A Reformed
- As someone primarily invested in the KJV, I find the "Geneva Bible: Text and Notes" to be crucial for basic Reformed doctrine. The only difficulty, as mentioned by reviewers before, is the older English spelling as well as the many abbreviated spellings which printers used to save space. Modern theologians and pastors/reverends would do well to reconsider the past they have discarded which is within this holy work.
- When seeking to prove Amillennialism wrong, I was rebuked by the Scripture use and God-supplied basic logic of a book like this. At times it is not as thorough as I'd like it to be, yet it most certainly does the job and then-some. (Others recommend Beale for more technical info.) And I also disagree where he deviates slightly from the KJV tradition in regards to his own translation. Additional excellent works on Logos: Riddlebarger: "A Case for Amillennialism, Expanded Edition: Understanding the End Times" & "The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth about the Antichrist" Beale: "Revelation: A Shorter Commentary" apparently abridged from: "The Book of Revelation (The New International Greek Testament Commentary | NIGTC)" Outside of Logos: Hoeksema: "Behold, He Cometh!: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation" Engelsma: "Christ's Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism" (And I'm looking forward to his: "The Church's Hope: The Reformed Doctrine of the End".)
- As I consider a translation to actually fulfill the role of "the Word of God"; I'm not sure what to make of this effort by Norton. The "Logosed" review here is welcome and extensive, yet I am in opposition to the theory behind Norton's revising, in that Norton is claiming we never even had an authentic KJV as it was meant to be. And so here he is, coming down from the Mount Sinai of the English language with his tableted efforts. Apparently our historical KJV, which irrefutably changed the English language, as well as Western society and the world, was just a mess of printer's errors and even erroneous word changes that stop it from being what the translators had originally made. Weird stuff. Can't wait for the NIV edition of this 400 years from now. Norton's work is an interesting curiosity. Yet I never find it as useful (due to a question of trust) as say the generally Reformed character of Webster with his "bowdlerized" revision of the KJV, or the modern Evangelically altered NKJV. Well, consider the source... especially with Holy Scripture.
- I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the NKJV.