I mentioned earlier, it's not the gnv translation that leans Calvinist, but the marginal notes. There's a lot of commentary included in the margins of printed gnv, and that's what King James objected to, particularly how the Presbyterians were arguing for church govt to be in the hands of local presbytrs, instead of a pope and bishopric. The king saw thus as potentially leading to anti-royal pro-democracy sentiment.
So it wasn't because of any objection to the accuracy of the gnv translation, but politically motivated opposition to its commentaries.
yes the thing is originally you couldnt get a copy of the geneva bible without commentary
and the difference is KJV is stipulated that it must be published without commentaries.
This hasnt stopped people from adding them but you can always find a 'clean copy' without all the extras.
I know the scofield bible is one of those commentary added bibles that was used in a lot of dispensational teaching (and was kjv) but scripture itself says that one shouldnt add or take away from scripture so they violated that.
so the kjv hasnt always been immune from people adding to it and passing it off as kjv but the intent back then was to keep it free of the bias, which is why a lot of people feel the 1611 version was pure.
Before everyone added their own spin on KJV.
some versions, like NIV, defineitely feel and read like it was a Bible put together by committee! lol
So many passages that dont make sense or agree with each other. If you want a smooth reading experience, without any of those head scratching moments, and its just inspirational ....for me KJV wins everytime.
