All:

It should have been recognized, from part 1 and 2 of this post, that I was looking at this question in an objective way.  I was open to the possibility that I had misunderstood what I had come to believe years ago, that the KJVB was a superior Bible.  It still is!  I was even willing to listen to whatever evidence concerning the Geneva Bible and even give the folks at the Rapture Bible Prophecy Forum consideration because they were the only ones, that I was aware of, that hyped the Geneva Bible.  To read their posts it seemed that we were using an inferior Bible in the KJVB.  Being a good Berean, I set out to discover for myself as to the validity of their comments and praise.

I made a few calls to former colleagues in the academic community; a few friends of mine in the publishing business; and sent emails to many fellow pastors, that I knew that had copies of the Geneva Bible.  I wanted to find out for myself what an examination would reveal.  It was really quite stunning what I learned about the Geneva Bible, and none of it was positive.  The facts considered, it is perhaps the largest fraud on the consumer public when it came to offering a trustworthy Bible. 

In this post we will look at a number of major flaws in the Geneva Bible.  I shared one of those at the close of part 2 of this post series. The vast number of translator errors, erroneous notes, and the evidence refutes all accusations of mud slinging.  There are far too many to dwell on in this flawed Bible for very long.  But lest anyone doubt the evidence about the inferior nature of the Geneva Bible I shared so far, I will share a few more pieces of evidence that exposes the Geneva Bible for what it is - a mediocre publication being passed off as God's Word.

I was reminded recently that Puritans approached King James VI of Scotland before having ascending the English throne in 1603, as King James I, in 1604 about allowing the Bible be allowed in English.  These Puritans were willing to abandon their Geneva Bible for a new English translation, they were obviously less thrilled with the Geneva Bible than our 21st Century advocates.  The point being here, it was the Puritans that engaged in the initiation efforts to get a new Bible.  King James, as I have noted, had his own reasons, and the point here is that the Geneva Bible lacked universal appeal back then.  The King James Bible translators were made up of both Anglican and Puritan scholars.

The word "propitiation" appears three times in the KJVB, and appears nowhere in the Geneva Bible.  The three references in the KJVB are: Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; and 1 John 4:10. 

Romans 3:25, states:  "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation for the remission of sins that are past, through the forebearance of God;" 

1 John 2:2, states:  "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole word."

1 John 4:10, states:  "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins." 

These verses will be compared in eight early English translations.  I have listed three Geneva Bible editions below because the Geneva Bible disagrees with itself.

        Romans 3:25        "propitiation"    AV 1611 KJV

        Wycliff                     "obtained forgiver"
        Tyndale                   "seat of mercy"
        Cramner                 "obtainer of mercy"
        Great                      "obtainer of mercy"
        Geneva, 1557        "pacification"
        Geneva, 1560        "reconciliation"
        Geneva, 2006        "reconciliation"
        Bishops'                 "propitiation"

        1 John 2:2              "propitiation"    AV 1611 KJV

        Wycliff                    "forgiveness of our sins"
        Tyndale                  "obtainer of grace"
        Cramner                 "obtainer of grace"
        Great                      "obtainer of grace"
        Geneva, 1557        "obtaineth grace"
        Geneva, 1560        "reconciliation"
        Geneva, 2006        "reconciliation"
        Bishops'                 "atonement for our sins"

        1 John 4:10            "propitiation"    AV 1611 KJV

        Wycliff                     "forgiveness of our sins"
        Tyndale                   "make agreement for our sins"
        Cramner                  "make agreement for our sins"
        Great                       "to be the agreement for our sins"
        Geneva, 1557          "make agreement for our sins"
        Geneva, 1560          "reconciliation"
        Geneva, 2006          "reconciliation"
        Bishops'                   "to be atonement for our sins"

In the three references above, all three verses consistently translated the word "propitiation", and the Geneva Bible reflects confusion and indecision as to what they wanted to translate for the Greek word.

Another strange case is the term "Holy One".  The term "Holy One" appears 52 times in 51 places.  In the Genva Bible, it uses no less than five different styles and inconsistencies exist in capitalization.  The inconsistencies in capitalization is confusing to say the least.

There are 57 references in the New Testament to Jesus Christ as the "Son of man".  The Geneva Bible in Matthew 11:19 reads "Son of men".  Many places the Geneva Bible renders it "son of man" in many passages.

Even more confusing is the treatment of the term "Son of God".  In the Geneva Bible, the title appears 49 times in the New Testament.  Sometimes it is rendered "Son of the loving God", "Son of the Most High" or "Son of he father".  Five times references to Jesus Christ as the Son of God do not have the "son" capitalized in the 1599/2006 Geneva Bibles.

Genesis 22:8 in the KJVB reads "And Abraham said, my son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."  This is plainly a prophetic reference to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God.  How do we know?  Because God never provided a lamb in the passage.  Instead he provided a ram, leaving the prophecy approximately 1,900 years to be fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  The wording of the KJVB is sublime in its shaded reference to God providing Himself the very sacrifice He was asking of Abraham.

The Geneva Bible does not contain this prophecy as it reads, "And Abraham answered, my son, God will provide him a lamb for a burnt offering: so they both went together."

In the Geneva Bible the inference is nothing more than God providing a lamb for Himself, rather than God being the lamb.  THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM, WHICH EXPOSES THE GENEVA BIBLE'S INFERIORITY TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE.

In Psalm 23, familiar to most people as it reads, "surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever."

In the 2006 Geneva Bible, this verse reads, "Doubtless kindness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall remain a long season in the house of the Lord."

Now, how long would you like to remain in the House of the Lord?   "Forever" or "a long season"??????

In John 1:1 we are introduced to Jesus as both "The Word" and "The Creator".  Then in verse 3 we are told, "All things were made by Him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

The Geneva Bible renders this, "All things were made by IT and without IT was nothing that was made."  Clearly, this is another example of the King James Bible's superiority of all predecessor Bibles.

In the KJVB 1 John 2:23 reads; "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowlegeth the Son hath the Father also."  The reason is simple.  The KJVB was translated from the Textus Receptus and the Textus Receptus does not contain the last half of 1 John 2:23.  The KJVB translators added the words from the Latin, and since they had Greek authority for the passage, they put the passage in italics type style.  It was years later that a fourth century Greek manuscript was discovered that contained the entire verse just as it is in the KJVB.

All three Geneva Bible editions, 1557, 1560, 2006, read this way:  "Whosoever denieth the son, the same hath not the Father."

Again, the King James Bible is vastly superior to the Geneva Bible, regardless of what edition you pick.

There are 54 references to "Hell" in the KJVB.  There are only 41 references to "Hell" in the Geneva Bible.  In the remaining 13 references the Geneva Bible translators replaced "Hell" with "the grave".

Suffice it to say, in these three posts I have provided ample evidence to discredit the Geneva Bible as being a reliable, trustworthy facsimile of the Bible.  Unless this is insufficient enough proof to convince one to the contrary, I do not plan to do a part 4.  I have pages more of evidence that would further shame the Bible the Pilgrims carried under their arms at Plymouth Rock.  It is absolutely shameful of how the late Dr. D.J. Kennedy and his project committee gave the public such an inferior Bible, inferior translation, and presented the idea that it was better or superior to anything available today.  It isn't and its editorial committee have been a disgrace to the scholarship of Bible translation and publishing. 

In my own studies, I use two English translations:  The King James Bible and the New American Standard.  My reason for doing so is that both were translated word-for-word from the Textus Receptus and Stephanos Greek Text.  All other modern Bibles are translated from a newer, later, but corrupt Greek text.  This is a case where newer is not necessarily better.  In addition, I always keep at hand my Hebrew/Greek text and have at hand an Interlinear Bible.  I have virtually every modern translation, with the exception of the 2011 (sodomite) NIV, made sodomite-friendly.  

God bless,

Pastor Bob