Showing posts with label Geneva. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Geneva. Show all posts
Monday, June 15, 2026
Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Monday, February 24, 2025
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Female theologians publish 'women's bible'
Female theologians publish 'women's bible' to counter claims the Holy Book is sexist in the age of #MeToo
'Feminist values and reading the Bible are not incompatible,' said Lauriane Savoy, right, who produced the book with fellow Geneva theology professor Elisabeth Parmentier
CREDIT: FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP
Henry Samuel, paris 30 DECEMBER 2018 • 8:00AM
A group of Protestant and Catholic feminist theologians have released A Woman’s Bible arguing that the Holy Book is not misogynistic but a tool for female emancipation.
Sparked by the Harvey Weinstein scandal, the #MeToo movement has sent shockwaves around the world about sexual abuse around the world at home and in the workplace.
Many feminists have accused The Bible, Christianity and religion in general of bolstering a sexist view of society that casts women as subservient. They argue that the female figures in translations and interpretations of Bible texts are all prostitutes servants or saints, whose most positive roles are seducing a monarch or kissing Jesus' feet.
But authors of Une bible des femmes ("A women's bible"), published in October, say that view is often down to a misinterpretation of the Holy Book by patriarchs and sexists.
The book, they write in the introduction, aims to "scrutinise shifts in the Christiantradition, things that have remained concealed, tendentious translations, partial interpretations."
In particular, they sought to counter "the lingering patriarchal readings that have justified numerous restrictions and bans on women”.
"Feminist values and reading the Bible are not incompatible," said Lauriane Savoy, one of two Geneva theology professors behind the book.
Henry Samuel, paris 30 DECEMBER 2018 • 8:00AM
A group of Protestant and Catholic feminist theologians have released A Woman’s Bible arguing that the Holy Book is not misogynistic but a tool for female emancipation.
Sparked by the Harvey Weinstein scandal, the #MeToo movement has sent shockwaves around the world about sexual abuse around the world at home and in the workplace.
Many feminists have accused The Bible, Christianity and religion in general of bolstering a sexist view of society that casts women as subservient. They argue that the female figures in translations and interpretations of Bible texts are all prostitutes servants or saints, whose most positive roles are seducing a monarch or kissing Jesus' feet.
But authors of Une bible des femmes ("A women's bible"), published in October, say that view is often down to a misinterpretation of the Holy Book by patriarchs and sexists.
The book, they write in the introduction, aims to "scrutinise shifts in the Christiantradition, things that have remained concealed, tendentious translations, partial interpretations."
In particular, they sought to counter "the lingering patriarchal readings that have justified numerous restrictions and bans on women”.
"Feminist values and reading the Bible are not incompatible," said Lauriane Savoy, one of two Geneva theology professors behind the book.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Pope Francis visits WCC Geneva 70th Anniversary
PESCHKEN reports
Published on Jun 23, 2018
Subscribe 263 Pope Francis’ visit of the WCC , World Council of Churches, 70th anniversary. This meeting also marked 50 years of cooperation between the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church in the quest for Christian unity.
The theme of the visit was: “Walking, Praying and Working Together”, and it started with a prayer service at the Ecumenical Centre chapel.
I met with H.E. Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson, Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland and Liechtenstein (located in Bern) asking him why it took 14 years between the last Papal Visit and this one.
© copyright 2018 by Christian Peschken – Broadcast via “Vaticano” at EWTN – All Rights Reserved
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Papal trip to Geneva marks 'new spring' in ecumenism
Pope Paul VI stands next to Eugene C. Blake, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, as he arrives at the headquarters of the WCC in Geneva June 10, 1969. Pope Francis is scheduled to attend an ecumenical prayer service and meeting at the WCC during a one-day visit to Geneva June 21. CNS photo/courtesy World Council of Churches
By Catholic News Service
June 14, 2018
VATICAN – Pope Francis' one-day pilgrimage to Geneva will mark another major ecumenical moment in his papacy.
While he will celebrate Mass for the nation's Catholics and meet with Vatican diplomatic staff working at U.N. agencies there, the trip's major focus is highlighting the Catholic Church's commitment to seeking Christian unity and recognizing the unique contribution of the World Council of Churches.
Of his 22 apostolic trips abroad, the upcoming June 21 pilgrimage with be his second that's so intently focused on ecumenism.
In 2016, he traveled to Lund, Sweden, for a joint commemoration with the Lutheran World Federation marking the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation begun by Martin Luther.
This time, Pope Francis heads to Geneva -- where John Calvin led the reformation in the 16th-century -- to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the World Council of Churches.
The WCC is a fellowship of 350 member-churches, representing Protestant communities and most of the Orthodox churches in the world. In total, these member churches represent 500 million Christians worldwide, making it the broadest coalition in the ecumenical movement.
Much like the United Nations grew from the desire to avoid war and divisions through the creation of a united body that could work together for peace, the WCC also grew from a similar desire -- not of nation states, but of Christians and church communities -- to join together for the good of the world in Christ's name.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Vatican confirms Pope to visit Geneva to mark World Council of Churches milestone
Mar 2, 2018
EDITOR
Pope Francis, center, listens to the Vatican's Lenten preacher Raniero Cantalamessa, left, at the Redemptoris Mater chapel, at the Vatican, Friday, March 2, 2018. (Credit: L'Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP.)
ROME - Making official what the Swiss government had already announced, the Vatican confirmed on Friday that Pope Francis will travel to Geneva, Switzerland, on June 21 to mark the 70th anniversary of the World Council of Churches in one of the traditional centers of the Protestant Reformation.
“His Holiness has in mind to visit the World Council of Churches in Geneva on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of its foundation,” Vatican spokesman Greg Burke announced on Friday in the Vatican’s daily news bulletin.
“The visit will take place Thursday, June 21, 2018,” Burke said. “The program of the trip will be published soon.”
With 348 member churches in 110 nations, the World Council of Churches (WCC), founded in 1948, is the largest umbrella group of Christian denominations in the world. It includes most Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, most mainline Protestant churches and several Evangelical denominations.
The Catholic Church is not a member of the WCC, although it does send observers to meetings and events.
The trip will be the second European outing by Francis with a clear ecumenical thrust, after an Oct. 31, 2016 visit to Lund in Sweden to mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation in tandem with leaders of the Lutheran World Federation.
The Vatican confirmation of the trip came just ehad a news conference on Friday featuring Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and the Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit, a Norwegian Lutheran theologian and General Secretary of the WCC.
Asked about why the Catholic Church is not a member of the WCC, Koch said that the papal office has a special responsibility as an agent of Christian unity, and it would be inappropriate to confuse that with the role of other ecumenical agencies and instruments.
Tveit suggested that focusing on the question of membership puts the emphasis in the wrong place.
I think we live very well with the relationship we have today, we don’t focus on this question of membership but what we can do together,” he said. “I think that’s where we should focus our energy right now.”
Swiss Federal Council spokesman Andre Simonazzi said on Thursday that details of the June 21 visit are being worked out, adding only that President Alain Berset would welcome Francis.
St. John Paul II was the last pope to visit Switzerland, in 2004, one of his last trips. The last papal visit to Geneva was also by John Paul II in 1984, during a six-day pastoral visit to the country.
A total of 38.2 percent of Swiss people are Roman Catholic while 26.9 percent belong to the mainstream Protestant church, according to official Swiss figures.
During the era of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, French theologian John Calvin established his base in Geneva, often exercising influence not only over church life but also the city council and city affairs. His theological ideas, including predestination, the absolute sovereignty of God over all of human life, and the importance of personal probity and industriousness, formed the basis of what came to be known as “Calvinism” and continue to form one of the most important currents in global Protestantism.
Tveit said the initial invitation for the trip was presented to Pope Francis in a meeting in Rome last August.
“We described in fraternal way the relationship we have, and asked if this 70th anniversary could be occasion to visit the World Council of Churches and to give new power, new expression, to this collaboration,” he said.
Asked if it had been difficult to convince the pontiff to make the trip, Koch delivered a one-word answer: “No.”
Pope Francis, center, listens to the Vatican's Lenten preacher Raniero Cantalamessa, left, at the Redemptoris Mater chapel, at the Vatican, Friday, March 2, 2018. (Credit: L'Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP.)
ROME - Making official what the Swiss government had already announced, the Vatican confirmed on Friday that Pope Francis will travel to Geneva, Switzerland, on June 21 to mark the 70th anniversary of the World Council of Churches in one of the traditional centers of the Protestant Reformation.
“His Holiness has in mind to visit the World Council of Churches in Geneva on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of its foundation,” Vatican spokesman Greg Burke announced on Friday in the Vatican’s daily news bulletin.
“The visit will take place Thursday, June 21, 2018,” Burke said. “The program of the trip will be published soon.”
With 348 member churches in 110 nations, the World Council of Churches (WCC), founded in 1948, is the largest umbrella group of Christian denominations in the world. It includes most Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, most mainline Protestant churches and several Evangelical denominations.
The Catholic Church is not a member of the WCC, although it does send observers to meetings and events.
The trip will be the second European outing by Francis with a clear ecumenical thrust, after an Oct. 31, 2016 visit to Lund in Sweden to mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation in tandem with leaders of the Lutheran World Federation.
The Vatican confirmation of the trip came just ehad a news conference on Friday featuring Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and the Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit, a Norwegian Lutheran theologian and General Secretary of the WCC.
Asked about why the Catholic Church is not a member of the WCC, Koch said that the papal office has a special responsibility as an agent of Christian unity, and it would be inappropriate to confuse that with the role of other ecumenical agencies and instruments.
Tveit suggested that focusing on the question of membership puts the emphasis in the wrong place.
I think we live very well with the relationship we have today, we don’t focus on this question of membership but what we can do together,” he said. “I think that’s where we should focus our energy right now.”
Swiss Federal Council spokesman Andre Simonazzi said on Thursday that details of the June 21 visit are being worked out, adding only that President Alain Berset would welcome Francis.
St. John Paul II was the last pope to visit Switzerland, in 2004, one of his last trips. The last papal visit to Geneva was also by John Paul II in 1984, during a six-day pastoral visit to the country.
A total of 38.2 percent of Swiss people are Roman Catholic while 26.9 percent belong to the mainstream Protestant church, according to official Swiss figures.
During the era of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, French theologian John Calvin established his base in Geneva, often exercising influence not only over church life but also the city council and city affairs. His theological ideas, including predestination, the absolute sovereignty of God over all of human life, and the importance of personal probity and industriousness, formed the basis of what came to be known as “Calvinism” and continue to form one of the most important currents in global Protestantism.
Tveit said the initial invitation for the trip was presented to Pope Francis in a meeting in Rome last August.
“We described in fraternal way the relationship we have, and asked if this 70th anniversary could be occasion to visit the World Council of Churches and to give new power, new expression, to this collaboration,” he said.
Asked if it had been difficult to convince the pontiff to make the trip, Koch delivered a one-word answer: “No.”
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Vatican representatives backs UN efforts on climate change
Catholic World News - May 21, 2014
“The Holy See is cognizant of the devastating impact of climate change,” a Vatican spokesman told a meeting of the World Health Assembly in Geneva. Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski, the president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care, praised the UN agency for its work to promote “much desired rethinking and solidarity” on climate change. He encouraged the development of programs to address the problem, “especially climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development, as well as appropriate transformations in economic, social, technological and political decisions and actions.”
Archbishop Zimowski also praised the group for its work to promote awareness of the problem of autism and to encourage breastfeeding of infants.
.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
"Geneva 2" Conference: the World Council of Churches calls for an immediate truce
ASIA/SYRIA - "Geneva 2" Conference: the World Council of Churches calls for an immediate truce
Geneva – In the Syrian conflict "there is no military solution"; "an immediate cessation of all hostilities and armed clashes on the Syrian territory" is urgent; humanitarian assistance must be ensured; the right way is to "develop a comprehensive and inclusive process for the establishment of peace and rebuild Syria": are the recommendations by the World Council of Churches , which gathered about 30 religious leaders in Geneva, in view of the "Geneva 2" Conference, scheduled on January 22.
The Council has drawn up a document - sent to Fides Agency - to be delivered to the UN envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, to the Arab League and to others present at the conference."There is no time to waste: too many people have died or have had to leave their home", explained Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit, general Secretary of the WCC, presenting the text and explaining that "Churches speak with one voice": leaders of the Church of the Middle East, the Vatican, Russia, United States, other European countries belonging to Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and Anglican denominations participated in the drafting of the document.
"We are the silent majority of Syrians who want peace", stated the Catholic Aram I, head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, ensuring political leaders "the full support of all the Churches for your crucial mission".The WCC believes that "the churches can mobilize international opinion condemning everything that is wrong in this situation and arguing that the supreme good is peace".
The meeting of the WCC was accompanied by an ecumenical prayer to express solidarity with the people of Syria and to ask God for the gift of reconciliation.
Source
.
Related
The Vatican: We hope Geneva 2 conference will guarantee Syria's safety
President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum in the Vatican, Cardinal Robert Sarah, expressed his hope that the international Geneva 2 conference on Syria will come out with guarantees to secure the safety and territorial integrity of Syria.
"The church hopes the international conference due to be held in Geneva on January 22nd will guarantee the Syrian territorial integrity with the belief that there is room for everybody in Syria, particularly for the Christians," the Cardinal said in statements to the Italian daily, L'Osservatore Romano.
He noted that the Vatican has been since the beginning following closely on the developments of the crisis in Syria and working to provide humanitarian aid and bringing peace to the country.
The Cardinal also voiced hope that all parties in Syria allow, for the public interest and a soon as possible, ending all acts of violence for the sake of enduring peace in the country.
Pope Francis has repeatedly called for international efforts to establish peace in Syria.
Source
---------------------------------Related------------------------------------------
Kerry confers Syria with Vatican before "Geneva-2"
Kerry confers Syria with Vatican before "Geneva-2"
7 days ago
News / Syrian Crisis
The Vatican urged an unconditional ceasefire in Syria and the involvement of all regional players including Iran in peace talks starting next week, as U.S Secretary of State "John Kerry" visited the Holy See on Tuesday.
Kerry said after meeting with Pope Francis's right-hand man "Pietro Parolin" that the U.S welcomed Vatican support for the Geneva-2 talks due to begin on January 22.
Kerry told reporters at the U.S embassy that "It is very important support and I know that the pope is particularly concerned about the massive numbers of displaced human beings and violence that has taken over 130,000 lives".
A Vatican statement following a workshop on Syria on Monday said the Holy See was ready to support all religious communities in the country towards reconciliation and said the recent interim deal over Iran's nuclear programme could have a positive effect.
It said "to build the basis for regional peace, Geneva-2 needs to ensure inclusive participation of all parties to this conflict, within the region and beyond", noting that " the deal with Iran creates a vital foundation for a lasting peace in Syria and "gives the world great hope that an extended period of grave distrust between Iran and other nations in the region and beyond might now be followed by a new era of trust and even cooperation".
"The first and most urgent step... should be an immediate ceasefire and end to violence of all kinds, an end without political preconditions", the Vatican said, echoing a joint call by Moscow and Washington on Monday for local ceasefires and humanitarian corridors.
It said "all internal combatants should put down their weapons. All foreign powers should take immediate steps to stop the flow of arms and arms funding that feed the escalation of violence and destruction".
Kerry said Parolin had also asked for a briefing on the status of the Middle East peace process following the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks and ahead of the pope's own visit to the region in May.
Kerry said "obviously there are issues of enormous concerns to the Holy See not just about peace but also about the freedom of access for religious worship in Jerusalem for all religions", adding "I think that our efforts over the last days could be augmented by the efforts of the Holy See with respect to trying to end the violence and bring about a peaceful resolution".
Kerry said he had also discussed possible Vatican involvement in efforts to restore stability in South Sudan.
U.S State Department spokeswoman "Jennifer Psaki" meanwhile denied a report in the BBC and the Guardian newspaper that Britain and the United States have told the Syrian opposition that they will stop their support if it fails to send a delegation to Geneva-2.
she said that Kerry "didn't indicate that the United States was planning to cut off assistance to the opposition in his public or private pronouncements".
.
Monday, October 10, 2011
GENEVA OR KING JAMES BIBLE?
Image (Courtesy) http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1665 PREFACE: Before proceeding, I will state that there are KJV Bible-believers who call themselves Calvinists who do not adhere to the exact doctrines of John Calvin, and do not hold Calvin up as a hero. Many such brothers do work to spread and preach the Gospel for the purposes of winning souls, but call themselves Calvinists due to the scripture-based belief that we are called by Jesus. I have not addressed these brothers in this article, nor have I criticized them. I do regret that they feel it necessary to describe their theology using the name of Calvin, but that is another issue.
1 Peter 2:13 & 14 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."
A local brother asked me to respond to an attack against the King James Bible by a gentleman who made the claim that the Geneva Bible is superior due to its allegedly better treatment of the above quoted verse.
Geneva: " 13 & 14 "Submit yourselves unto all manner of ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be unto the King, as unto the superior, Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent of him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well."
Having long been irritated by similar attacks from some fellow members of the patriot community (a name that I will use for the sake of brevity and due to the lack of a better one), I felt compelled to respond.
The essence of the argument is that the following Geneva translation is superior for using the word "superior" instead of "supreme" as the KJV does. He suggested that the KJV is claiming that the king is supreme over all, including God, while the Geneva's choice of the word "superior" does not make such a claim.
This is what happens when someone who considers himself to be the final authority starts looking for excuses to turn from the Final Authority. In their endless pursuit of forcing the Bible to fit what they want it to say, such Bible "correctors" go out of their way to twist facts in order to make themselves appear wise rather than to study to find themselves approved. As is often the case, this critic has failed to understand the passage in the first place. This reference does not state that kings are supreme over God any more than the Geneva Bible's rendering implies that the king is superior to God. This passage refers to the king as supreme or superior to others in respect to their status in relationship to worldly government. This verse must be read in context with the rest of the Bible, which makes it abundantly clear to whom supreme obedience is due.
A few definitions from Webster's 1828 Dictionary are useful here:
SUPRE'ME, a. L. supremus, from supra.1. Highest in authority; holding the highest place in government or power. In the United States, the congress is supreme in regulating commerce and in making war and peace. The parliament of Great Britain is supreme in legislation; but the king is supreme in the administration of the government. In the universe, God only is the supreme ruler and judge. His commands are supreme, and binding on all his creatures.
2. Highest, greatest or most excellent; as supreme love; supreme glory; supreme degree. SUPRE'MELY, adv. With the highest authority. SUPREM'ACY, n. See Supreme. State of being supreme or in the highest station of power; highest authority or power; as the supremacy of the king of Great Britain; or the supremacy of parliament.
SUPE'RIOR, a. Sp.L. from super, above.
1. Higher; upper; more elevated in place; as the superior limb of the sun; the superior part of an image.
2. Higher in rank or office; more exalted in dignity; as a superior officer; a superior degree of nobility.
SUPE'RIOR, n. One who is more advanced in age. Old persons or elders are the superiors of the young.
1. One who is more elevated in rank or office.
2. One who surpasses others in dignity, excellence or qualities of any kind. SUPERIOR'ITY, n. Pre-eminence; the quality of being more advanced or higher, greater or more excellent than another in any respect; as superiority of age, of rank or dignity, of attainments or excellence.
Noah Webster obviously understood the purport of this verse much better than our critic does.
It was suggested to me that we might also consider that we may look upon a head of state as supreme because he is in a position of worldly authority, but that does not make him superior. Bill Clinton was the supreme government official of the United States, but that whoremongering reprobate was not superior to the average skid row bum, and was inferior to most.
It must also be remembered that this is a letter by Peter to foreigners in the region that he is addressing. He is telling them that they are to conduct themselves as good citizens, not as a disruptive rabble. Furthermore, the second clause of the verse does show that the verse refers to governors and kings that are sent by God. The Geneva Bible's rendering of verse 14, on the other hand, seems to suggest that the governors to be obeyed are sent by the king for the punishment of evil. This could be used to demonstrate the opposite point as that of our critic. The Geneva makes a stronger statement about obeying kings and governors than does the KJV.
However, an honest evaluation of both Bible versions on the whole make it clear that neither the KJV nor the Geneva promote placing God below worldly rulers. I will be dealing with this issue in great detail in a future article on Romans 13, but just a quick look through Acts, or any of the books of Prophets alone is enough to make this indisputable. Men and kings are not to be obeyed when they are in opposition to God.
The most absurd aspect of the Geneva Bible promoters is that they make the false or ignorant accusation that King James was responsible for the contents of the Bible that he only commissioned. These Bible "correctors" blow much smoke over the alleged interference by King James by having his attitudes toward kingship was inserted into the text. Contrary to what these unscholarly parrots seem to believe, King James did not translate the Bible nor did he choose the members of the committee. Some members of the committee were even openly opposed to James' view of the divine right of kingship. He was aware of their opposition and did not oppress them for it. In reality, James had no say or part in the actual translating of the texts and he left the worthy members of the translation committee to do their work unhampered. What is particularly absurd about the accusation is that these apostate critics all praise the Geneva Bible for its inclusion of the notes of reformers, most notably those of John Calvin. To whatever level of despotism King James could have been accused of having attained, it cannot, by any standards at all, be compared with the level of tyrannical and cruel despotism of John Calvin.
Calvin was a murderous monster who ruled Geneva as an absolute dictator, both politically and religiously. His opposition was systematically tortured, murdered, and brutalized into submission to his absolute will. His murder of Servetus by burning was an act of the utmost cruelty for no other crime than having opposed Calvin. Calvin's own words concerning Servetus display his great cruelty: "One should not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn them cruelly." The Big Brother government of Orwell and the modern state had a predecessor in the government of Calvin. Christian morals, as interpreted by Calvin, were monitored and enforced through a draconian system of surveillance that recognized no individual rights or privacy. Houses of those suspected of thought crimes were searched by a secret police not unlike the Gestapo, Stasi, KGB, or the emerging Homeland Security of America. Opposition to infant baptism was considered a capital crime the concept of local church authority was attacked by a government in which Calvin had pope-like authority. Condemning the King James Bible for its indirect association with King James when the KJV includes no notes by the king or any other man, while praising a Bible that includes the notes of one of the worst tyrants in the history of Europe, is the height of idiocy, not to mention duplicity.
We might further look at the issue of notes. What business do the notes of man belong in Scripture? I see no problem with personal notes that are placed by the reader in their own Bibles for reminders, details, cross references, and so forth, but man's opinions should not be printed with God's word. Doing so elevates the words of common men to the level of those of prophets, apostles, and God himself. This should apply to the words of sincere Bible-believers as well as to apostates like Scofield or the commentators of the Ryrie and similar tainted Bibles. One of the reasons that the Geneva Bible needed to be replaced is that the notes, whether good or bad, needed to be removed so that God's word would be left pure. It should be added that the notes of the Geneva Bible often undermine the literal interpretation of the Bible in favor of allegorical interpretations. One example is found in Luke in the notes to Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." [KJV]
"(m) He says all this using an allegory, as if he said, "O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived until now in relative peace: but now there is at hand a most severe battle to be fought, and you must therefore lay all other things aside and think about dressing yourselves in armour." And what this armour is, is shown by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden and reproved Peter for striking with the sword."
Incidentally, this note also contradicts the common rhetoric that the Geneva Bible promotes resistance to ungodly laws of men better than the KJV. An allegorical interpretation of this verse removes one of our best biblical defenses for the Second Amendment of the Bill or Rights, and our right to defend ourselves against godless tyranny. Such an interpretation also would have helped keep Calvin safe from those who would have rebelled against his tyranny. It should be noted that Peter was not carrying an allegorical sword in the garden, and Jesus never reproved him for carrying it, only for trying to hamper what God had ordained to be done. We also need to remember that Jesus told his disciples that the two swords that they had were enough. Are these supposed to be two allegorical swords?
As stated above, Calvin was also a promoter of the blasphemous idea that water baptism of infants cleanses of sin: "At whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life" (Institutes, IV). "By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ ... infants are to be baptized ... children of Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism" (Institutes, IV)." As David Cloud points out, this was a clinging to his Catholic upbringing. Cloud further demonstrates that Calvin never really left Catholicism behind, but rather replaced the Pope with himself. He openly praised the heretic Augustine, and placed his words above the authority of the Bible: "If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his" (Institutes, Book III, chap. 22). This is the hero of the Geneva Bible pushers?
It is amazing to witness the hatred that some spew for King James. Some actually act as if they knew him personally and have a personal vendetta against him, while they praise the heretical and murderous tyrant of Geneva. Their real vendetta, of course, is not with King James the I & VI, but with the Bible itself.
God said that he would purify his word seven times.
Psalm 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." The Geneva Bible was the fifth English translation. It was a great Bible, but it was not the perfect word of God in English until those notes were removed and other flaws were ironed out. The culmination of this work was with the seventh translation, the Authorized or King James Version. The Psalm 12 verse that follows is also relevant to this discussion: "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
The Geneva Bible promoters apparently believe that God lied about preserving his words, because the Geneva Bible virtually disappeared from existence along with the Coverdale, Great, Bishops and other worthy predecessors of the King James Bible. It was the KJV that built the church and it is the KJV that is holding together the remnant church during the great falling away in which we currently live. It was the KJV that inspired the great missionary movement of the nineteenth century, and it was the KJV that brought about the Bible translations of that period throughout the world. The Geneva Bible advocates never did anything to spread the Gospel, and neither did the strict followers of John Calvin. This is why William Carey's great efforts to spread the Gospel as commanded by Christ "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" [Mark 16:15] were denounced by some during his time. Their Calvinistic views prevented them from obeying the Great Commission and they have not changed, but rather they have gotten far worse.
These advocates of the Geneva Bible would have us believe that all of this was error while the "true" Bible was unprinted and hidden in a few libraries. This should remind us of the claims of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus advocates, although I am in no way comparing the text of the Geneva Bible with those corrupt texts. The Geneva Bible advocates would have us believe that the only ones that have the "true" Bible are largely of a bunch of baby-sprinkling who have and do not give any witness, and foul-mouthed, cigarette-smoking, beer-guzzling, racist, ignoramuses, common law shysters, money-grubbing parasites on the patriot community and Identity Cult clods with below average IQs that just arose into view in the last couple of decades.
This latter statement is not a reflection of the Geneva Bible, but rather of the bulk of its modern advocates. No one has printed a Geneva Bible that is of an affordable price, and no one distributes them for free. They range between 45 to 100 plus dollars. This is because the dollar sign is their god. Finding very inexpensive KJV Bibles is very easy, and there are many people supplying them for free. There is an entirely different spirit behind KJV printing. I have yet to see anyone trying to distribute Geneva Bibles for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. Are these profiteers the real remnant? I trow not.
My first encounters with Geneva Bible advocates were among Identity Cult members and at common law meetings. The racist and anti-Christian views expressed by these gentleman, along with their use of four letter words sputtered between puffs of cigarette smoke, were enough to make their real goals obvious. These "gentlemen" did not actually understand the Geneva Bible or even read it. Their purpose was the same as those of the Westcott Hort perversion promoters. It was simply to undermine our faith in the Final Authority and to replace it with our own understanding. It was no more than an excuse for rebellion. If the KJV is not enough, and we need the Geneva Bible, the Fenton Bible, or whatever, why not use the ASV, RSV, NIV or whatever other book suits our personal tastes? It is notable that most Geneva advocates use the exact same lame arguments to attack the KJV that the Westcott Hort and atheist crowd uses. They use the same stupid and baseless accusation that King James was a sodomite, and the same invalid accusations of errors. It is hardly surprising that many of these Geneva Bible advocates and their Identity and common law movement bedfellows also do promote and use multiple modern versions, heretic Pete Peters being a prime example.
One of the best examples of the spirit of this crowd was displayed for me at a survival show at which I was lecturing on the topic of wilderness survival. I was wearing a KJV 1611 cap when a man selling common law reprints approached me and commented on it. He was friendly enough, but he told me that he was selling Geneva Bibles -- which were quite expensive I should add -- and that I might consider getting one. He then proceeded to tell me how a *$%oøT¢ preacher from a ^%$#^&£? church argued that the KJV was a better Bible. He went on and on describing this gentleman using virtually every four letter word that I know, including those that blaspheme God, those that refer to sexual activity, and those referring to human excretions. He told me that the man ended up reading the Geneva Bible and apologized to him later. Even though this man had asked him for forgiveness, although he should not have, the salesman described him with the worst of foul language imaginable. His spiritual position was obvious: Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." I walked away shaking my head. I did not argue with him. He was probably the best advocate for the KJV in that building.
A final issue that should not be overlooked concerns the metrical superiority of the KJV. While the overwhelming majority of the Geneva Bibles verses do not conflict with those of the KJV, they do, however lack the metrical flow that greatly facilitates the memorization of the KJV. The King James translators made a conscious effort choose words that flowed easily from the tongue and better enabled the ability of men to retain them in their hearts. The Geneva's style was a heavier and less eloquent presentation of
God's word.
In summary, Geneva Bible promotion is little more than an effort to attack the inerrancy and perfection of the Bible. It has the exact same goal of those of the leftist Westcott Hort promoting crowd, and it uses most of the same blank ammunition. It may stem from a group with very different political objectives, but it ultimately comes from the same desire to place oneself as supreme, rather than placing God's word as supreme.
Endnotes
My thanks to Jerry Bouey, Herb Evans, and Teno Groppi for their thoughts and assistance in researching this article.
John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of KJV equivalent
Bibles in all the languages of the world.
jhinton@post.harvard.edu
Source
1 Peter 2:13 & 14 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."
A local brother asked me to respond to an attack against the King James Bible by a gentleman who made the claim that the Geneva Bible is superior due to its allegedly better treatment of the above quoted verse.
Geneva: " 13 & 14 "Submit yourselves unto all manner of ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be unto the King, as unto the superior, Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent of him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well."
Having long been irritated by similar attacks from some fellow members of the patriot community (a name that I will use for the sake of brevity and due to the lack of a better one), I felt compelled to respond.
The essence of the argument is that the following Geneva translation is superior for using the word "superior" instead of "supreme" as the KJV does. He suggested that the KJV is claiming that the king is supreme over all, including God, while the Geneva's choice of the word "superior" does not make such a claim.
This is what happens when someone who considers himself to be the final authority starts looking for excuses to turn from the Final Authority. In their endless pursuit of forcing the Bible to fit what they want it to say, such Bible "correctors" go out of their way to twist facts in order to make themselves appear wise rather than to study to find themselves approved. As is often the case, this critic has failed to understand the passage in the first place. This reference does not state that kings are supreme over God any more than the Geneva Bible's rendering implies that the king is superior to God. This passage refers to the king as supreme or superior to others in respect to their status in relationship to worldly government. This verse must be read in context with the rest of the Bible, which makes it abundantly clear to whom supreme obedience is due.
A few definitions from Webster's 1828 Dictionary are useful here:
SUPRE'ME, a. L. supremus, from supra.1. Highest in authority; holding the highest place in government or power. In the United States, the congress is supreme in regulating commerce and in making war and peace. The parliament of Great Britain is supreme in legislation; but the king is supreme in the administration of the government. In the universe, God only is the supreme ruler and judge. His commands are supreme, and binding on all his creatures.
2. Highest, greatest or most excellent; as supreme love; supreme glory; supreme degree. SUPRE'MELY, adv. With the highest authority. SUPREM'ACY, n. See Supreme. State of being supreme or in the highest station of power; highest authority or power; as the supremacy of the king of Great Britain; or the supremacy of parliament.
SUPE'RIOR, a. Sp.L. from super, above.
1. Higher; upper; more elevated in place; as the superior limb of the sun; the superior part of an image.
2. Higher in rank or office; more exalted in dignity; as a superior officer; a superior degree of nobility.
SUPE'RIOR, n. One who is more advanced in age. Old persons or elders are the superiors of the young.
1. One who is more elevated in rank or office.
2. One who surpasses others in dignity, excellence or qualities of any kind. SUPERIOR'ITY, n. Pre-eminence; the quality of being more advanced or higher, greater or more excellent than another in any respect; as superiority of age, of rank or dignity, of attainments or excellence.
Noah Webster obviously understood the purport of this verse much better than our critic does.
It was suggested to me that we might also consider that we may look upon a head of state as supreme because he is in a position of worldly authority, but that does not make him superior. Bill Clinton was the supreme government official of the United States, but that whoremongering reprobate was not superior to the average skid row bum, and was inferior to most.
It must also be remembered that this is a letter by Peter to foreigners in the region that he is addressing. He is telling them that they are to conduct themselves as good citizens, not as a disruptive rabble. Furthermore, the second clause of the verse does show that the verse refers to governors and kings that are sent by God. The Geneva Bible's rendering of verse 14, on the other hand, seems to suggest that the governors to be obeyed are sent by the king for the punishment of evil. This could be used to demonstrate the opposite point as that of our critic. The Geneva makes a stronger statement about obeying kings and governors than does the KJV.
However, an honest evaluation of both Bible versions on the whole make it clear that neither the KJV nor the Geneva promote placing God below worldly rulers. I will be dealing with this issue in great detail in a future article on Romans 13, but just a quick look through Acts, or any of the books of Prophets alone is enough to make this indisputable. Men and kings are not to be obeyed when they are in opposition to God.
The most absurd aspect of the Geneva Bible promoters is that they make the false or ignorant accusation that King James was responsible for the contents of the Bible that he only commissioned. These Bible "correctors" blow much smoke over the alleged interference by King James by having his attitudes toward kingship was inserted into the text. Contrary to what these unscholarly parrots seem to believe, King James did not translate the Bible nor did he choose the members of the committee. Some members of the committee were even openly opposed to James' view of the divine right of kingship. He was aware of their opposition and did not oppress them for it. In reality, James had no say or part in the actual translating of the texts and he left the worthy members of the translation committee to do their work unhampered. What is particularly absurd about the accusation is that these apostate critics all praise the Geneva Bible for its inclusion of the notes of reformers, most notably those of John Calvin. To whatever level of despotism King James could have been accused of having attained, it cannot, by any standards at all, be compared with the level of tyrannical and cruel despotism of John Calvin.
Calvin was a murderous monster who ruled Geneva as an absolute dictator, both politically and religiously. His opposition was systematically tortured, murdered, and brutalized into submission to his absolute will. His murder of Servetus by burning was an act of the utmost cruelty for no other crime than having opposed Calvin. Calvin's own words concerning Servetus display his great cruelty: "One should not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn them cruelly." The Big Brother government of Orwell and the modern state had a predecessor in the government of Calvin. Christian morals, as interpreted by Calvin, were monitored and enforced through a draconian system of surveillance that recognized no individual rights or privacy. Houses of those suspected of thought crimes were searched by a secret police not unlike the Gestapo, Stasi, KGB, or the emerging Homeland Security of America. Opposition to infant baptism was considered a capital crime the concept of local church authority was attacked by a government in which Calvin had pope-like authority. Condemning the King James Bible for its indirect association with King James when the KJV includes no notes by the king or any other man, while praising a Bible that includes the notes of one of the worst tyrants in the history of Europe, is the height of idiocy, not to mention duplicity.
We might further look at the issue of notes. What business do the notes of man belong in Scripture? I see no problem with personal notes that are placed by the reader in their own Bibles for reminders, details, cross references, and so forth, but man's opinions should not be printed with God's word. Doing so elevates the words of common men to the level of those of prophets, apostles, and God himself. This should apply to the words of sincere Bible-believers as well as to apostates like Scofield or the commentators of the Ryrie and similar tainted Bibles. One of the reasons that the Geneva Bible needed to be replaced is that the notes, whether good or bad, needed to be removed so that God's word would be left pure. It should be added that the notes of the Geneva Bible often undermine the literal interpretation of the Bible in favor of allegorical interpretations. One example is found in Luke in the notes to Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." [KJV]
"(m) He says all this using an allegory, as if he said, "O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived until now in relative peace: but now there is at hand a most severe battle to be fought, and you must therefore lay all other things aside and think about dressing yourselves in armour." And what this armour is, is shown by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden and reproved Peter for striking with the sword."
Incidentally, this note also contradicts the common rhetoric that the Geneva Bible promotes resistance to ungodly laws of men better than the KJV. An allegorical interpretation of this verse removes one of our best biblical defenses for the Second Amendment of the Bill or Rights, and our right to defend ourselves against godless tyranny. Such an interpretation also would have helped keep Calvin safe from those who would have rebelled against his tyranny. It should be noted that Peter was not carrying an allegorical sword in the garden, and Jesus never reproved him for carrying it, only for trying to hamper what God had ordained to be done. We also need to remember that Jesus told his disciples that the two swords that they had were enough. Are these supposed to be two allegorical swords?
As stated above, Calvin was also a promoter of the blasphemous idea that water baptism of infants cleanses of sin: "At whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life" (Institutes, IV). "By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ ... infants are to be baptized ... children of Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism" (Institutes, IV)." As David Cloud points out, this was a clinging to his Catholic upbringing. Cloud further demonstrates that Calvin never really left Catholicism behind, but rather replaced the Pope with himself. He openly praised the heretic Augustine, and placed his words above the authority of the Bible: "If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his" (Institutes, Book III, chap. 22). This is the hero of the Geneva Bible pushers?
It is amazing to witness the hatred that some spew for King James. Some actually act as if they knew him personally and have a personal vendetta against him, while they praise the heretical and murderous tyrant of Geneva. Their real vendetta, of course, is not with King James the I & VI, but with the Bible itself.
God said that he would purify his word seven times.
Psalm 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." The Geneva Bible was the fifth English translation. It was a great Bible, but it was not the perfect word of God in English until those notes were removed and other flaws were ironed out. The culmination of this work was with the seventh translation, the Authorized or King James Version. The Psalm 12 verse that follows is also relevant to this discussion: "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
The Geneva Bible promoters apparently believe that God lied about preserving his words, because the Geneva Bible virtually disappeared from existence along with the Coverdale, Great, Bishops and other worthy predecessors of the King James Bible. It was the KJV that built the church and it is the KJV that is holding together the remnant church during the great falling away in which we currently live. It was the KJV that inspired the great missionary movement of the nineteenth century, and it was the KJV that brought about the Bible translations of that period throughout the world. The Geneva Bible advocates never did anything to spread the Gospel, and neither did the strict followers of John Calvin. This is why William Carey's great efforts to spread the Gospel as commanded by Christ "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" [Mark 16:15] were denounced by some during his time. Their Calvinistic views prevented them from obeying the Great Commission and they have not changed, but rather they have gotten far worse.
These advocates of the Geneva Bible would have us believe that all of this was error while the "true" Bible was unprinted and hidden in a few libraries. This should remind us of the claims of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus advocates, although I am in no way comparing the text of the Geneva Bible with those corrupt texts. The Geneva Bible advocates would have us believe that the only ones that have the "true" Bible are largely of a bunch of baby-sprinkling who have and do not give any witness, and foul-mouthed, cigarette-smoking, beer-guzzling, racist, ignoramuses, common law shysters, money-grubbing parasites on the patriot community and Identity Cult clods with below average IQs that just arose into view in the last couple of decades.
This latter statement is not a reflection of the Geneva Bible, but rather of the bulk of its modern advocates. No one has printed a Geneva Bible that is of an affordable price, and no one distributes them for free. They range between 45 to 100 plus dollars. This is because the dollar sign is their god. Finding very inexpensive KJV Bibles is very easy, and there are many people supplying them for free. There is an entirely different spirit behind KJV printing. I have yet to see anyone trying to distribute Geneva Bibles for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. Are these profiteers the real remnant? I trow not.
My first encounters with Geneva Bible advocates were among Identity Cult members and at common law meetings. The racist and anti-Christian views expressed by these gentleman, along with their use of four letter words sputtered between puffs of cigarette smoke, were enough to make their real goals obvious. These "gentlemen" did not actually understand the Geneva Bible or even read it. Their purpose was the same as those of the Westcott Hort perversion promoters. It was simply to undermine our faith in the Final Authority and to replace it with our own understanding. It was no more than an excuse for rebellion. If the KJV is not enough, and we need the Geneva Bible, the Fenton Bible, or whatever, why not use the ASV, RSV, NIV or whatever other book suits our personal tastes? It is notable that most Geneva advocates use the exact same lame arguments to attack the KJV that the Westcott Hort and atheist crowd uses. They use the same stupid and baseless accusation that King James was a sodomite, and the same invalid accusations of errors. It is hardly surprising that many of these Geneva Bible advocates and their Identity and common law movement bedfellows also do promote and use multiple modern versions, heretic Pete Peters being a prime example.
One of the best examples of the spirit of this crowd was displayed for me at a survival show at which I was lecturing on the topic of wilderness survival. I was wearing a KJV 1611 cap when a man selling common law reprints approached me and commented on it. He was friendly enough, but he told me that he was selling Geneva Bibles -- which were quite expensive I should add -- and that I might consider getting one. He then proceeded to tell me how a *$%oøT¢ preacher from a ^%$#^&£? church argued that the KJV was a better Bible. He went on and on describing this gentleman using virtually every four letter word that I know, including those that blaspheme God, those that refer to sexual activity, and those referring to human excretions. He told me that the man ended up reading the Geneva Bible and apologized to him later. Even though this man had asked him for forgiveness, although he should not have, the salesman described him with the worst of foul language imaginable. His spiritual position was obvious: Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." I walked away shaking my head. I did not argue with him. He was probably the best advocate for the KJV in that building.
A final issue that should not be overlooked concerns the metrical superiority of the KJV. While the overwhelming majority of the Geneva Bibles verses do not conflict with those of the KJV, they do, however lack the metrical flow that greatly facilitates the memorization of the KJV. The King James translators made a conscious effort choose words that flowed easily from the tongue and better enabled the ability of men to retain them in their hearts. The Geneva's style was a heavier and less eloquent presentation of
God's word.
In summary, Geneva Bible promotion is little more than an effort to attack the inerrancy and perfection of the Bible. It has the exact same goal of those of the leftist Westcott Hort promoting crowd, and it uses most of the same blank ammunition. It may stem from a group with very different political objectives, but it ultimately comes from the same desire to place oneself as supreme, rather than placing God's word as supreme.
Endnotes
My thanks to Jerry Bouey, Herb Evans, and Teno Groppi for their thoughts and assistance in researching this article.
John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of KJV equivalent
Bibles in all the languages of the world.
jhinton@post.harvard.edu
Source
KING JAMES BIBLE VERSUS GENEVA BIBLE
The attack on the King James Bible comes in many forms chiefly with the proliferation of a multitude of modern versions that altered the Holy Bible in thousands of places. Then a more subtle form comes from the resurrection of the older English versions that God has bypassed in church history leaving them on the shelves in the annals of history. Of late, the promotion of the Geneva Bible comes into focus with the aim of replacing the King James Bible. It is the same strategy employed to deceive readers into thinking that going back to the originals is better and in this case, the original English version that the Puritans used. Below is a discussion taken from the Which Version Club to clear the myth that The Geneva Bible is the correct English Bible to be used by English speaking Christians.
<><><><><><><><>
I need to write a short article on this, but for now let me very briefly clear up yet another MYTH...
To wit, the MYTH that the Puritans continued to use the Geneva Bible after the KJB was produced and in fact had to be almost coerced into using the KJB.
This is PURE MYTH.
In fact, it was the PURITANS who REQUESTED the translation of the KJB to begin with. Without the Puritans REQUESTING the KJB, there would never have BEEN a KJB.
Moreover, a great many of the KJB translators were themselves PURITANS, and contrary to our modern day myth-makers from established religious and orthodox seminaries, the Puritans adopted the KJB with virtual IMMEDIACY.
All one must do to confirm this is READ the quotations of such men as John Bunyan (who stated that he believed the Authorised Version to be the EXACT REPLICA of the autographs), John Owen, Richard Baxter, Thomas Boston, Thomas Brooks, Stephen Charnock, Thomas Goodwin, George Swinnock, and MANY others, and it will be discovered that these men ALL lived within a generation of the publication of the KJB, and that these men ALL used the KJB, NOT the Geneva Bible.
As I said, when time allows I'm going to write a short article demonstrating all of this, but for now don't be fooled by the MYTH that the Puritans stuck to the Geneva Bible after the KJB came out, because it just ain't so.
Scott
<><><><><><><><>
Ah, a MYTH it is indeed! Scott is right on when he states that it was the Puritans that requested a new Bible be produced. I've debated this several times in the past and wrote a short article on the Pilgrims and the Geneva Bible. Following is an excerpt from the article. I believe it applies to this current thread.
“As you can see, it appears everyone is adamant that the Bible of the early Pilgrims was the Geneva Bible and “certainly not the King's of England's Bible!”. Perhaps the record should be set straight as to whose Bible this was. It was certainly not the King of England's Bible. For far too long this rhetoric has been spouted. King James had nothing to do with the translation of this Bible nor did he even come up with the idea to produce a new translation. Here are the historical facts of the matter as laid down by Samuel Bagster in the wonderful book, “An Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures” (published - 1841).
Soon after James I ascended the throne on March 24, 1603 a petition in the name of more than 1,000 ministers was brought before the King. The petition, called the “Millenary Petition”, was separated into 4 headings; 1) Things connected with the Church service; 2) Church ministers; 3) Church living and maintenance; and 4) Church discipline. Promptly, a letter was written in answer of these matters and sent to the King by the University of Oxford. Because of this James I decided to bring the matter to a public conference. Delegates representing the Anglicans and those of the petitioners were invited to the palace of Hampton Court the following January. The delegates representing the 1,000 ministers were Dr. John Reynolds, Dr. Thomas Sparke of Oxford, Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Knewstubbs from Cambridge. At the conference Dr. Reynolds took on the role as chief speaker and brought before the King a request “for a New Translation of the Bible” on the second day.
Prior to this day there is no historical record that the King had entertained such a notion as a new Bible translation. Dr. Reynolds' suggestion (which was really the suggestion of the 1,000 petitioners) found favor in the King's eyes and James I heard Reynolds and the others concerning the matter. During the conference, the Anglican delegates, led by Archbishop Bancroft, opposed the idea of a new translation. Despite Bancroft's efforts King James I gave permission to Dr. Reynolds and the delegates with him to proceed with the process of rendering a new translation of the Bible into the English language. “The method proposed by the king was this; that the version should be made by some of the most learned men in both the Universities, that it should then be reviewed by the bishops and other of the most learned ecclesiastics, that it should then be laid before the Privy Council, and last of all be ratified by Royal authority, so that in the whole Anglican establishment this translation so made should be used, and no other (Bagster, “An Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures”, p. 149).”
For long King James I has been blamed for the removal of the notes found in the Geneva Bible. This is not an entirely true statement and the facts have been misrepresented as have most `facts' that are reported by the other side. While the King didn't necessarily agree with some of the notes there is absolutely no indication that he planned to force the translators to remove them. If anyone can produce information to the contrary I would be delighted to have it. Interestingly enough, the idea to have the notes removed entirely came from Archbishop Bancroft and not Dr. Reynolds, King James I or any of the petitioners. So, the next time you hear or read the lie that King James I wanted a new Bible because he didn't like the notes or that he was responsible for their removal you can present the facts. As I stated earlier, James I didn't like some of the notes but it wasn't until after Bancroft suggested that they be withheld from the new translation that James I commented on them.” (taken from Pilgrims and the Geneva Bible by Martin A. Shue)
Side-note: Scott, you may find it laughable but in one certain discussion group I was told that not a single one of the KJB translators was “a Puritan”. I presented him with a list of names as long as my arm and he responded by saying that since I didn't know these men personally I couldn't say “for sure” what their beliefs were. I offered many references of what many men had stated about these translators but he ignored all the evidence and continued to insist that none of the translators were Puritans.
Marty
<><><><><><><><>
Sure. Here is the exact quote by Bunyan --
"As Mr. Bunyan was upon the road near Cambridge, there overtakes him a scholar that had observed him a preacher, and said to him, How dare you preach, seeing you have not the original, being not a scholar?
Then said Mr. Bunyan, Have you the original? Yes, said the scholar. Nay, but, said Mr. Bunyan, have you the very self-same original copies that were written by the penmen of the scriptures, prophets and apostles? No, said the scholar, but we have the true copies of those originals. How do you know that? said Mr. Bunyan. How? said the scholar. Why, we believe what we have is a true copy of the original.
Then, said Mr. Bunyan, SO DO I BELIEVE OUR ENGLISH BIBLE IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL. Then away rid the scholar." The Struggler, Works of John Bunyan
The term "ENGLISH BIBLE" in those day ALWAYS without exception referred to the Authorised Version.
Moreover, it can easily be demonstrated that Bunyan used the AV, for with only a handful of exceptions, he quoted the AV in ALL his writings. In fact, of the handful (or less) times that he quoted from the Geneva, the context usually indicates that he was quoting from memory, as even his editor noted on one or two occasions.
Consider how prolific Bunyan was in his writings, meaning that there were literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of quotations made by him in all his writings, the fact that almost every single one of these quotations came from the AV is enough to prove that Bunyan and the other Puritans of his day employed the AV, not the Geneva.
It also proves that Bunyan was not coerced into using the AV, for the fact that he quoted the Geneva in a few cases demonstrates that he was not in the least bit intimidated about quoting whichever Bible he wanted to quote.
It is significant that John Bunyan, John Owen, et. al., all quoted from the AV.
Scott
<><><><><><><><>
Some notes on Puritan use of the KJB which I have extracted from my book.
1. Various translators of the King James Bible were moderate Puritans, including Thomas Harrison, Laurence Chaderton, Samuel Ward, John Reynolds, Miles Smith and George Abbot. The fact that George Abbot became the next Archbishop of Canterbury shows how much King James favoured moderate Puritanism. Miles Smith wrote the address to the reader in the front of the King James Bible specifically appealing to the Puritan mind.
2. The representatives from England who went to the Synod of Dort, 1620, included Dr Samuel Ward, who praised the KJB.
3. The 1638 Edition of Cambridge was edited by two of the original translators, John Bois and Samuel Ward, and two other learned men, Joseph Mede and J. Goad. Joseph Mede was a Cambridge Puritan and the notable influence on John Milton.
4. Oliver Cromwell went to Samuel Ward's college at Cambridge and when Cromwell ruled England, King James Bibles (not Geneva Versions) were printed by his authority. "When in 1616 Cromwell went up to Cambridge it was to Sidney Sussex, a college ... Its master, the [Puritan] Samuel Ward, was one of the translators of King James's Bible, the book which Cromwell was to turn to so often for ideas, ammunition and arguments to fortify his opinions; and to which the eloquence and forcefulness of his language owed so much." (Young, P., 1975, Oliver Cromwell and His Times, Severn House Publishers, London, Great Britain, page 14). His biographers have pointed out that it was "The `Authorised Version' of James I., from which Cromwell appears always to quote".
5. William Prynne used the KJB.
6. John Milton used the KJB.
7. John Canne was given authority for seven years from 1653 to print Bibles with his notes.
8. Brian Walton believed, "the English translation of the Bible", as John Selden (1584-1654) recorded, "is the best translation in the world and renders the sense of the original best." Thomas Fuller (1608-1661) wrote, "the last translation of the Bible, which no doubt was done by those learned men in the best English, agreeth perfectly with the common speech of our country". And Bulstrode Whitelocke (1605-1675) recorded, "the Bible in English; which was yet agreed to be the best of any translation in the world".
Bible Protector
<><><><><><><><>
The Geneva Version was rejected by King James, who believed it to be corrupt and deficient, and therefore entertained the suggestion that a new translation of the Bible should be made. The King James Bible is similar to the Geneva Version in many respects, which shows how much the translators really did esteem it; nevertheless, there are some differences which must be brought to general attention.
1. The text of the Geneva, while close to the King James Bible, shows some variations in selection from Textus Receptus material.
2. The translation of the Geneva, while close to King James Bible, shows some differences in rendering of ideas.
3. That unlike the King James Bible, the helps, marginal material and other matters were biased toward a particular interpretation, because it was accomplished in the predominantly Calvinist republic of Geneva.
This is not to say that the Geneva Version was badly done, or unusable; merely, that revision was necessary, as the King James Bible translators themselves admitted. In 1911, Hoare, author of "Our English Bible", wrote, "England might have remained up to this day distracted by the conflicting claims of rival versions of the Scripture, and we might even now be calling out, in the spirit of the Corinthian converts of St Paul, `I am of Tyndale,' `I am of Coverdale,' `I am of Geneva.'"
But the moderate Puritans saw the value of the King James Bible, and though some support persisted for the Geneva Version (e.g. by certain English Presbyterians), the decade of the 1650s saw the death of the Geneva Version, under the very rule of the Puritans. The Cambridge Printers in 1656, for example, were printing the King James Bible by the conferred privilege of Oliver Cromwell.
Those modern detractors make out as if the Puritans were altogether about to dethrone the King James Bible, and reinstate the Geneva, when in fact we find that the Puritans made deliberate decisions (in the Providence of God) to uphold the King James Bible.
Bible Protector
<><><><><><><><>
For more information on the deficiencies of the Geneva Bible, please read Brother Will Kinney's article on this topic.
The Deficiencies of The Geneva Bible
<><><><><><><><>
For more information on the Geneva Bible issue, please also read Dr. Hinton's article below:
Geneva or King James Bible
Source
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Conflicts to get more 'pernicious': ICRC chief
International Commitee of the Red Cross president Jakob Kellenberger
(AFP) – 2 hours ago
GENEVA — Conflicts will get ever more "pernicious," the ICRC's chief said Wednesday on the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, as he made a fresh plea for armed groups and states to protect civilians and detainees.
"On the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, I make a heartfelt plea to states and non-state armed groups who are also bound by their provisions to show the requisite political will to turn legal provisions into a meaningful reality," said Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
"I urge them to show good faith in protecting the victims of armed conflicts - conflicts that in view of the challenges I have mentioned today are likely to become ever-more pernicious in the years to come," he added.
The Geneva-based ICRC is the internationally-recognised guardian of the 1949 laws protecting civilians, detainees, the wounded and humanitarian workers in conflicts. The conventions have been ratified by 194 countries.
But the ICRC says there have been violations on a "regular basis" in the field, ranging from the mass displacement of civilians to indiscriminate attacks and ill-treatment of prisoners.
After the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, the ICRC also became embroiled in a tussle with the then US George W. Bush administration over the treatment of detainees from Afghanistan, torture, secret detention and the scope of the conventions.
Amid challenges ranging from rising internal conflicts to the blurring of lines between combatants and civilians, Kellenberger said more clarity was needed on certain aspects of the conventions in order to ensure better compliance and enforcement.
A guidance document was published two months ago by the ICRC detailing who constitutes a civilian, and work is ongoing to elaborate on issues such as those related to displacement and detainees, he said.
"Based on a comprehensive assessment of the conclusions of this research, which is still underway, a case will be made for the clarification or further development of specific aspects of the law," added Kellenberger.
In displacement issues, questions needing clarification include the right to voluntary return, the need to preserve family unity and the prohibition of forced return, he said.
"Precise rules" surrounding the treatment and conditions of detention, such as the detainees' right of contact with the external world, are also lacking, Kellenberger said.
In addition, a legal definition of non-international conflict also needs to be developed, he said, in order to close loopholes that could be exploited.
"The existence of an armed conflict may be refuted so as to evade the application of IHL (international humanitarian law) altogether," he said.
"Conversely, other situations may inaccurately or prematurely be described as an armed conflict, precisely to trigger the applicability of IHL and its more permissive standards regarding the use of force, for example," he added.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)