Facsimile 1599 Geneva Bible

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

The tolle lege 1599 geneva bible reprint modernized the spelling (easier to read) but it does not have apocrypha. The tolle lege edition of 1599 geneva bible moved the notes to the footnotes area so the notes are much easier to read. The first Bible in English to exclude the Apocrypha was the Geneva Bible of 1599.

[@margaretmcguire3241]

I listen to the 1599 Geneva Bible & I love it! I love the KJV too but the Geneva covers much more.. Thank u. Much sisterly love in Jesus precious name. 💕📖💕

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for commenting, Margaret! May God bless you and yours!

[@krazyone3806]

This is what a bible is like when the translators are allowed to function in a more neutral environment, free of political and economic influence. Tyndale spent much of his time on the run, and still managed to do an excellent job, much of his work is found in this version. It is hard to find a bible version that has been put together under better conditions than the Geneva Bible.

[@krazyone3806]

By the way, you really do an excellent job of reviewing the important things of a bible. I have thoroughly enjoyed watching all of your bible reviews. A breath of fresh air, thanks for a job well done.

[@geraldparker8125]

There is a prayer to use before reading Scripture, in the Geneva Bible, in which edition I forget, that I have used regularly for several decades when Bible reading.

[@geraldparker8125]

It's not that pious doggerel at the beginning of this facsimile!

[@stevenl1706]

@@geraldparker8125 “pious doggerel?” I don’t understand what you’re referring to. The introduction letters written for the reader in the front? If that’s “pious doggerel” then I guess you don’t place the same value on the holy scriptures like those translators did.

[@AmericanShia786]

Once again, an excellent video. I have considered purchasing a facsimile of the Geneva Bible since the late 1980s! Some years ago, I got a kindle version that is not very good. I don't use it. Reviews on Amazon of various editions of the 1560 and the 1599 Geneva Bible left me bewildered as to which one(s) to buy. After watching your video, I know I want the Tolle Lege 1599. However, my question for you is this: Is the extra matter in the back of this 1599 edition also contained in the 1560 Hendrickson edition of the Geneva Bible? I really like Morning and Evening Prayer and the prayers and psalter in the appendices. It would be nice to have the Apocrypha, but it's not a must have. Also, on the passage in Romans that Augustine used to define Original Sin and Guilt as a doctrine, that brings up a dilemma. Since all are born guilty because of Original Sin, from a Reformed Baptist perspective, what happens to the child of Christian parents who dies after birth but before he or she hears the Gospel and is Saved by Grace through Faith and is regenerated? Or, are babes saved by Grace through Faith and regenerated before they become able to understand the Gospel because they are elect? This ties into the struggle I've had in considering the paedobaptist versus credobaptist argument in Reformed Circles and it's equivalent in Wesleyan Arminian and New School evangelical circles. Yep, I still don't know if I am a paedobaptist or a credobaptist after reading arguments for paedobaptism. After rejecting Baptismal Regeneration in my teens, when to Baptize became a dilemma in my 30s and has bothered me for a quarter of a century. I can see both sides hehehe.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the encouraging comment, Philip. Just after you posted it, I posted another Geneva Bible review -- this latest one of the Tolle Lege Press hardback. I appreciate your dilemma. Of the Geneva Bibles I own, I like the Hendrickson 1560 best. But this facsimile is very nice also, and I think you could find something similar, though it might be somewhat expensive. The Tolle Lege Press edition is easier to read and it's not very expensive. However, I'm not very impressed with their choice of paper or font. (Also, my copy is almost 12 years old, so I'm not altogether sure how well it represents what Tolle Lege Press is publishing today.)

[@AmericanShia786]

I realized I did watch a review of the Tolle Lege edition by you some time ago. If the Hendrickson 1560 has the appendices with prayers and psalms, I'll get that. It's inexpensive. Thanks again.

[@RGrantJones]

@@AmericanShia786 - Unfortunately, the 1560 Hendrickson facsimile doesn't have the psalms and prayers that this 1599 includes. The Tolle Lege modernized 1599 Geneva doesn't either.

[@carltonpoindexter2034]

Excellent!

[@TempGFCanada]

Is there a Geneva Bible in Morden English spelling?

[@RGrantJones]

Yes. The one I reviewed here is no longer available -- kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJzTlKenqdF-adU . But if you search for a 1599 Geneva Bible from Tolle Lege Press, you may be able to find a similar edition.

[@oldchinyman859]

What's the GSM on the paper?

[@RGrantJones]

The paper weight wasn't reported. Based on the paper thickness (95 microns), I estimate the paper weight to be in the neighborhood of 87 gsm. It is thick and heavy.

[@oldchinyman859]

@@RGrantJones thank u. I was wondering if you know what bible would give us the Septuagint in the oldest English form (i.e. translation)? With the apocrypha of course

[@RGrantJones]

@@oldchinyman859 - As far as I know, Brenton's translation is the earliest one in English that's readily available and includes the apocrypha. Thomson's translation is earlier, but he omitted the apocrypha.

[@OGMAURCE]

Where can I get one?

[@RGrantJones]

I recommend searching Amazon and eBay. I bought this one in the late 1980s, I think, so they might be hard to find.

[@OGMAURCE]

@@RGrantJones lol yea I was 2 years old then, I jus ordered a 1560 Geneva edition.. I was looking for a more modern edition of it, like the 1599 pilgrims and reformers I blive.

[@RGrantJones]

The Hendrickson 1560 facsimile is a very nice book. Amazon sells the Tolle Lege 1599, which has a modern typeface, though the font is fairly small. www.amazon.com/1599-Geneva-Bible-Reformers/dp/0975484699 .

[@OGMAURCE]

@@RGrantJones thanx, Also, I kno the translators used the original languages unlike King James but how did they have access to the manuscripts, if they were in possession of the Vatican?

[@RGrantJones]

I think the situation was similar for both the Geneva and King James translations. For the New Testament, I believe they used the printed Greek New Testaments that had been published to date. Erasmus published several editions of his Greek NT, starting in 1516. By the time the 1560 Geneva Bible had come out, Stephanus (Robert Estienne) had published several editions as well. The King James translators had Theodore Beza's printed New Testaments to work from as well. All of those printed editions were based on Greek handwritten copies that had made their way into Western Europe, some of them after the Turks sacked Constantinople in 1453. Where the manuscripts differed, the editors (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza) chose which reading to include in their printed edition. The Vatican did have some manuscripts -- like Codex Vaticanus -- but far from all of them. Like the King James, the Geneva translators made use of the work of earlier translators like Tyndale -- they didn't start from scratch. That's my understanding, for what it's worth.

[@mcspankey4810]

Does this book include Enoch??

[@RGrantJones]

No, it doesn't. But you can buy 1 Enoch as a separate volume. I use a paperback translated by Nickelsburg and VanderKam.

[@rick31869]

READ ALL THE ENOCH BOOKS ESPECIALLY ENOCH 2 ,TALKS ABOUT FALLEN ANGELS UNDER ICE IN ANTARCTICA !!!

[@tedtan6449]

Hi, are you aware the Bible are Supernatural changed? Mathew 24 passage are now " There will be wars and rumours of wars" it wasn't like that. Does yours say this?

[@Menosaverus]

Hey Richt been a while. I just wanted to say that I am athiest now.(Yay for me)

[@RGrantJones]

Isn't that a contradiction? I was an agnostic for several years, but I was never so positive that God doesn't exist that I could call myself an atheist. I'll pray for you, Rudolf.

[@Menosaverus]

@@RGrantJones Ok. I hope that we do not become enemies.Also oops I accidentally said agnostic cause I was just having a thinking moments about the difference between the two and I just types it out.

[@RGrantJones]

@@Menosaverus - on my part, I wish you well. Why should we become enemies? I would guess that most of the people I come into contact with on any given day are at least practical atheists, even if they haven't worked it though intellectually. By the way, I've enjoyed your comments on these videos. I find them amusing. Just don't expect me to do a video review of Nietsche's _Beyond Good and Evil_ for you! (Incidentally, when I was an agnostic, a Christian evangelist knocked on my door. I let him in and we had a conversation. He gave me a tract to read, and I lent him my copy of _Beyond Good and Evil_ . I never saw it again. He stole it!)

[@Menosaverus]

@@RGrantJones Haha thats like asking an Imam to preach the Torah. Of course I won't ask you to do that.

[@RGrantJones]

My review of Hendrickson's facsimile 1560 Geneva Bible can be viewed here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYaae4Gpipl3m68 .

[@rick31869]

CAN I HAVE IT PLEASE ?

[@davewhitehead135]

16 Zero 4.