>>23318701
Anything is preferable to the kjv.

>>23318721
No posts motivated by seethe please. Looking for a genuine discussion on these two bibles

>>23318701
the kjv to me stands on its own. not as something accurate but as something beautiful textually and is thus my preferred choice. when you decide on a translation of the book just recall why you did and start anywhere you like.

>>23318701
they are both comparable as tyndale's work is the basis for most of them both. i'd get a copy of the septuagint for the OT though. brenton or lexham.

>>23318701
If you're a Calvinist, I guess. Why you'd want to be that is beyond me.

>>23318701
I’ll tell you the truth, I haven’t read the Geneva Bible, but I’ve read the King James in full a couple times. So I’m biased.
The King James Bible has made its mark in the literary world. It’s up there with Shakespeare. The main reason to not use a King James Bible is if you differ theologically (such as Catholics) or if you want a more accurate translation based on the plethora of discoveries made in terms of manuscripts and grammar.
The Geneva Bible and the King James are both largely based on the same sources. The comma Johanneum is in both, for instance 1 John 5:7, which was a scribal gloss containing some verse commentary erroneously inserted into the text. It is missing from the Greek text entirely, and is found only in the Latin. Erasmus, who made the printed Greek text, didn’t include the verse in his earliest editions, until a Greek manuscript named the Codex Montfortianus was given to him which included it. All research points to Codex Montfortianus being created specifically for the purpose of making him include it, and its version of 1 John 5:7 was translated into Greek from Latin
The Granville Sharp rule in Greek grammar was discovered by English speakers in the late 1700s, which makes Titus 2:13 clearer. The rule says "When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle..." Titus 2:13 says, in English, in modern translations “our great God and savior Jesus Christ.” The King James says “our great God, and our savior Jesus Christ.” The Geneva Bible says “that mighty God, and our savior Jesus Christ.” The earlier renditions of these verses were used at times to promote Unitarianism and non-trinitarianism, with people saying the verse implied God and Jesus to be different people, the exact opposite of what the verse was saying.
In John 1:18, the oldest manuscripts say “only begotten God,” but the alexandrian text type which formed the basis for the textua receptus and then the Geneva and King James Bibles say “only begotten son.” Both are acceptable, it’s debated which is original, but if you read the King James only or a Bible older than the King James, you wouldn’t know about the variant at all.
I can’t see many clear advantages to using the Geneva vs the King James. I see advantages to using newer Bible translations, but not this. Why use the Geneva as opposed to the Bishops Bible, the Great Bible, or the Tyndale Bible?
It does have historical value as being the Bible or the puritans and the one that rode on the mayflower, but other than that I’m not sure what the purpose would be. How is its literary quality compared to the King James?

>>23320121
People read the Geneva Bible for its historical footnotes, not for its accuracy, but instead for its at-the-time best biblical education in a single book. Of course, the Pilgrims found out the hard way that there's nothing about how to grow crops in the New World and had to deviate from biblical agricultural practices. Anyone who neglects the Calvinist mindset all over the Geneva Bible's footnotes cannot grasp the Americans nor understand Colonial American Literature in a chronological dialectic.

>>23320503
I don’t like study Bibles. Just carry your commentary with you