While it is not inaccurate to say that King James did not like the marginal notes because it was against kingship; the fact is that it was a very minor reason why the notes were removed in the 1611 KJV.

By far, the most significant reason King James was opposed to the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible was because the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible was written by John Calvin. King James was opposed to Calvin's notes for two reasons...

1) King James did not agree with the "Calvinist Doctrine" as Calvinism has many theological errors and false teachings. While the term "TULIP" was not around in 1604, the teachings were, and King James (and most theologians of the day) rejected them as incorrect.

2) King James wanted people to read the scriptures and decide for themselves. To not be taught one biased opinion or another. King James was opposed to the general idea of marginal notes.

In spite of any shortcomings I am glad to see that the government will permit any mention of the Bible in any curriculum.

Septuagint is Greek

There are some problems with this article. First, both the Geneva & the KJV had people translating from ancient texts. When the colonists settled in what would become the United States of America, it was illegal for anyone to self-publish a Bible in English: all such requests had to have the approval of the "Crown". Many of the refugees who arrived had first hand knowledge of religious persecution handed down by the Catholic church at the time, and some of the Geneva bible's marginal and other study notes reflect that. Revelation references to the beast, etc were flat out identified with the Pope.
Also there were 2 or 3 versions if I recall published between 1560 and 1599 as English was going through a rapid change in spelling and grammar as the advent of printing brought about standardization, so that what resembled 'f' became 's' etc. Some modern re-printings of the Geneva Bible preserve this, keeping words like "astonied" along with "astonished". The 'Textus Receptus' underpinning the KJV is basically a textual tradition, promoted to seem as if the King giving his stamp of approval to its publication conveyed some special status on it. It is fine to use but understand that you are not really seeing the form as how it appeared in 1611, which would still be somewhat difficult for a modern English speaker to read. It has been revised but not as much as the "New King James" for example. For the curious, the best thing to do is look at an Interlinear which has a reasonable consensually edited Greek text along with 2 or more translations at the same time. The NIV is acceptable. Some of the texts are downright poetic, like 2 Corinthians 6:3-10 in the New English Bible

The NIV is not ok.
Though it might have a better word here or there it omits words, partial verses and whole verses.
These omited words, verses would go against many Catholit beliefs if left in. The NIV is sometimes called the Jesuit bible as its sole purpose was to support the Roman church

You might want to check a Bible translation called the King James 21st century otherwise known as KJ 21. this version retains as much as possible the words of the 1611 I have affectionately of the original 1611 and all they seem to do is upgrade the language to modern English and one thing I like what they do is they add the original scripture headings with each chapter just like the 1611 had but with updated English I don't like the NIV I'm sorry I think that they admit too much material they've taken too much of the Bible out they just did not reset it they just took it out I personally prefer The New American standard Bible the 1995
version I don't care too much for the 2020 I mean it's ok. I am really looking forward to a new version that's supposed to be coming out it's a revision of the 1995 New American standard Bible and it's called The legacy standard Bible if you like an essentially literature literal translation this is going to be very very good if you like an optimal translation I don't know I would say go with the home and Christian Bible if you like an optimal translation I personally enjoy as far as I thought translations I like the new living Bible translation at least and it's endorsed by Greg Lowery that's the that's the Bible that ministry uses let me know what you think about what I just said and we can go on from there I really do enjoy the Geneva Bible both the 1560 and the 1595 I I refer off to them and sometimes I would just read them for the commentaries and the 1561 little hard to read because like somebody mentioned in the article it's different the English today in my I'm sorry in my 1699 version Bible modernize some of the language and it's much easier for me to read I got both of mine from Christian book distributors they give good prices and they carry a lot a lot of good books plus some crummy ones but I think they carry more good books then bad ones.

Apostasia

Who can share the resources about why the two books use different words for the Greek word apostasia? Even King Henry and his authorized Bible used the same as the Geneva. Then who can share more about the integrity that is seemingly missing by transliterated words....

Where is the deference between the two Bibles? You never answered that question.

"difference"

"Difference."

Thank you and I'm glad that my article was helpful to you. On resources, there are some great resources out there.

Here are some that I used:
1. The Origin of the Bible, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 2003 Edition
2. The King James Bible Brief History by Dr. Herbert Samworth
3. Harvard Divinity School w/Andover-Harvard Library

As for translation and scripture differences, a good place to see what some of them are right away is: http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/... Now, this site also references the difference with the Tyndale translation of the Bible but there are some scripture lists cited.

For more, I would suggest that you contact the Harvard Divinity school: http://www.hds.harvard.edu

Im caught in the middle of constant debates between the KJV and other versions and I would love to learn more of the origins of the KJV and why the Geneva Bible isnt the standard English Bible since it was the first translation. If you dont mind I would love to know were your sources came from on this matter to further research this topic. Also if you know of any scriptural difference in the Geneva and KJV version would be greatly appreciated.

Watch the documentaries, lamp unto my feet and tares among the wheat