A CP Bidding Challenge on The English Bible Collection

It's been some time since we've had a group effort to get a CP product in production like we did on the Revelation Classics. That time we were reducing our bid to make the product more attractive to a larger number of bidders. Unfortunately, on the The English Bible Collection the CP price is too low and it has been stuck for a long time. There does not seem to be more bidders who are willing to pay even $30.

There are 27 historic translations in this collection. Wouldn't you be willing to pay $3 a Bible to have these in your Logos library. If you would, please raise your bid to $80.

It's very probable that with just the current bidders, we could put this into production at the $80 level. The current price is $30 and that is 40% of the total needed. I've had my bid in at $50 for months, but there has been no effect even as many of you have urged higher bids. When this gets near 100%, we may entice additional bidders so that the actual price may be significantly less than our $80 bid, but even if this does not happen I feel it will be well worth the $80. To make this happen, we will need to have almost all of the $30 bidders to raise their bid.

http://www.logos.com/product/16808/english-bible-collection

Please go to the link and bid $80. Also, It would be great if some of our scholars on this forum would post some information on each of these Bible volumes and why they are important in history.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Matthew C Jones

Please go to the link and bid $80

I just raised mine to $80. I hope your effort succeeds. One of the many Bibles I am interested in is the Alexander Campbell New Testament. Campbell was one of the founders of the Restoration Movement in the United States.

David P. Moore

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507265#Comment_507265

I just raised mine to $80, too. When I first saw this collection appear in CP, I thought it was a cinch. I'm at a loss to explain why it is languishing.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507289#Comment_507289

I'm at a loss to explain why it is languishing.

Maybe too many don't know what they are looking at or maybe they do and only want one or two.

Was in at fifty and have raised to eighty.

Lynden O. Williams

Ok. Moved mine to $80.00.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507305#Comment_507305

I didn''t lower mine to $80[;)] If it looked like it would make a peak at $80 I would.

Michael A. Lasley

There has been a slight increase in the line at $80. Let's keep this going. If you have bid higher than $80, changing to $80 won't help.

Here is some info on the 1560 Geneva Bible from ReformedReader.org:

"For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today's Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the newer Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland,* William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively.

Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva Bible, though he quotes the Geneva Bible in his own writing, As a Professor Eadie reported it:

". . . his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favor with his English churchmen." 1

The irony goes further. King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people. His sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people."

Sogol

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507484#Comment_507484

I have increased my bid to $80.

DHG

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507517#Comment_507517

I raised mine as well.

Rosie Perera

OK, I'll see your $80 and raise you... $80.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507484#Comment_507484

There has been a slight increase in the line at $80. Let's keep this going. If you have bid higher than $80, changing to $80 won't help.

Here is some info on the 1560 Geneva Bible from ReformedReader.org:

"For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today's Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the newer Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland,* William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively.

Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva Bible, though he quotes the Geneva Bible in his own writing, As a Professor Eadie reported it:

". . . his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favor with his English churchmen." 1

The irony goes further. King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people. His sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people."

Thanks for that bit of history Michael. The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. Helps keep you humble.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507484#Comment_507484

The irony goes further. King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people. His sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people."

I didn't know that. I was under the misunderstanding that King James wanted a translation for the common people. That is ironic.

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507779#Comment_507779

I was under the misunderstanding that King James wanted a translation for the common people.

No the common people couldn't distinguish between an Olde Englishe f and an s so they were left out. Those extra u's inserted in words were off-putting as well. [;)]

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507799#Comment_507799

I was under the misunderstanding that King James wanted a translation for the common people.

No the common people couldn't distinguish between an Olde Englishe f and an s so they were left out. Those extra u's inserted in words were off-putting as well.

[:)]

Michael A. Lasley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507805#Comment_507805

Here's some more on the Geneva Bible and King James from an article by Gary DeMar:

Translation Work Begins In 1557

The Geneva translators produced a revised New Testament in English in 1557 that was essentially a revision of Tyndale's revised and corrected 1534 edition. Much of the work was done by William Whittingham, the brother-in-law of John Calvin. The Geneva New Testament was barely off the press when work began on a revision of the entire Bible, a process that took more than two years. The new translation was checked with Theodore Beza's earlier work and the Greek text. In 1560 a complete revised Bible was published, translated according to the Hebrew and Greek, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages, and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I. After the death of Mary, Elizabeth was crowned queen in 1558, once again moving England toward Protestantism. The Geneva Bible was finally printed in England in 1575 only after the death of Archbishop Matthew Parker, editor of the Bishop's Bible.

England's Most Popular Bible

While other English translations failed to capture the hearts of the reading public, the Geneva Bible was instantly popular. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions appeared. For forty years after the publication of the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible continued to be the Bible of the home. Oliver Cromwell used extracts from the Geneva Bible for his Soldier's Pocket Bible which he issued to the army.

A THREAT TO KING JAMES

In 1620 the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth with their Bibles and a conviction derived from those Bibles of establishing a new nation. The Bible was not the King James Version. When James I became king of England in 1603, there were two translations of the Bible in use; the Geneva Bible was the most popular, and the Bishops' Bible was used for reading in churches.

King James disapproved of the Geneva Bible because of its Calvinistic leanings. He also frowned on what he considered to be seditious marginal notes on key political texts. A marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders, and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshipping an idol. The King James Version of the Bible grew out of the king's distaste for these brief but potent doctrinal commentaries. He considered the marginal notes to be a political threat to his kingdom.

At a conference at Hampton Court in 1604 with bishops and theologians, the king listened to a suggestion by the Puritan scholar John Reynolds that a new translation of the Bible was needed. Because of his distaste for the Geneva Bible, James was eager for a new translation. "I profess," he said, "I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst."

Michael A. Lasley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507865#Comment_507865

The Coverdale Bible, also known as the Great Bible, was published in 1535. Here is some information from Logos and Wikipedia about it:

The Coverdale Bible, translated into English by Myles Coverdale, was the first complete Bible translated into English. It was also the first English Bible to have the full approval from the Crown to be published. Finished and printed in 1535, the Coverdale Bible stands as a landmark in the history of the English Bible. [From Logos]

[From Wikipedia]

The Great Bible was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England. The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Thomas, Lord Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. In 1538, Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."

The Great Bible includes much from the Tyndale Bible, with the objectionable features revised. As the Tyndale Bible was incomplete, Coverdale translated the remaining books of the Old Testament and Apocrypha from the Latin Vulgate and German translations, rather than working from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it is known by several other names as well: the Cromwell Bible, since Thomas Cromwell directed its publication; Whitchurch's Bible after its first English printer; the Chained Bible, since it was chained to prevent removal from the church.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507484#Comment_507484

The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people

The common people didn't want the Scripture alone?[:O][:P]

(Sorry, couldn't resist.[6])

Dan

http://www.logos.com/product/16808/english-bible-collection

So, does the Geneva Bible included in this collection include the notes? Or does it just include the biblical text? The description is not clear.

Michael A. Lasley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/508897#Comment_508897

You are right. the description is not clear. However, it would not be the Geneva Bible without the notes so I hope it includes them. Perhaps someone from Logos will comment?

The description from Logos has the line: "With the inclusion of notes and study aids, the Geneva Bible was one of the first “study Bibles” to ever be published."

This appears to indicate that they know it is the important part of the historical book. However, on other study Bibles we generally have to buy the notes as a separate product.

Good question! Need Logos input ...

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/509056#Comment_509056

Reference to the Matthew Bible, author John Rogers ... What is an English Protestant martyr?

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/509067#Comment_509067

Reference to the Matthew Bible, author John Rogers ... What is an English Protestant martyr?

An English Protestant martyr is someone who was put to death by the authorities (mainly during Queen Mary's reign in England in the 16th century) for denying the Catholic faith such as the true presence in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

You can find his entry on this in the Fox's book of Martyrs if you have it in Logos. (logosres:foxe;art=ch9.2). Beware though Foxe's account is usually full of anti-Catholic rhetoric. You might want to check the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Foxe's book. There is this qualifying quote:

The Convocation of the English Church ordered in 1571 that copies of the "Book of Martyrs" should be kept for public inspection in all cathedrals and in the houses of church dignitaries. The book was also exposed in many parish churches. The passionate intensity of the style, the vivid and picturesque dialogues made it very popular among Puritan and Low Church families down to the nineteenth century. Even in the fantastically partisan church history of the earlier portion of the book, with its grotesque stories of popes and monks and its motley succession of witnesses to the truth (including the Albigenses, Grosseteste, Dante, and Savonarola) was accepted among simple folk and must have contributed much to anti-Catholic prejudices in England. When Foxe treats of his own times his work is of greater value as it contains many documents and is but largely based on the reports of eyewitnesses; but he sometimes dishonesty mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence. He was criticized in his own day by Catholics such as Harpsfield and Father Parsons and by practically all serious ecclesiastical historians.

Alternatively, check his entry on Wikipedia