A Resolution That Tolle Lege Press and White Hall Press of Chicago Complete the Limited Modernization of the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE Begun in 2004 and all of its Spin-off Publications (August 15, 2014, revised September 7, 2015, updated July 6, 2022)



Note: During 2015 the writers opinion about the most practical solution has changed. It now seems that THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (London, 1672), with the notes from the GENEVA BIBLE is a superior Bible, both the text and the Geneva Notes text. Therefore, this original resolution may seem somewhat "irregular" in its focus and organization. However, it still details the need for a new limited modernization.
This is a complex question requiring additional thought and deliberation. Hopefully this resolution should be adequate for the moment. -- compiler


Whereas, the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE contains the commentary of the Geneva Reformers and is one of the most influential Bibles of the Protestant Reformation.

Whereas, the work of "restoring" the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE, begun by the Tolle Lege Press in 2004, is not complete.

Whereas, the error level in the text is unsatisfactory, and it does not meet minimum professional standards of typography, page design, and book design.

Whereas, it is suspected that members of the Advisory Board (http://www.genevabible.com/restored.php), may not have been aware of how unsatisfactory the first edition (2006) was, partly because of misleading statements in the Preface and Front Matter.


The Preface and Front Matter

Whereas, there are so many questionable statements in the Preface and Front Matter that it would be two lengthy to discuss them all here.

Whereas, if the Preface is analyzed sentence-by-sentence and word-by-word, then misrepresentations, irrational publishing "philosophy," problematic publishing goals, forced reasoning, poor judgment, unfulfilled promises, promising the impossible to the reader, and so forth, and so on -- all will be found. Together it amounts to false advertising and a fraud upon the book buyer.

Whereas, there was never a need "faithfully to preserve this single source," because today a bit-map scans of the authentic Source Document is readily available to readers in PDF format.

Whereas, there was a need to make the Source Document more readable by modernizing the spelling and typography.

Whereas, a limited modernization is defined to be modernization of spelling, typography, page design, and book design only. No changes are to be made in grammar, interpretation, or in the Source Document content, except to correct all known errors.

Whereas, the Preface makes claims based upon faulty logic, particularly under "Authenticity." This amounts to a misrepresentation of the "restoration" and false advertising.

Whereas, furthermore, calling the "restoration" authentic when text has been omitted is absurd. See below for a listing of text omitted from the Source Document.

Whereas, there is a disconnect between the stated "editorial philosophy and restoration processes" in the Preface and the publication released.

Whereas, the moment modernization takes place, then authenticity is lost. It is not possible to modernize spelling and to modernize the typeface, and to omit text, and then to claim the modernized edition is authentic to the Source Document.

Whereas, limited modernization of the typography, page design, and book design to increase aesthetic appeal, has not been completed.

Whereas, the Publisher's combined goals of authentic "restoration" and limited modernization were incompatible and have failed.

Whereas, limited modernization, and not "restoration," better describes an achievable goal of the project.

Whereas, the Preface can not stand as it is, and must be retracted and rewritten.


Source Document errors

Whereas, the online "Errata Report," http://www.genevabible.com/errata.php, written after the first printing, states, "it's important to keep in mind the distinction between correcting errors that we (in the 21st century) have made vs. errors that the GENEVA BIBLE publishers made (in the 16th century). We definitely want to fix the former, but to change the latter is to completely change the focus of this publication." This is irrational, and is forced reasoning.

Whereas, after the initial release of the GENEVA BIBLE in 1560, there were said to be over 140 additional printings and editions, including the 1762 KING JAMES VERSION WITH GENEVA NOTES, published by the British Crown. Some of these editions corrected errors found in the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE.

Whereas, because the Publisher's "editorial philosophy and restoration processes" was to not correct errors in the Source Document, many of the errors found in this "restoration" [approximately 106 of the 117 errors found] were copied deliberately from the Source Document. Some of these errors have been found to be corrected in later printings or editions. (See the "Possible Errata, Fourth Printing, 2008 [June 30, 2014, revised August 15, 2014]," which documents corrections found in other editions and gives the authority).

Whereas, it is irrational to deduce that a publisher should leave known errors uncorrected for the sake of preserving the historical authenticity of the Source Document, especially in a Bible.

Whereas, there is no good argument for a publisher printing known errors in a Bible.

Whereas, traditionally publisher's have always corrected errors. It is an integral part of composition and of the publishing process, especially with the Bible.


Deleted text and illustrations

Whereas, the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE "restoration," is not a restoration, and is not historically authentic, because it is not a faithful copy of all the text and illustrations found in the Source Document.

Whereas, it is stated in the Preface, "it has been our attempt faithfully to preserve this single source, rather than consult many editions that would risk producing an unauthentic pastiche. The only exceptions are rare indiscernible sections or words; in those cases we have consulted other editions, indicated by citations in brackets. "Every word, as well as exact sentence structure, of the source edition is retained."

Whereas, some text and illustration items found in the Source Document, but omitted from the "restoration," are as follows:
1. Arguments to the books of the Old and New Testaments. Arguments are provided in both the Source Document and in later editions of the GENEVA BIBLE.
2. Some Chapter Subjects.
3. The Apocrapha. It was a part of the original Source Document. It has been omitted from the printed restoration, but has been made available to the reader as a separate PDF file.
4. Undated Sternhold and Hopkins Psalms. This antiquated Psalter was omitted from the "restoration."
5. "A Table of Principle Things That are Contained in the Bible After the Order of the Alphabet." This is the index to the Bible.
6. Illustrations.
7. and so forth, and so on.

Whereas, the reader is not informed of the text and illustrations that have been deleted.


Typography, page design, and book design

Whereas, the Publisher's online "Errata Report," http://www.genevabible.com/errata.php, written sometime after the first printing, states, "tension arises when we want to see a historical document in the way that it was first published. How can we do that if we are also making alterations to it? We must decide to publish the authentic document just as it was, or decide to publish an edited version of it. If we start to change things, regardless of how justified we feel they are, we will no longer have the same Bible the Pilgrims brought to this country." It seems that the Publisher is equivocating over publishing "the authentic document just as it was, or . . . [publishing] an edited version of it." This is nonsense. Maintaining "a historical document in the way that it was first published" and publishing a modernized edition are incompatible goals.

Whereas, the size of the Bible text is 8/11. This is smaller than necessary, and the leading is greater that necessary. The small type size makes the Bible text harder to read, and gives a spacey appearance to pages. It is hard to understand why it was not set 9/10, making it easier to read.

Whereas, the modern typeface used, apparently ITC Berkeley Old Style Medium, is strange and inappropriate. The "e" seems out of place with its ascending arm, which is usually seen in italic fonts.

Whereas, the footnote text is 6/9, again unnecessarily small, and difficult to read, with excessive leading. It could be changed to 7/8, and be much easier to read and tighten text in the column.

Whereas, the footnote typeface is probably is Helvetica Thin. Changing it to Helvetica Light, a somewhat thicker and darker typeface, would also make the footnotes easier to read.

Whereas, the "restoration" attempted to copy distinctive features of the primitive, 16th century style of typography, page design, and book design.

Whereas, an "alphabet block" style of typography was retained, especially in headings. This makes headings and titles look strange. And "all capitals" text is considered harder to read.

Whereas, these are unprofessional style decision. The results are a less readable publication, and a failure aesthetically.

Whereas, the NEW GENEVA STUDY BIBLE, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, is an example of excellent, professional typographic style, page design, and book design.

Whereas, additional examples of excellent, modern typography, page style, and book design are available in libraries.

Whereas, the 1599 Geneva Bible, Tolle Lege Press Restoration, Fourth Printing, 2008, Probable Errata Listing (June 30, 2014, revised August 15, 2014, revised September 4, 2015), http://www.lettermen2.com/1599errata.html, has numerous, additional, detailed, comments on typography, page design, pagination, and book design.


Text errors

Whereas, many readers believe the Bible to the infallible Word of God. Therefore, they "expect perfection in the Bible text."

Whereas, the writer presented to the Publisher a listing of approximately 103 [117 as of September 4, 2015 -- writer], probable text errors of various sorts on July 10, 2014. It was prepared after studying the fourth printing, 2008. It has never been acknowledged by the Publisher.

Whereas, approximately 11 of the 117 errors were related to modernization of spelling. Many of the remaining printer's errors were deliberately copied from the Source Document by Tolle Lege, ostensibly for the sake of authenticity. See the Publisher's statement online at "Errata Report," http://www.genevabible.com/errata.php.

Whereas, apparently no errors, either in the Source Document or printer's errors in the "restoration" have been corrected in printed editions or in the spin-off electronic publications since the fourth printing of 2008. So, for seven years, in all following printings and publication, none of these listed 117 plus errata have been corrected.

Whereas, an estimated 60,000 copies [online there are claims of 100,000 copies in print] of these errors have been printed and sold as of September 7, 2015. Probably this does not account for errors in the publication on CD-ROM versions, in an online version, and in a Kindle version.


Cross-references

Whereas, the online "Errata Report," http://www.genevabible.com/errata.php, states, "for example, it is possible for one to make a study of the cross-references and say 'this should be that' basing one's judgment on meaning and sense, and that's good. However, one would essentially be saying 'You, John Calvin, et al., made a typo here.' And the fact is that early English publications were not proofed as carefully. The whole process of publishing was in a different era. So while one might be correct in updating cross-references, it is not the purpose of this publication to alter the original intentionally. We are simply reporting what the original had. The cross-reference system is flawed, but modern readers need to remember that this was a new feature that was not nearly as fine tuned as today's cross-reference systems. We suggest that when you see an obvious error that was also in the original, think of it an interesting historical anomaly and not as a modern error." This is nonsense, and undermines the reader's confidence in the Publisher.

Whereas, the Publisher failed to correct known errors in the cross-references of the Source Document. The Publisher raised an irrelevant question here (http://www.genevabible.com/errata.php), to dodge this responsibility. The issue is the failure to correct known errors in the cross-references, not the question of "updating cross-references" in the Source Document.

Whereas, correcting known errors whether they be in the Source Document, in the text, in typography and design, or in the cross-references of the Source Document, is generally considered to be the publisher's responsibility, if they are aware of the errors, and the reader assumes a publication is free of errors.

Whereas, accuracy in the cross-references is just as important as accuracy in the text. The same arguments for correcting known errors in text apply to correcting errors in cross-references.

Whereas, correcting known errors in cross-referencing in the Bible is especially important. One of the guiding principles of the Protestant Reformation is "the Scripture is to be its own interpreter, or rather the Spirit speaking in it; nothing can cut the diamond but the diamond; nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture." (Thomas Watson)


Error reporting

Whereas, if a Bible calls for another printing, then a professional publisher corrects known errors in the new printing.

Whereas, the Publisher has been evasive in acknowledging errors reported by readers since 2008, for the last seven years, during which time there have been numerous new printings and electronic publications of the faulty text.

Whereas, the online "Errata Report," http://www.genevabible.com/errata.php appears to have been inactive since sometime prior to the fourth printing in 2008.

Whereas, therefore, readers have no way of reporting probable errors, or of learning if errors have been corrected in new printings.

Whereas, an errata listing for the fourth printing, 2008, of approximately 45 items reported to the Publisher's errata e-mail address, ErrataReports@TolleLegePress.com, June 21, 2012, was never acknowledged, and was never posted on the Publisher's "Errata Report" webpage, http://www.genevabible.com/errata.php.

Whereas, a second errata listing prepared from the fourth printing, 2008, of approximately 103 items (including the first 45) completed June 30, 2014, and reported to the Publisher's errata e-mail address, ErrataReports@TolleLegePress.com, August 2, 2014, has not been acknowledge to date, September 7, 2015, and never appeared on their "Errata Report" webpage.

Whereas, these corrections were apparently never made in future printings, or spin-off electronic publications.

Whereas, a decision to correct text errors in the Source Document and the current restoration could be very expensive. Changes in typefaces, page design, pagination, and book design would be even more time-consuming and expensive.

Whereas, it is difficult to understand why this faulty text continues to be published. It corrupts a great Bible.

Whereas, it is recommended that the Publisher keep the public webpage, http://www.genevabible.com/errata.php, up-to-date with all reported errors not yet corrected. This should include both errors in the "restoration" and known errors copied from the Source Document.


Correcting text errors and illustrations

Whereas, the "Possible Errata, Fourth Printing, 2008 (June 30, 2014, revised August 15, 2014)," was not a formal proofreading against the Source Document. It only listed probable errors found during daily study. The fourth printing 2008 was not formally proofread against the Source Document by an experienced Bible proofreader.

Whereas, the Publisher's "philosophy" had been to print errors in the Source Document for the sake of authenticity. (See the Preface)

Whereas, this "philosophy" resulted in the large number of errors in the fourth printing, 2008 (approximately 106 of 117 errors found were copied from the Source Document).

Whereas, after the initial release of the GENEVA BIBLE in 1560, there were said to be over 140 additional printings and editions, including THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (London, 1672), with the notes from the GENEVA BIBLE published by the British Crown after the death of James I, and during the reign of Charles II.

Whereas, when a probable error was found during study, then it was compared to other editions. If the error had been corrected in another edition, then that edition was given as authority for the correction.

Whereas, only eight (8) possible errors were found prior to page 442, 2 Chronicles 5. This is almost the first third of the Bible. The remaining 95 errors were found in the following 924 pages.

Whereas, one noticeable exception was between pages 1259 and 1300 (Hebrews through 1 John). No typographical errors were found in those 41 pages.

Whereas, these irregularities in the location of errata suggest that the Publisher may have deliberately made drastic cuts in production costs (i.e. ran out of funds for proofreading, or used inexperienced proofreaders) at the expense of quality.

Whereas, as a rule of thumb, proofreading expenses will be about one third of the cost of composition.

Whereas, it is estimated that a professional proofreading of the entire completed limited modernization of the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE would cost no less than $60,000.

Whereas, if a complete professional proofreading was never completed, then the quality of restoration is not be known.

Whereas, the Celtic cross icon on the cover is strange and inappropriate for a Reformed Bible. It is said to be a "blending of the Roman Catholic cross and the Solar Cross, introduced by Saint Columba in order to help pagans ease their way into Christianity by linking the symbol of the cross with the symbol of their sun-god Taranis. . . . A variation of this cross has since been adopted by neo-fascists in Europe." (A reader's review, accessed June 2014, http://www.amazon.com/1599-Geneva-Bible-Peter-Lillback/dp/0975484699)

Whereas, publishing the Celtic cross on the cover suggests a subliminal marking of the edition.

Whereas, all things considered, the Publisher has printed an "unauthentic pastiche" of the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE, to use their words in the Preface.

Whereas, if the text, typography, page design and book design of the "restoration," had been deliberately corrupted, then more error would not have been needed to raise suspicion of some scheme to take a profit, while at the same time showing disdain for this Bible, and this treasure of the Protestant Reformation.


Responsibility

Whereas, it would be to the glory of God to do an excellent job of completing the limited modernization begun in 2004.

Whereas, responsibility to complete the modernization, and responsibility for the quality of the publication lies, of course, with the Publishers, which now includes White Hall Press of Chicago.

Whereas, a low-end estimate of the profit to the Publisher resulting from sales of the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE from 2006 through 2013, is one million dollars (50,000 copies sold in 7 years, printing cost $11.50 each, retail price $37.50 each, less selling expenses over a seven year period, $310,000).

Whereas, since the Publisher has taken the profit, they should be in the best position financially to fix the errors and to complete the limited modernization. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Alliance,_LLC.

Whereas, "Tolle Lege Press was founded in January 2004 by a father-son team, Raymond Vallorani and Brandon Vallorani. . . Our flagship resource, the restored edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, has sold over 45,000 copies since it was released in 2006." [probably as of 02/24/2010 -- compiler] A Vimeo Video (accessed 9:17 AM 7/28/2014, http://vimeo.com/87677386), claims that 100,000 copies of the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE, Tolle Lege edition, are in print. This figure seems high, and should be verified.

Whereas, much more information is available online about the business activities, associates, and networks of the Publishers.

Whereas, all the various discrepancies found suggest a lack of connection between The Advisory Board (http://www.genevabible.com/restored.php), The Publishers (Tolle Lege Press and White Hall Press of Chicago), The Executive Director, The Director, and the Production/Editorial Team.

Whereas, from the outside, it becomes difficult to know who was responsible for the various phases of the production process, and how authority was delegated.

Whereas, employees of the Publisher, with questionable qualifications (some of them, apparently, family members and friends), may have been "forced" on Peachtree Editorial and Proofreading Services.

Whereas, God, in his omniscience, knows exactly what has happened here, and He will undoubtably deal finally with all the individuals involved.

Whereas, in His omnipotence, He will not stand for the corruption of His Word. Therefore, it behooves all parties involved to do restitution, and to complete the limited modernization to the highest publishing standards, and to do so with all haste.


Possible solution without the cooperation of the Publisher

Whereas, perhaps someone who knows the key players and knows the details of the history of this publication will have a preferable solution to what is proposed here.

Whereas, in my opinion, based on what I know at this time, the best solution to the corrupted 1599 GENEVA BIBLE restoration would be to independently publish a limited modernization of the superior Bible, THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (London, 1672), with the notes from the GENEVA BIBLE. It was published by the English monarchy during the reign of Charles II, 1660-1685. It is available on the Puritan Hard Drive, http://www.puritandownloads.com/swrb-puritan-hard-drive.html and on "The Amazing Christian Library," [broken link] http://amazingchristianlibrary.com/store/index.php.

Whereas,

Whereas, a limited modernization of the 1672 AKJV BIBLE WITH GENEVA NOTES, would not be a profitable publish project. During the last year (2015), a proposal to complete the limited modernization of the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE was turned down by seven publishers: Eerdmans, Logos Research Systems, Baker Academic, Banner of Truth, Cambridge University Press, and the Trinitarian Bible Society (their charter prohibits printing Bibles containing commentary). Therefore it seems safe to assume that it would not be profitable, would not "pay its way."

Whereas, it is therefore proposed that a search be conducted to find an individual sponsor, an institution (large church, denomination, seminary, Christian college, or seminary, etc.), or a foundation to take financial responsibility for THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (London, 1672), with the notes from the GENEVA BIBLE, to rescue this treasured Bible, to insure that it will be properly published, and to insure that it will continue to be available to posterity.

Whereas, once a source of funding is found, then a search could be conducted for the right professional publisher with state-of-the-art equipment, and with an expert team in place to complete the project (possibly including marketing and promotion). The project could then be contract to them.

Whereas, Thomas Nelson Publishers might be one possibility, among others. However, they are now the subsidiary of a secular corporation, and may not be the same Bible publisher they were in the past.

Whereas, because this project would not be profitable using conventional printing processes, it is proposed that it be published electronically. This would include books-on-demand, for those who would prefer a paper copy, e-book format, CD-ROM, and online.

Whereas, the Bible Gateway website for the online version of the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE, Tolle Lege restoration, 2006, https://www.biblegateway.com, is a possible model of near state-of-the-art high-end digital/electronic publishing. That would have to be confirmed by electronic publishing experts. The creators of that website might be available as consultants for similar project. Such consultants could make the task of evaluating and deciding on an electronic publishing system and text coding much easier. They are using USX, the current favorite encoding for Bibles, https://github.com/ubsicap/dblvalidation/tree/c14989aa81d2add71dab7f2f5b5446c80924fb76/source/text/1.4. It is based on USFM, http://paratext.org/about/usfm.

Whereas, perhaps the conversion service of a company like Scribe, https://scribenet.com/services/editing, could be useful.

Whereas, a promising capability of high-tech electronic publishing is its ability to bring hidden or buried text of footnotes (or marginal notes) and cross-references together with the Bible text in one location. The mechanism is to use interactive call-outs in the main text. When the reader clicks on the call-out it displays the footnote or the cross-reference at the location of the call-out.

Whereas, it seems that enough scholarship remains to be done, that consideration might be given to endowing a professorship, a chair in the GENEVA BIBLE.

Whereas, it is hoped that someone will rescue this extraordinary Bible, and insure that it will be properly published, and that it will be available to the Body of Christ in the future.


Four alternative solutions with the cooperation of the Publisher

Whereas, again, perhaps someone who knows the key players and history of the restoration will have a preferable solution to what is proposed here.

Whereas, the first alternative solution would be for members of the "1599 Geneva Bible Restoration Project" (http://www.genevabible.com/restored.php), to tactfully confront the Publisher with the fact that the Advisory Board and individual readers consider the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE restoration to be unsatisfactory.

Whereas, confrontation would be best done face-to-face in a meeting. However, if logistics are a problem, then Skype, a conference call, etc. might be used.

Whereas, it is suggested that the main objective of a confrontation should be to determine whether or not the Publisher will take responsibility for completing the modernization. If they will not, then further talk would be useless. The "Prosecution" should move on immediately to making other plans to complete the modernization.

Whereas, it is suggested that the Publisher be confronted with all the discrepancies found, item by item, and then be given an opportunity to complete the modernization.

Whereas, it is legal for an individual to record phone conversations and business meetings, without informing other participants, on the condition that it is for that individual's personal use.

Whereas, it is suggested that all communication by phone and in conference be recorded.

Whereas, if it is announced beforehand that all communication will be recorded, then this could change the whole tenure of proceedings. It would eliminate much irrationality, forced reasoning, and worthless debate. This, of course, saves time and energy.

Whereas, on the other hand, if the "Defense" were to know that phone calls and conferences will be recorded it might cause some to refuse to attend. This could be taken as a sign that their position is indefensible. Their refusal could then be used against them.

Whereas, how all the known discrepancies will be corrected should be discuss, item by item, in detail, and resolved conclusively with a plan for follow-up.

Whereas, the Publisher should be held responsible for the successful completion of the limited modernization project begun in 2004, and for the updating of any subsequent printings. Future printings should be completed to the highest standards of Bible publishing.

Whereas, again, a completed limited modernization is defined to be modernization of spelling, typography, page design, and book design only. No changes are to be made in text, grammar, interpretation, or in the Source Document content, except all known errors in the Source Document should be corrected.

Whereas, should the Publisher cooperating in completing the limited modernization, then proofreading will be a major issue.

Whereas, "1599 Geneva Bible, Tolle Lege Press Restoration, Fourth Printing, 2008, Probable Errata Listing (June 30, 2014, revised August 15, 2014, revised September 4, 2015)" was developed from personal study only. It was not a formal proofreading. The errors found were in the 2008 printing itself. So it does not include all discrepancies that might exist between the Source Document and the 2008 printing.

Whereas, a completed limited modernization should include a professional proofreading, word-for-word, of the Source Document against the modernized edition, even if this had been done previously, because the current "restoration" shows evidence of not having been completely proofread. See the Errata listing for details.

Whereas, professional proofreading is a major expense in publishing. As a rule of thumb, proofreading makes up about one third of the cost of the composition of most documents. It is estimated that a professional proofreading of a new edition against the Source Document would cost a minimum of $60,000.

Whereas, making additions and alterations both during the composition process, and after the first edition is released, will also demand a professional proofreading to check typography, page design, and book design.

Whereas, the Publisher should be held accountable for profiting from neglecting to correct known errors since 2008. Their profit is estimated to be one million dollars on 50,000 copies. See details of a low-end estimate above.

Whereas, one principal of the Publisher is also founder and CEO of Liberty Alliance, (http://libertyalliance.com/about-us/), accessed August 2014, http://vimeo.com/87677386.

Whereas, in their August 31, 2012 issue "Inc. Magazine ranked LIBERTY ALLIANCE no. 576 on its sixth annual Inc. 500|5000, an exclusive ranking of the nation's fastest-growing private companies. The list represents the most comprehensive look at the most important segment of the economy -- America's independent entrepreneurs." (accessed August 2014, http://libertyalliance.com/liberty-alliance-llc-ranks-no-576-on-the-2012-inc-5005000-12-in-the-media-industry/#5EWtUugG8JYoWidx.99. These Inc. Magazine facts probably should be checked. It is known that a favorable rating can be purchased from The Better Business Bureau.

Whereas, a second suggested alternative solution is for the Publisher to select another publisher qualified to complete the limited modernization, and contract the work to them.

Whereas, The Publisher should be held responsible for corrections being made to all editions, the printed book, the CD-ROM, the Bible Gateway online edition, the Kindle edition, and to any future revisions, all on a continuing basis.

Whereas, a third suggested alternative solution would be for the Publisher to sell the publishing rights to a larger publisher, with a marketing program in place, who might be in a position to profit from completing a limited modernization.

Whereas, it might be expected that the Publisher would be very reluctant to give up publishing rights to their "flagship" publication.

Whereas, the Publisher purchased the publishing rights to the Source Document, Whittingham, William, Thomas Sternhold, John Hopkins, Michael H. Brown (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/861092334) THE GENEVA BIBLE: A FACSIMILE OF THE 1599 EDITION WITH UNDATED STERNHOLD & HOPKINS PSALMS (Ozark, MO: L.L. Brown Pub., 2003, 1990. Facsim. reprint. Originally published: London: C. Barker, 1599, with an introduction by James W. Bennett), ISBN: 0962988804 9780962988806. See: http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/genvbbl.htm.

Whereas, this facsimile printing of the 1599 is the only recent printing of the entire 1599 GENEVA BIBLE, and it is now out-of-print, although still available free online.

Whereas, the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE "restoration" is the only modernized printing, but it is an unsatisfactory edition.

Whereas, therefore, the Publisher has currently cornered the market for a printed 1599 GENEVA BIBLE.

Whereas, a fourth suggested alternative solution might be to formally charge the Publisher with defrauding book buyers by false advertising, based on misrepresentations of the "restoration" in the Preface and Front Matter.

Whereas, this is probably the strongest charge that could be brought against them in man's court. They should be held accountable for misrepresentation, irrationality, and forced reasoning in the Preface and for defrauding book buyers.

Whereas, while it is hoped that it would be otherwise, if the Publisher, or members of the Advisory Board are uncooperative, then it is suggested that further debate would be worthless -- that any time and energy spent refuting their positions would be wasted.


THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a limited modernization of a superior Bible, THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (London, 1672), with the notes from the GENEVA BIBLE, be published instead of confronting the Publisher with the task of completing the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE, restoration.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funding be sought from an individual, church, institution, or foundation to complete the project.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the project be contracted, with utmost discernment and caution, to a Bible publishing expert using state of the art electronic publishing technology (USX encoding based on USFM [2015]), such as Thomas Nelson Publishers.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that consideration be given to searching for a Christian scholar to devote full time to advancing knowledge of the publishing history and of the accuracy of the GENEVA BIBLE by a rigorous study of the 140 plus other editions and printings. All this to be done with the intention of complementing future improved editions of THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (London, 1672), with the notes from the GENEVA BIBLE.

Prepared by Steven C. Kettler, September 9, 2015.


Related weblinks

1599 Geneva Bible, Tolle Lege Press Restoration, Fourth Printing, 2008, Probable Errata Listing (June 30, 2014, revised August 15, 2014, revised September 4, 2015)
http://www.lettermen2.com/1599errata.html




E-mail: Biblical Counsel: Resources for Renewal at info@lettermen2.com

Home: http://www.lettermen2.com

Web Layout -- Lettermen Associates
Updated -- July 6, 2022, Lettermen Associates