# Bible for Children



## Reformingstudent (Jul 6, 2005)

After reading from the KJV every night to my six year old son
it finally dawned upon me that much of what I was reading in the Kings English may be too difficult for him to understand
(Lord knows at 45 a lot of the KJV still has me  )
So I started reading to him from the NLT which he likes a lot better and I feel that even though it may not be a perfect translation at least it is helping him understand the bible better than before. My question is this, should I have kept using the KJV with him instead of finding a translation he could understand for himself or should I just give in and get a bible that is easier to understand even though I do not trust many of the new modern translations? Which bible do most here recommend for reading to younger children?
Any advice would be helpful and also any good bible reading plan for kids would be of help also.

Thanks.


----------



## Puddleglum (Jul 6, 2005)

I'd use something other than the KJV, but I don't think that you have to go as far as the NLT . . . when I was learning to read, my parents got me a NIV (partly because that's what was available in large print!), so maybe you could try that. If you really prefer the KJV, why not try the NKJV? 

(Said as someone who doesn't have any kids!)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 6, 2005)

Use the NIV. It is at least a translation and not subject to biases like the NLT.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Use the NIV. It is at least a translation and not subject to biases like the NLT.



Uh, the NIV is NOT a translation...it's a considered a type of paraphrase, I believe.

I grew up on the KJV and I never had trouble understanding it as a kid. In fact, it is still my prefered. I also use the NKJV and Steve is starting to get used to the ESV. These are what we use for our children. Our daughter is 6yrs old and she reads the KJV and NKJV for herself and answer questions. Our 5yr old and nearly 4yr old can also answer some of the questions their daddy poses to them.

My advice...just stay consistent...but don't dumb it down!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 6, 2005)

As a parent and an adherent of the Majority Text, I vote for the KJV.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Actually, it is a translation, from the original greek and hebrew. It just uses dynamic equivalence instead of wooden literalism for the translation method. I don't like it as much as the ESV or NASB, but it is a little easier for younger kids to grasp.


----------



## street preacher (Jul 6, 2005)

The NIV is not a word for word translation but a thought for thought tranlation of the Hebrew and the Greek. To me that is just as scary as a paraphrase except more reliable than a paraphrase. I am a big fan of the ESV and believe that it is a requirement for salvation. Ha Ha


----------



## Robin (Jul 6, 2005)

Give it up, Gabe....sadly, the NIV translators are losing ground, slipping down the slippery slope...at least the ESV is a solid translation, not compromising on such goofy distractions as "gender neutral" idioms. That said, I agree, give the kids a chance to reach for the good language (KJV) but I'd much prefer the ESV --- being consistent and not assuming little folks won't be up for it.

Outta the mouths of babes.....



Robin


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 6, 2005)

and I also stand corrected by my hubby...thanks, hon!


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 7, 2005)

Fundamentally, it matters very little in the long run what translation you use as long as it is a good translation in the vernacular. The primary principle in all of this, as a father of five, is to: 



> "œ. . . the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."



Also, here is my plan:

Youth development, from my experience as a father, elder, pulpit supply, and a catechism teacher, should come in three steps: 1) knowledge-this is done mainly through memorization and the learning of the facts of the bible; 2) Understanding-this is done mainly through question periods; and, 3) Application-this is done when a child, enabled by the Holy Spirit, is able to embrace the faith of their parents and make the necessary application.

It is only the Holy Spirit who can open blind eyes. Oh, sure a bad translation can be a "hinderance" but in the end only the third person of the godhead can illuminate a person no matter what the age. Anyone remember John Newton's conversion? He was in a violent storn in the open seas and began to recall hymns he had remembered being taught to him by his mother. I wonder what brought those hymns to mind? Hmm. Something to ponder. 

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Michael Butterfield]


----------



## Reed (Jul 8, 2005)

People -
for hundreds of years childeren were reared on the Geneva or King James translations -- let's remain true to our heritage. Let's not water down our children's education. Our kids will only become stronger if we discipline them on challenging literature.

The more you read King James and old style English literature (especially Puritan writing) the easier it eventually becomes to understand... you just have to be patient.

While I realize the King James isn't the preferred translation, kids should be able to read it and understand it --- and they'll only be able to do this if they are hearing it and reading it. Yes, Bible study, memorization -- use the version your pastor is using -- but for learning the beauty of the English language, exposing kids to the King James is a good idea.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Reed_
> People -
> for hundreds of years childeren were reared on the Geneva or King James translations -- let's remain true to our heritage. Let's not water down our children's education. Our kids will only become stronger if we discipline them on challenging literature.
> 
> ...






When I was a teenager, I read from the King James, and am glad that I did. I do like the NKJV too, but all in all, I am peeved by the proliferation of new-fangled translations.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Reed_
> People -
> for hundreds of years childeren were reared on the Geneva or King James translations -- let's remain true to our heritage. Let's not water down our children's education. Our kids will only become stronger if we discipline them on challenging literature.
> 
> ...



 I am reminded of the words of the Westminster Assembly in their introduction to the Shorter Catechism, which is challenging for most of today's adults, but was intended for those of "weaker capacity." While adhering the principle that the Scriptures should be available to all in vulgar tongues, we ought nevertheless to keep the bar of Biblical literacy high (for children and adults). There is no finer English language translation than the King James version (speaking as someone who is not KJVO), which was written in an elevated style designed to be read from the pulpit, consistent with this principle and consistent with the Scriptures themselves. 

George Bernard Shaw had this to say of the King James version:



> The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result...they made a translation so magnificent that to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States of North America accepts and worships it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 8, 2005)




----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 9, 2005)

I still like the ESV better.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 9, 2005)

My vote is for the NKJV.


----------



## Reed (Jul 11, 2005)

our congregation has recently switched over to ESV -- I use it for my daily reading -- all I'm saying is expose young minds to writing like the KJV and Shakespear and Pilgrim's Progress because if you don't they are never going to be able to understand the Westminster Confession and catechisms.

And don't tell me we can get by with a confession and catechism written in today's English --- 

Warmest regards,
Reed in Lakeville


----------



## Robin (Jul 11, 2005)

An excellent volume for children and adults alike:

"The Children's Story Bible" by Catherine Vos

Wonderful lay-out of Scripture in story form. Adults, study in tandem each story along with a regular Bible. This should be (for the most part) highly Reformed and easier to understand. (The art is very dignified also....important point.)



Robin


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> An excellent volume for children and adults alike:
> 
> "The Children's Story Bible" by Catherine Vos
> ...



If I am not mistaken there are no pictures of Jesus in those volumes!


----------



## daveb (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Reed_
> ...





I'm glad that I am not the only one to read the KJV early on in life. It was my only Bible from 11-18. It certainly helped me later on in life (as far as reading ye olde english). Today I read either mostly NKJV or KJV. There are too many translations in my opinion.


----------



## sastark (Jul 11, 2005)

NKJV - It is based on the Majority Text, like the KJV, but uses modern English. It gets my vote everytime.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 17, 2005)

ESV


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 17, 2005)

Use the Pilgrim's English... read from the Geneva Bible...


----------



## AdamM (Jul 18, 2005)

ESV would be my first choice. 

For what it's worth, all translations to some degree use dynamic equivalence.


----------

