I've already shown how shoddy the new Bible versions are. In fact, to boil it all down to a nutshell, if you are using any new Bible version, including the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, and others, you are using Bibles based off of corrupted Roman Catholic manuscripts. You are using variations of Roman Catholic bibles.

Only the King James Version and some older translations use the correct texts, which sprang from the originals. My above linked article goes into that a bit.

I had a pastor once, who only read the King James Version, but then a special family member gave him a very nice New King James Version, so he started using and preaching from that. My husband and I enjoyed speaking with this older, and very wise pastor after church services. He agreed that the new versions are not nearly as good as the KJV, but he didn't see anything wrong with the NKJV. He said that if we could show him what's wrong with the NKJV, he would switch back to the KJV, and never leave. The next time we saw him, we had a printout, showing some of the major problems with the NKJV. He's preached from the KJV only, ever since.

Some people, while seeing the errors and inferiority of the NKJV who have returned to the KJV have later decided to leave the KJV, and go with the Geneva bible. My pastor friend didn't do that, but I have another friend, who is also a minister, and he has recently done this.

He said the biggest drawing point for him to the Geneva was that it was translated by Puritans, while the KJV was mainly a Church of England Bible.

I've compared my Geneva with my KJV in the past, but my friend's and my discussion led me to do some deeper research, because his main reason for his switch sounded quite compelling.

Here's some of what I've learned so far...

While King James sided with neither the Puritans nor the Roman Catholics, and seemed to go more with the Church of England, that doesn't mean his translators did. He wanted the most educated translators he could get, to translate the King James Bible. It didn't matter if they were Church of England or Puritan, he just wanted the best translators.

Oh, and as a side note, it was not King James who had the idea for a new Bible translation. The idea was presented by a Puritan, because there were issues with the previous translations, and many Puritans wanted a purer Bible. King James eventually decided the Puritan who approached him was right, and he authorized a new translation to be made. Some of the major King James Translators were Puritans, because those men happened to be highly qualified for a translation as perfect as possible.

Another misconception, is that the Puritans continued using the Geneva even after the KJV was well known, and that it was the Geneva that came to the new land from the Mayflower, not the King James translation. Interestingly enough, in some of the older, public domain history books (free online at archive.org and other places) they report it was indeed the King James Bible that was brought on the Mayflower, and that large numbers of puritans switched from the Geneva to the King James Bible.

One of the other reasons for a new translation, was because it could be done without persecution, and therefore use of the proper ancient texts and plenty of resources and safety were there. This in itself makes the chances of the King James Bible being a superior translation. The Geneva, Bishop's Bible, and some others were utilized by the KJV translators, as well, because there were some very good translating in each of those previous editions. This is why the title page of KJV Bibles often say:

"Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the Former Translations diligently compared and revised"

This is why large portions of the King James Bible and the Geneva Bible are identical, or near so. You could consider the King James Bible to be a corrected edition of the Bishop's and Geneva Bibles.

The Geneva Bible was a true reformation Bible. It was there for the people, as a light to guide them, as they were leaving the Roman Catholic church for the Truth, instead. They were used to being told what the Bible said, how to behave as a Christian, what was proper doctrine, and what wasn't. Now that they were away from the Roman Catholic church, they had the responsibility of reading and learning the Scriptures for themselves. Therefore, the Geneva translators inserted notes on each page, explaining some of the hard to understand passages, for those new to the Scriptures.

The problem with that, is the same with all study Bibles of all times, and that is that the notes are not inerrant, and will have errors. For example, in at least two places, the Geneva notes refer to the archangel Michael and Jesus Christ as the same person, but we know this isn't so. Below is a quote from the Geneva note on Daniel 12:1:

"...God will send his Angel to deliver it, whom here he calleth Michael, meaning Christ..."

In 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the Geneva capitalizes the word "Archangel," which can confuse the reader into thinking that the archangel is deity. They thought the archangel was Jesus, as we derived from Daniel 12:1.

Daniel 10:13 says "...Michael, one of the chief princes..." in the Geneva Bible. The Geneva note on that part of the verse says:

"...even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of Angels."

A thorough reading of the Bible clearly shows Michael is an archangel, and not Jesus Christ. What does the Geneva then say about the angel Gabriel? Let's take a look.

In Luke 1:19, the Geneva capitalizes "Angel," where it refers to Gabriel, but the notes don't deify him.

In verse 26 of the same chapter, where the angel Gabriel is mentioned again, the Geneva again capitalizes "angel," and the notes say "...The Angel serving the Lord which should be born..."

Perhaps the Geneva translators capitalizing Angel when referring to Michael is not deifying, since they also seem to capitalize Angel when referring to Gabriel. However, the Geneva notes clearly deify Michael, but not Gabriel.

The angel Gabriel is mentioned multiple times in Daniel, just as the angel Michael is. While Daniel 10:13 in the Geneva notes deify Michael, what do the Geneva notes say of Gabriel, which is near the just mentioned verse - in 9:21? Nothing. Okay, what about in Daniel 8:16? There is a deification in this verse, but it isn't towards Gabriel, but towards the man speaking to Gabriel. The Geneva verse says "And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision."

The Geneva note on this verse says:

"This power to command the Angel, declared that he was God."

Clearly the Geneva translators capitalized Angel, at least when referring to Michael and Gabriel, but I haven't check other instances. I think this is a mistake, because it deifies the word "angel," when it is capitalized. This is why the King James Translators only capitalized "Angel," when it was referring to the "Angel of the Lord," which was a theophany.

Who is the man, that the Geneva notes deified for Dan. 8:16? The context of the chapter shows us it could be either way. Daniel fell on his face, and this man lifted him back up, and out of a deep sleep. It could have been a theophany, a saint, or another angel. There is not enough information in this chapter to declare that man was God, but it could have been.

The Geneva translators made the same mistake that most Bible translators of old and new did/do, except for the King James Version. Like modern versions, the Geneva wrongly has the word "Passover" in Acts 12:4, when the KJV correctly has it rendered "Easter." Acts 12:1-4 is referring to the pagan version of the passover, not the Jewish passover, and this is why it was taking place after the days of unleavened bread. This is why it should read "Easter" in Acts 12:4, and not "passover."

If the Geneva has an error there, does it have others? Yes. I compared some verses of the Geneva with the King James version, and not only found incorrect translations, but also some that were opposites! Take a look at some of what I found:

In Psalm 10:4-5 it should say "His ways are always grievous," but the Geneva says "his ways always prosper."

In Proverbs 26:22 it should say "The words of a talebearer are as wounds," but the Geneva says "The words of a talebearer are as flatterings."

In Luke 4:8, it should say "Get thee behind me, Satan," but the Geneva is unclear, because it says "Hence from me, Satan."

In John 6:47, it should say "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life," but the Geneva says "he that believeth in me, hath everlasting life." This is inaccurate, because many people have believed in Christ, and are in the pit of hell. However, believing ON Jesus Christ means you believe not just in His existence, but also on the redemptive work He did on the cross, to pay for our sins. In, is not necessarily a saving faith, but on, is.

The Geneva fairs much better than the NKJV or other new bible versions, but as you can see, it has its corruption and mistakes in it. The above is not at all exhaustive. There are many more issues with the Geneva notes and text. I have just shown you a chip off of the iceberg.

Now, a note on the notes, before closing...

One of the things that is nice about the King James Version, is the translators didn't put in a lot of notes, but they did do some. They, however, did not put in any notes, telling you how to interpret the Bible. While both the Geneva and King James Bible had Puritans behind the translations, the King James Bible is more pure. Not only in its translation, text, and manuscripts, but also in the notes, because it leaves the interpretation up to the reader. The only notes the King James translators included, were alternate translations when they were unsure of certain words, and more literal translations, when the one they gave wasn't as literal. They were very honest on all of this.

For example, the head covering verses in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 - The KJV translators gave an alternate translation for the word "cover" in verse 15. That alternate translation is "veil." This is because a different Greek word for 'cover' was used there, than was used through out the rest of the passage. While 'cover' meant something on the head through most of the passage, the word for 'cover' in verse 15 meant something different; it meant a covering that wraps around, like a veil, and that's why the KJV translators gave 'veil' as an alternate translation.

Another great KJV Translator's note (of many): In Genesis 2:17, the Word of God says:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

The KJV translators have a note for "thou shalt surely die." They give a more literal translation in the margin, which is "dying thou shalt die." This helps the text to make more sense, because we see that Adam and Eve didn't keel over the second they ate the forbidden fruit. They began to die at the moment, physically - "dying thou shalt die." They were kicked out of the garden of Eden, and were denied access to the tree of life. Eternal life was not to be for them. They began to age, and thus began the slow process of dying, which we are all in, today. Meanwhile, they did die spiritually, because they disobeyed God, and became lost.

The Geneva text and notes for the above verse does not shine light on the literal "dying thou shalt die," nor does the Geneva point out the alternate translation of 'cover' in 1 Corinthians 11:15 to be "veil."

You can read the Geneva, which is an excellent translation, but has problems, and some wrong notes, or you can read the King James Bible, which is a superior translation, and admitted to be a correction of the Bishop's, Geneva, and earlier translations. It is the pinnacle of Bible translations, and it is preserved. Thank God for the King James Bible, where we can have the Word of God in English to feed from daily.