Both editions you mention are superior to all other English translations due to being the earliest. And KGV and Geneva are 90% the same word-for-word.
But the problem is translation itself, and also the slippery, shifting meaning of words over great periods of time. A quick review of many words in Strong's Concordonce reveals there can literally be DOZENS of definitions for a single word at times. This fact alone allows for infinite interpretations on the spectrum of today's "literal by today's mainstream definition" supporters to "allegorical. mystical and mysterious" by those who recognize the deeper layers embedded in scripture.
I find the second word of the bible in ALL English translations to be plainly inaccurate -> "in THE beginning". The use of a "definite article" (the) is grammatically incorrect in relation to the Hebrew word used, which is an "indefinite article" and would thusly be correctly translated in English to either: "In A beginning" or "In ANY beginning".
Even such a tiny little change from a single definite to indefinite article RADICALLY changes how one perceives and relates to the scripture itself, begging the question; "Was there this one and only "beginning", or are there an infinite and eternal number of "beginnings"?
Also, the Greek word "aEONious" being translated hundreds of times to "Eternal" when the correct word "EON" is right there and plainly obvious in the Greek word itself. The choice to make this change implies undeniable deceptive intent and a willful desire to defraud. There is no other possible explanation.
Nonetheless, I still enjoy much of the power and beauty of scripture. I feel blessed that I have learned to see through many of the deceptions due to the hand of man, which are inevitable and unavoidable.
Both editions you mention are superior to all other English translations due to being the earliest. And KGV and Geneva are 90% the same word-for-word.
But the problem is translation itself, and also the slippery, shifting meaning of words over great periods of time. A quick review of many words in Strong's Concordonce reveals there can literally be DOZENS of definitions for a single word at times. This fact alone allows for infinite interpretations on the spectrum of today's "literal by today's mainstream definition" supporters to "allegorical. mystical and mysterious" by those who recognize the deeper layers embedded in scripture.
I find the second word of the bible in ALL English translations to be plainly inaccurate -> "in THE beginning". The use of a "definite article" (the) is grammatically incorrect in relation to the Hebrew word used, which is an "indefinite article" and would thusly be correctly translated in English to either: "In A beginning" or "In ANY beginning".
Even such a tiny little change from a single definite to indefinite article RADICALLY changes how one perceives and relates to the scripture itself, begging the question; "Was there this one and only "beginning", or are there an infinite and eternal number of "beginnings"?
Also, the Greek word "aEONious" being translated hundreds of times to "Eternal" when the correct word "EON" is right there and plainly obvious in the Greek word itself. The choice to make this change implies undeniable deceptive intent and a willful desire to defraud. There is no other possible explanation.
Nonetheless, I still enjoy much of the power and beauty of scripture. I feel blessed that I have learned to see through many of the deceptions due to the hand of man, which are inevitable and unavoidable.