AV1611 and Geneva 1599

Here is a comparison of the 23rd Psalm in the AV1611 and the Geneva 1599. Each doubled verse is in the order of AV then Geneva:

1 [A Psalme of Dauid.] The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want. 1 A Psalme of David. The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want.

2 He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters. 2 He maketh me to rest in greene pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.

3 He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousnes, for his names sake. 3 He restoreth my soule, and leadeth me in the paths of righteousnesse for his Names sake.

4 Yea though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me. 4 Yea, though I should walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me: thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me, in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oyle, my cuppe runneth ouer. 5 Thou doest prepare a table before me in the sight of mine aduersaries: thou doest anoynt mine head with oyle, and my cuppe runneth ouer.

6 Surely goodnes and mercie shall followe me all the daies of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for euer. 6 Doubtlesse kindnesse and mercie shall follow me all the dayes of my life, and I shall remaine a long season in the house of the Lord.


The final verse shows the most difference, but basically you can see how much the AV1611 is the Geneva 1599. Why is that? The Geneva was in the line of English Bibles that made up the refining and purifying line of development that culminated in the AV1611. Pitting the Geneva against the AV is a game played by two types: Bible sellers (like the publisher that is currently bringing out a new edition of the Geneva 1599) and Christians who for a variety of reasons (many of them emotional and psychological) are at enmity with the AV (otherwise known as the King James Version) who yet have enough honesty to admit that arguments made against the modern versions are legitimate, but their vanity and worldly pride keep them from accepting the KJV, so the Geneva becomes a way to back away from the corrupt versions without having to look like they're conceeding anything to their fundamentalist (real or not) KJV-only bogeymen. So you see alot of rhetoric about that evil old King James I who had it in for the Geneva and demanded a new translation be done to do away with the Geneva and so on. All of it nonsense. It's the same Bible, just refined. The Puritans were fond of the notes in the Geneva and reluctant to give them up, and no the AV wasn't adopted totally by all English speaking Christians immediately, but it was fairly quickly, and for reasons having to do with its excellence as a translation. It basically is the Geneva refined, as the Geneva was a more refined version of the English Bibles that came before it, starting with Tyndale's inspired work.

It's a positive development anyway. I have to say, though, that I still don't see a discernment among these types for the devil's attack on the Word of God that constitutes the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and their use in virtually all of the modern versions. They have a ways to go, but perhaps this chosen transition route will result in a more complete awakening on their part later down the road.

I always stress to these types: nobody owns the AV1611. I don't, so-called KJV-onlyists don't. So when you adopt it you're not adopting 'my' Bible or Gail Riplinger's Bible or Ruckman's Bible or Edward F. Hill's Bible. You're adopting the whole and pure Word of God given to you by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Last note: I prefer the old spelling (the above is the original spelling of the AV1611, without the gothic font of course), but it's not as important as the language itself. The Bible in 1611 was both a blood and bone saxon language, yet it was always a unique language (I hesitate to say 'elevated' language because that gives impressions of artificial or flowery which the AV is anything but) and this is intentional always. Demanding the Bible read as your local newspaper is in the same category as making demands it say what you desire it to say. It also gives licence for further corruption and defilement such as paraphrase and worse. Meet the Word of God on its terms, at its level. There is power knowing that when you hold a Bible in your hands you are holding the whole and pure Word of God in your hands, and you can now give yourself to it and know it isn't defiled by man and isn't full of holes (variant textual readings as determined by vain scholars, atheist or just juvenile at best). The Holy Spirit has left God's own with the whole and pure Word of God. No Christian need rely on scholars and fools to tell them what the Word of God is. The Holy Spirit can be seen working in history, above history, using man yes, but working in history and riding above time and man to shepherd the Word of God into not only its canonic form but its inspired form regarding manuscripts and translation, and thank God for that, amen. If anyone then wants to claim it's God's providence and the work of the Holy Spirit that Madame Blavatsky's friends just happen to 'discover' a 'better' set of manuscripts to make new versions of the Word of God with well, then...ask whether that is a Godly, sanctified discernment that is determining that... To each his own, but that is how it always is: God's own know the voice of the Shepherd.