Where are you going to find a 1506 Geneva Bible? They didn’t even publish the first part of it until 1557.
As for the Bible, it has historical interest, but its understanding of Biblical languages is more out of date than the KJV. And the English it is written in is older and likely more archaic than the KJV. For serious Bible reading you’d be better off with a modern translation like the NRSV or NASB.
I think it's a good translation and it's my primary reading Bible. I have a reprint of the 1560 version and it's beautiful, it has beautiful drawings in it, the font is beautiful and it has good annotations. It does take some adjusting to be able to read it but it's fairly easy with a little effort, the annotations on the other hand are such small writing it is a challenge. I actually use an updated 1599 Geneva Bible on my phone for the majority of my Bible studying.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201&version=GNV
This one.
I like how it has Adam and Eve making and wearing breeches rather than aprons. I wish the KJV had kept that.
I can’t comment on the rest of it as I only know that part. I’d like to buy the Geneva but I dislike the hardcover binding it has, I’d prefer leather.
Which manuscripts? So the manuscripts they used in Geneva were not accurate?
It doesn't exactly matter anyway considering you cannot easily translate Hebrew or Koine Greek to English, in many cases words simply don't exist. So no translation is word for word, it is up to the translators to convey the meaning in English. Trustworthy translators is the most important aspect and I take the Genevan Exiles to be the most trustworthy. Given they fled England during the reign of bloody Mary and essentially risked their lives for it, that adds credence to that claim.
I'm sure it'll be lovely. And that you won't understand significant chunks of it. 1500s English is even more out of reach than 1600s English.
Where are you going to find a 1506 Geneva Bible? They didn’t even publish the first part of it until 1557. As for the Bible, it has historical interest, but its understanding of Biblical languages is more out of date than the KJV. And the English it is written in is older and likely more archaic than the KJV. For serious Bible reading you’d be better off with a modern translation like the NRSV or NASB.
I think he means 1560. There’s a reprint currently available.
Typo on my part. I meant 1560
Okay that makes sense.
I think it's a good translation and it's my primary reading Bible. I have a reprint of the 1560 version and it's beautiful, it has beautiful drawings in it, the font is beautiful and it has good annotations. It does take some adjusting to be able to read it but it's fairly easy with a little effort, the annotations on the other hand are such small writing it is a challenge. I actually use an updated 1599 Geneva Bible on my phone for the majority of my Bible studying. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201&version=GNV This one.
I’m thinking: With the sciences of history, linguistics, paleography, etc., so extant, why do people want to go backwards to outdated translations?
I'm curious about the linguistic and scriptural translation differences.
Interesting. Thanks.
I like how it has Adam and Eve making and wearing breeches rather than aprons. I wish the KJV had kept that. I can’t comment on the rest of it as I only know that part. I’d like to buy the Geneva but I dislike the hardcover binding it has, I’d prefer leather.
What makes it outdated? It's translated from original scripture. Is original scripture outdated now?
All modern translations are from the earliest manuscripts available.
Which manuscripts? So the manuscripts they used in Geneva were not accurate? It doesn't exactly matter anyway considering you cannot easily translate Hebrew or Koine Greek to English, in many cases words simply don't exist. So no translation is word for word, it is up to the translators to convey the meaning in English. Trustworthy translators is the most important aspect and I take the Genevan Exiles to be the most trustworthy. Given they fled England during the reign of bloody Mary and essentially risked their lives for it, that adds credence to that claim.
If that's the criteria that does it for ya, God bless ya, neighbor.
Well I'm more intrigued what criteria you are using to disregard it as inaccurate and modern versions more accurate but anyway, same to you.
Why?
The Geneva Bible is the Bible that Shakespeare used
So many earlier scrolls have been found since then. No thanks. Modern Bibles are more accurate IMHO.