The Geneva Bible was written prior to the King James. Depending on which one you get, they also include notes and commentary by some of the Reformers. I think my copy is a reproduction of the 1560 version. The English is a bit different, but it's readable.

Does being written before KJV make it more accurate/reliable? If so, why?

There have been some significant manuscripts found since 1611. KJV is helpful but lacking in both its Hebrew/Greek foundations and its usefulness to modern English readers.

I was wondering the same thing a few months back. I found a helpful article and thought that this part is really at the heart of the matter:

“There are 3 main approaches for Bible translations. Here is a list:

-Word-for-Word (Formal Equivalence)

-Thought-for-Thought (Dynamic Equivalence)

-Paraphrase”

So, even if you get a “word for word” 100% accurate translation, you’ll likely miss the core ideas/concepts being put forth in a given verse..simply because the difference in word meanings from one language to the next.

And then regardless of what translation you go with, there are still issues and you likely need to use a concordance to get better understanding of a given verse.

Anyhow, here’s the link: https://faithfoundedonfact.com/the-5-most-accurate-bible-translations/

I realize the article gives props to the NIV, but I personally believe that the NIV is severely compromised.

1611 King James

get your ass back in here and discuss