are lacking 40 scripture verses andd have hundreds of corruptions.  It has a range of about 75-80% agreement with the AV against those texts. Yet Rick Norris never criticizes even one of those corruptions.

However, keep in mind that I disagree with parts of the "two-stream" view of some AV defenders.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[logos1560]

Are you admitting that the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles is not actually absolutely pure?  How can there be any impurities at all in Bibles placed on an absolutely pure stream?  Are you admitting that the KJV was based on sources that were not completely pure?

  I doubt that there is a single person who defends the AV who sees the Peshitta as in the pure stream, that would claim that therefore the Peshitta has zero impurities.

Mickey Carter placed the Peshitta translation in his pure stream of Bibles (Things That Are Different, pp. 110, 112).  Carter wrote:  "The New Testament pure stream or trail is the Greek text of the Authorized Version and has its beginning at the church of Antioch (Acts 11:26), the Syrian capital, and was already set down by 150 A.D. from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian and was known as the Peshitta Version" (p. 110). 

Peter Ruckman contended that the Peshitta "contained the O. T. as it stands in the A.V. 1611, and the New Testament as it stands in the A. V. 1611" (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 79). 

William Bradley claimed:  "If  you  translate  from  the  Peshitta  into English, what you'll have in your hands is a King James Bible" (To All Generations, p. 52).  Bradley also contended that the existing Peshitta manuscripts give “us a direct link from the King James Bible to the very handwritten documents of Paul, Peter, James, John and the rest” (p. 6).

  Ronnie Simpson claimed that “the Peshitto is still in use today in Syrian and is essentially word for word just like the KJV” (Twelve Lessons, p. 8).

Donald Clarke contended that the Peshitta was "virtually the same Bible" as our English KJV (Bible Version Manual, pp. 19-20).

William Grady claimed:  "The Peshitta set the standard because of its early composition and strong agreement with the Greek text underlying the King James Bible" (Final Authority, p. 34).  Grady also claimed that “the Holy Spirit would also have breathed life into the many powerful ancient translations, such as the Peshitta” (Given By Inspiration, p. 103).

Jack Chick listed the Peshitta as one of the Bibles that were “exactly copied and correctly translated” (Next Step, p. 8).

 

[Steven Avery]

Mickey Carter placed the Peshitta translation in his pure stream of Bibles (Things That Are Different, pp. 110, 112).  Carter wrote:  "The New Testament pure stream or trail is the Greek text of the Authorized Version and has its beginning at the church of Antioch (Acts 11:26), the Syrian capital, and was already set down by 150 A.D. from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian and was known as the Peshitta Version" (p. 110).

As discussed above, placing the Peshitta in the pure stream, as an early version, is sensible. The exact date is subject to much controversy.  In the controversies of the late 1800s, the Peshitta as a confirmation of the Received Text and Byzantine Greek was a major point of discussion.

Most of the other quotes suffer from being snippets that could lose context.

Or they are simply exaggeration or error, which is long corrected among the AV defense contingent on the net  (the King James Bible Debate forum on Facebook is an active example.)

Since I have actively helped to correct imbalances in two stream thinking, Rick is very welcome to join me in that endeavor.

On the occasional time that Rick helps to tweak AV defense perspective (the Old Latin is a major one, following Doug Kutilek) I simply say that that particular effort is fine.  It can be considered an example of he stopped clock syndrome.

In fact, the dynamic of the excellence and purity of the Reformation Bible, unto the Geneva and then the AV, should not be distorted for presentation purposes. The true understandings are far more elegant and satisfying.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[logos1560]

In fact, the dynamic of the excellence and purity of the Reformation Bible, unto the Geneva and then the AV, should not be distorted for presentation purposes. The true understandings are far more elegant and satisfying.

Your subjective, unproven KJV-only "understandings" have not been demonstrated to be true understandings. 

It is KJV-only advocates who distort the facts or attempt to rewrite history in order to try to rationalize a modern, man-made KJV-only view.

 

[prophet]

When a thread starts, by answering Riplinger, it isn't going anywhere.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Your subjective, unproven KJV-only "understandings" have not been demonstrated to be true understandings. 
It is KJV-only advocates who distort the facts or attempt to rewrite history in order to try to rationalize a modern, man-made KJV-only view.

Let's start here:

"excellence and purity of the Reformation Bible, unto the Geneva ... "

Do you agree?

Steven Avery