# Child's Story Bible republished



## alexandermsmith (Jul 31, 2021)

Banner has reprinted the Child's Story Bible by Catherine Vos. However they have changed the Bible version used to the ESV. Can someone tell me what the original version was? It would be either the AV or ASV I assume.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jul 31, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Banner has reprinted the Child's Story Bible by Catherine Vos. However they have changed the Bible version used to the ESV. Can someone tell me what the original version was? It would be either the AV or ASV I assume.


It's KJV. Related: It's sometimes disconcerting sometimes quirkily humorous to read one of the Puritan reprints and find the Scripture quotations to be in a later translation than was used by the author. Sometimes it doesn't quite match up with the commentary...

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 31, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> It's KJV. Related: It's sometimes disconcerting sometimes quirkily humorous to read one of the Puritan reprints and find the Scripture quotations to be in a later translation than was used by the author. Sometimes it doesn't quite match up with the commentary...


It's a pet peeve of mine, as well.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## bookslover (Jul 31, 2021)

Good for Banner for using the ESV. A good way to get children interested in spiritual things is to use the same language they themselves are learning and using, and not torturing them with obsolete, 400-year-old language.

Reactions: Like 3 | Sad 5


----------



## ZackF (Aug 1, 2021)

bookslover said:


> Good for Banner for using the ESV. A good way to get children interested in spiritual things is to use the same language they themselves are learning and using, and not torturing them with obsolete, 400-year-old language.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## jw (Aug 1, 2021)

bookslover said:


> Good for Banner for using the ESV. A good way to get children interested in spiritual things is to use the same language they themselves are learning and using, and not torturing them with obsolete, 400-year-old language.


Interesting. One would think it the parents’ job -with the LORD’s blessing His appointed means- to get their children interested in spiritual things. I guess we should look forward to the Texting Translation where scorn and laughing are translated as _lol_, you know, to keep the kids entertained.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 2


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 1, 2021)

jw said:


> Interesting. One would think it the parents’ job -with the LORD’s blessing His appointed means- to get their children interested in spiritual things. I guess we should look forward to the Texting Translation where scorn and laughing are translated as _lol_, you know, to keep the kids entertained.


I think we should avoid both extremes. Moms and Dads will typically have a a lot of homework to do as well, especially if not been given an upbringing in the king’s English. I think there are wise things we can do to update English translations without ending up with the *E*moji _*S*_tandard _*V*_ersion (pun).

P.S. I think if we are dogmatic that parents _must _ teach their kids 1611 KJV English we risk placing a unnecessary burden that at the end of the day is just one vulgar (to use the Westminster Adjective) translation among a few. I say this as one who likes to use the KJV for study and psalm singing in my household.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 1, 2021)

The OP asked a specific question about which translation the original version of a book used. It was not meant to start (yet another) slanging match on the issue. If you ever want to prove to someone the truth of the doctrine of indwelling sin in believers, start a thread about Bible translations. Totally dismissing one version or the other is a third commandment violation - it is taking the Lord's name in vain. (That is not to say that you cannot have a strong opinion on which version is better, but keep that opinion within the bounds of God's law.) 

Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q. 55. What is forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment forbiddeth [or forbids, if you insist] all profaning and *abusing* of any thing whereby God maketh [or makes] himself known.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## jw (Aug 1, 2021)

Grant said:


> I think we should avoid both extremes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No one here said that parents must teach their kids KJV English. Thanks much. But it is _primarily_ -by God’s design and precept- the parents’ duty to show kids their interest in spiritual things, and the authorized version is no barrier to such, much less “torture,” or its language “obsolete.” Implying such shows disdain and/or ignorance.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## JH (Aug 1, 2021)

Yeah I think the burden of proof is on you Daniel, to show that the divines by such a statement would extend it to translations that remove several portions of God's Word which the church has received, and nearly half the variants have to do with Christ's deity, or the doctrine of the Trinity. *I am not here to debate whether the former statement is a true one, but I am here to say that it is the view of no small number of Reformed Christians*; therefore, we need to be careful before we say that all such are transgressing the third commandment, lest you transgress the ninth.

Edit: to add, I believe the Lord can be known even through the New World Translation. This does not mean however, that I do not abhor those whose twist, change, and remove portions of God's Word.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 1, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> Yeah I think the burden of proof is on you Daniel, to show that the divines by such a statement would extend it to translations that remove several portions of God's Word which the church has received, and nearly half the variants have to do with Christ's deity, or the doctrine of the Trinity. *I am not here to debate whether the former statement is a true one, but I am here to say that it is the view of no small number of Reformed Christians*; therefore, we need to be careful before we say that all such are transgressing the third commandment, lest you transgress the ninth.



The discussion began as a result of a petty and needless swipe at the AV. I am not an AV user, yet I still disagree with dismissing it in such a fashion - given that it has been used for the conversion and edification of literally millions of souls. Conversely, many of the Reformed divines cite highly imperfect translations such as the LXX or the Latin Vulgate in their writings. The translators of the AV themselves affirmed that any translation of the word of God was the word of God. They said, "that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." [The Translators of the Reader of the 1611 AV] So, the onus is actually on the opposite party to prove that the divines excluded translations other than the AV from the scope of the third commandment.

One minister, whom I used to know, who was a member of the Trinitarian Bible Society and an AV-only advocate himself was once asked whether he would burn the NIV. In response, he said, "Absolutely not. While it may not be the best translation, it is still the word of God. And what you are proposing to do would be profanity." That is not to say that you cannot be critical of translations, but if criticism goes too far, it is taking the Lord's name in vain.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 1, 2021)

Ah! What might have been! We had such a pleasant thread until Post #4.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 1, 2021)

Being the Lord’s day at least in the U.S., let’s save any further debate for tomorrow or better yet start a new thread. I’m home sick from church and I’m watching y’all. 

(I probably started the pot-stirring with my post #2)…

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 1, 2021)

Back to more edifying themes, I recall someone telling me that J. G. Vos inherited his father's intellect and his mother's clarity - the latter being displayed in the _Child's Story Bible_.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 1, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Back to more edifying themes, I recall someone telling me that J. G. Vos inherited his father's intellect and his mother's clarity - the latter being displayed in the _Child's Story Bible_.


It was actually written by his wife, Catherine. I think she says in the introduction something like that her husband oversaw it pastorally and theologically.

Sometimes she provides a bit of commentary or editorializing I’m unsure about. With grandchildren I’ve used it mostly for making a sweep through sections of the Bible and it’s very good for that, to provide a framework and broad knowledge of Biblical history.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> It was actually written by his wife, Catherine. I think she says in the introduction something like that her husband oversaw it pastorally and theologically.



She was the wife of Geerhardus, which makes her the mother of J. G. Vos.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 1, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> She was the wife of Geerhardus, which makes her the mother of J. G. Vos.


Ahhhhh.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 2, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The OP asked a specific question about which translation the original version of a book used. It was not meant to start (yet another) slanging match on the issue. If you ever want to prove to someone the truth of the doctrine of indwelling sin in believers, start a thread about Bible translations. Totally dismissing one version or the other is a third commandment violation - it is taking the Lord's name in vain. (That is not to say that you cannot have a strong opinion on which version is better, but keep that opinion within the bounds of God's law.)
> 
> Westminster Shorter Catechism
> Q. 55. What is forbidden in the third commandment?
> A. The third commandment forbiddeth [or forbids, if you insist] all profaning and *abusing* of any thing whereby God maketh [or makes] himself known.



Your words in brackets remind me that the OPC has erected a committee to update and modernize the English of the Westminster Standards. And why do you say, "if you insist?" Why would you _not_ insist? "Forbiddeth" has not been standard English for several hundred years now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Aug 2, 2021)

jw said:


> No one here said that parents must teach their kids KJV English. Thanks much. But it is _primarily_ -by God’s design and precept- the parents’ duty to show kids their interest in spiritual things, and the authorized version is no barrier to such, much less “torture,” or its language “obsolete.” Implying such shows disdain and/or ignorance.



As you say, parents have a duty to explain and encourage their children in spiritual things. Why add an extra responsibility of having to explain outmoded language, too? Explaining what the Bible means is challenge enough.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Aug 2, 2021)

Brother, the OP has already received his answer in regards to his question. I would suggest if you wish to continue your discussion in regards to the archaism of the KJV, you should create your own thread.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 2, 2021)

bookslover said:


> Good for Banner for using the ESV. A good way to get children interested in spiritual things is to use the same language they themselves are learning and using, and not torturing them with obsolete, 400-year-old language.



So every child today uses the ESV? I certainly don't wish to start a debate here about Bible translations, however there are many Christians who believe the AV is the most accurate and faithful translation and who are very sceptical of the ESV. I would hazard a guess that many of those Christians remember the _Child's Story Bible_ with great affection from either having read it as children or reading it to their own children. Especially when it comes to literature for children, which Bible translation is used is very important. And now this reprint of a beloved book has changed this important aspect of it and, I'm afraid, will have ruined it for many. And this is just the latest in a line of books which have been affected in this way.

And beyond the question of which translations are better or worse, it is surely unethical to so significantly alter another person's work without their permission. Catherine Vos chose to use the KJV. What right do we have to ignore her choice in the writing of her book? If people writing today wish to use modern versions that is up to them, but why change books of the past which did much good as they were?

As has been noted I have received my answer, with thanks.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Aug 2, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Banner has reprinted the Child's Story Bible by Catherine Vos. However they have changed the Bible version used to the ESV. Can someone tell me what the original version was? It would be either the AV or ASV I assume.



We have the older BoT edition and really enjoy it but this question of "translation" is odd.

It is told in simple, down-to-earth English, for the most part, EXCEPT when people speak. So you might have something like "Adam and Eve were happy and content before. But now they were afraid of God. When God questioned questioned Adam, he tried to put the blame on Eve by saying "the woman whom thou gavest me..."

So by "changed to ESV" I guess it just makes it more uniform in language rather than slipping into archaic language whenever someone speaks? I would hardly call the "old version" a "KJV translation", it's definitely a re-telling (a well-done one, but by no means KJV in 95% of the text).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 2, 2021)

bookslover said:


> Your words in brackets remind me that the OPC has erected a committee to update and modernize the English of the Westminster Standards. And why do you say, "if you insist?" Why would you _not_ insist? "Forbiddeth" has not been standard English for several hundred years now.



I agree with you that we should use more modernised English. I do not agree with concluding that the AV is bad because it uses older language. Why can we not just see it as the lesser of two goods?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 2, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I agree with you that we should use more modernised English. I do not agree with concluding that the AV is bad because it uses older language. Why can we not just see it as the lesser of two goods?


Because that would not serve the purpose of provoking those with whom he disagrees.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## KMK (Aug 2, 2021)

The KJV vs. Every-Other-Version Debate on PB has gone nowhere during my tenure, with both sides only becoming more entrenched and hostile toward the other. Except for the most punctilious, the drive-by blasts against the KJV have subsided. Let's try to keep it that way. If you have a gripe with the KJV or any other version, start a thread.

Also, there is something called the ignore feature by clicking on someone's name.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 2, 2021)

KMK said:


> The KJV vs. Every-Other-Version Debate on PB has gone nowhere during my tenure, with both sides only becoming more entrenched and hostile toward the other. Except for the most punctilious, the drive-by blasts against the KJV have subsided. Let's try to keep it that way. If you have a gripe with the KJV or any other version, start a thread.
> 
> Also, there is something called the ignore feature by clicking on someone's name.



It is interesting that you should write such a post, Ken, as I just came across this post by Steve from nearly 14 years ago. To be honest, I have (at least partially) disagreed with most things Steve has written on this subject, but you have to commend his spirit in so doing.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 2, 2021)

If Alexander is wanting the older version for his kids I’m sure it probably can be found reasonably priced on eBay.


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 2, 2021)

KMK said:


> Also, there is something called the ignore feature by clicking on someone's name.


Does this work if I use it on the moderators

Reactions: Funny 2 | Praying 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 2, 2021)

Grant said:


> Does this work if I use it on the moderators


Well this moderator noticed that you need educating. You said:


Grant said:


> Moms and Dads will typically have a a lot of homework to do as well, especially if not been given an upbringing in the king’s English.


You clearly have not been educated in the King's English. The King would say *Mum *and Dad. 

Providentially a moderator from Middle Earth has been able to educate you

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 2, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Well this moderator noticed that you need educating. You said:
> 
> You clearly have not been educated in the King's English. The King would say *Mum *and Dad.


Wow now I am really confused. Your avatar is a cat and now you claim to have been born from a:



Mum (mic drop)

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Taylor (Aug 2, 2021)

Ummm...

Reactions: Funny 10


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 2, 2021)

Grant said:


> Wow now I am really confused.


Yes. 


Grant said:


> Your avatar is a cat and now you claim to have been born from a:
> 
> Mum (mic drop)


This is the Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacy. My cat avatar has nothing to do with who my mother was


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 2, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes.
> 
> This is the Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacy. My cat avatar has nothing to do with who my mother was


“Will mums kill cats?


Yes, *Mums or Chrysanthemums are toxic to cats causing everything* from diarrhea to lethargy if ingested.Jun 25, 2020”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wf...erify-are-mums-poisonous-to-pets/83-599661386

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 2, 2021)

Grant said:


> “Will mums kill cats?
> 
> 
> Yes, *Mums or Chrysanthemums are toxic to cats causing everything* from diarrhea to lethargy if ingested.Jun 25, 2020”
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wf...erify-are-mums-poisonous-to-pets/83-599661386


You win  

Let the thread now go back to the OP.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 2, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Banner has reprinted the Child's Story Bible by Catherine Vos. However they have changed the Bible version used to the ESV. Can someone tell me what the original version was? It would be either the AV or ASV I assume.


I'm not too familiar with it, but I'm confident that it was the AV rather than the ASV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 2, 2021)

ZackF said:


> If Alexander is wanting the older version for his kids I’m sure it probably can be found reasonably priced on eBay.


I believe this would be the older version (published by Eerdmans in this case.) https://www.christianbook.com/the-childs-story-bible/catherine-vos/9780802850119/pd/5011

The cover notwithstanding, this may be as well. As far as I know, RHB would not sell an ESV. But you'd best contact them to make sure. I'm pretty sure I've seen this work with a different cover on the site in the past. https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/the-childs-story-bible-vos.html

This appears to be another copy of the older one. (They also stock the newer Banner edition.) https://www.cvbbs.com/products/childs-story-bible-vos-catherine?_pos=2&_sid=a57e6ef2c&_ss=r


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 2, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> I'm not too familiar with it, but I'm confident that it was the AV rather than the ASV.


Quite likely, though I was reading some of Geerhardus Vos's sermons (with much profit) and was intrigued to notice that he was using the ASV.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 2, 2021)

This is the cover of the NT copy I have; I also have both OT volumes. (No 2nd commandment violations in any of the pictures.) The NT is is ISBN 0 85151 237 2. OT Volume 1 is ISBN 0 85151 250 X, and Vol. 2 is ISBN 0 85151 251 8.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 3, 2021)

Logan said:


> We have the older BoT edition and really enjoy it but this question of "translation" is odd.
> 
> It is told in simple, down-to-earth English, for the most part, EXCEPT when people speak. So you might have something like "Adam and Eve were happy and content before. But now they were afraid of God. When God questioned questioned Adam, he tried to put the blame on Eve by saying "the woman whom thou gavest me..."
> 
> So by "changed to ESV" I guess it just makes it more uniform in language rather than slipping into archaic language whenever someone speaks? I would hardly call the "old version" a "KJV translation", it's definitely a re-telling (a well-done one, but by no means KJV in 95% of the text).



Well as I said above I have never read it myself so I am ignorant as to how frequently Scripture is directly quoted. However having looked at the first few pages given as a sample on the Banner website, at least in the chapter provided, Scripture is directly quoted quite often.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 3, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> I believe this would be the older version (published by Eerdmans in this case.) https://www.christianbook.com/the-childs-story-bible/catherine-vos/9780802850119/pd/5011
> 
> The cover notwithstanding, this may be as well. As far as I know, RHB would not sell an ESV. But you'd best contact them to make sure. I'm pretty sure I've seen this work with a different cover on the site in the past. https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/the-childs-story-bible-vos.html
> 
> This appears to be another copy of the older one. (They also stock the newer Banner edition.) https://www.cvbbs.com/products/childs-story-bible-vos-catherine?_pos=2&_sid=a57e6ef2c&_ss=r



Yes there would seem to be a whole other problem with the Eerdmans edition


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 3, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Yes there would seem to be a whole other problem with the Eerdmans edition



Yes. My apologies for not warning of the 2CV. I simply saw that it was the older version and didn’t even pay attention to the cover. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jake (Aug 3, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> As far as I know, RHB would not sell an ESV.


From time-to-time RHB does have non-TR based Bibles for sale on their site. Currently I see a used ESV copy of Acts for sale and I've seen other ESV Bibles there in the past. https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/acts-esv-illuminated-scripture-journal-used.html


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 3, 2021)

Jake said:


> From time-to-time RHB does have non-TR based Bibles for sale on their site. Currently I see a used ESV copy of Acts for sale and I've seen other ESV Bibles there in the past. https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/acts-esv-illuminated-scripture-journal-used.html



Before the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible was published, they were so committed to the KJV that the study Bible that they stocked was the Nelson King James Study Bible, which is Baptist, moderately dispensational, and is at best moderately Calvinist (there are some contradictory notes, to my recollection.) They have occasionally stocked some other material that isn’t confessionally Reformed, such as Culver’s Systematic Theology. But I can’t recall seeing the ESV Study Bible, for example. (I don’t know how long they stocked the Nelson KJV Study Bible, but I think it was on there for a while.) 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 3, 2021)

The only gripe I have with this new Banner edition is the quality of the illustrations. They're just not very good. They have an amateurish quality. I miss the days when children's books were beautifully illustrated and typeset. I have some of the old books from my childhood and I still enjoy flipping through them and looking at the pictures. You just can't find many children's books with art like that anymore. Most today look like they were illustrated by third graders. Just my

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Aug 3, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> Before the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible was published, they were so committed to the KJV that the study Bible that they stocked was the Nelson King James Study Bible, which is Baptist, moderately dispensational, and is at best moderately Calvinist (there are some contradictory notes, to my recollection.) They have occasionally stocked some other material that isn’t confessionally Reformed, such as Culver’s Systematic Theology. But I can’t recall seeing the ESV Study Bible, for example. (I don’t know how long they stocked the Nelson KJV Study Bible, but I think it was on there for a while.)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So besides the ESV copy of Acts for sale now, I poked around in Internet Archive and found this:

In 2015 they had ESV Literary Study Bible and ESV Single Column Legacy Bible for sale: https://web.archive.org/web/20150328205025/http://www.heritagebooks.org/categories/Bibles

I can't find that they've sold the ESV Study Bible though.

I did find some weird editions they've sold, like the Geneva Bible Patriot's Edition (complete with the US Constitution!) and as you mentioned the KJV Nelson Study Bible.


----------



## Logan (Aug 3, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Ummm...
> View attachment 8216View attachment 8217



At least he has good taste in style.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 3, 2021)

Jake said:


> So besides the ESV copy of Acts for sale now, I poked around in Internet Archive and found this:
> 
> In 2015 they had ESV Literary Study Bible and ESV Single Column Legacy Bible for sale: https://web.archive.org/w
> 
> ...


Evidently their stance is not as absolute as I had thought. I had understood that they were a stickler for the KJV and maybe the NKJV and were not open to any critical text translations.


----------



## Andres (Aug 4, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Sometimes she provides a bit of commentary or editorializing I’m unsure about. With grandchildren I’ve used it mostly for making a sweep through sections of the Bible and it’s very good for that, to provide a framework and broad knowledge of Biblical history.



This is my main issue with the Story Bible - there are times where Vos seems to play loose with the Scriptures - She will often make assumptions on how people felt in gospel narratives and I am uncomfortable when she ascribes comments to persons which we can't confirm they actually spoke. I found this to be more so in the New Testament volume (I have the old versions which are divided into 2 OT books and 1 NT).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 4, 2021)

You expressed the concern more forthrightly than I did. I feel the same discomfort and have often just edited as I’ve read aloud.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Aug 4, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well as I said above I have never read it myself so I am ignorant as to how frequently Scripture is directly quoted. However having looked at the first few pages given as a sample on the Banner website, at least in the chapter provided, Scripture is directly quoted quite often.



Not having the book in front of me, I can't say for absolute certain, and it varies by passage of course, but I'd say an average of a sentence per page being an actual quote probably wouldn't be too far off.

Which is to say, within the context of a very well-done modern _retelling_, the choice of Bible translation to include as a quotation in approximately 5% of the text, seems to me to be absolutely insignificant, especially compared to the points raised by Jeri and Andres. Which I concur with. I think in general she has a very good grasp of Scripture and way of explaining things in an easy-to-understand and engaging way, but sometimes I have to tell the kids, "you know, the Bible doesn't actually tell us why that person did x."

But that aside, because the re-telling is so simple and modern I would say that if you were to sit a person down to look at the new edition with no context, they likely would assume there never were different editions. My personal opinion is that if you are going to include quotes, the ESV fits far better in the _context_ of the re-telling than the KJV/ASV would, which often comes across a bit jarring when juxtaposed with the modern, simple retelling. But again, it doesn't really make much of a difference either way to me because we're talking about something like 5% of the text.

In this particular case, I see no good reason to stay with an older translation when it is a very easy replacement with a modern translation. Nothing is lost, unlike with say, older commentaries or the Confession with its very specific technical and historical language. Now if it were a paraphrase or an abridgement like the KJV Children's Bible, then that would be completely different.

Personally, I hope they fixed the typography. Fixing the large gaps between the paragraphs is far more important to me than which translation is used in sporadic quotes of a retelling!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Aug 5, 2021)

Okay, so now that I have returned from travel and can actually consult my copy...

It's quite curious actually. The "quotes" (where someone is speaking) are actually usually re-told paraphrases as well. Then there are _italicized_ quotes that are actual scripture quotes, but those are particularly sparse. You might easily go 20 pages without finding one (I spotted them mostly in the sections covering the first six chapters of Genesis, thereafter I only saw a couple for the rest of Genesis).

Where there are actual Scripture quotes, it is definitely ASV in the several passages I checked, not KJV.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 5, 2021)

Logan said:


> Okay, so now that I have returned from travel and can actually consult my copy...
> 
> It's quite curious actually. The "quotes" (where someone is speaking) are actually usually re-told paraphrases as well. Then there are _italicized_ quotes that are actual scripture quotes, but those are particularly sparse. You might easily go 20 pages without finding one (I spotted them mostly in the sections covering the first six chapters of Genesis, thereafter I only saw a couple for the rest of Genesis).
> 
> Where there are actual Scripture quotes, it is definitely ASV in the several passages I checked, not KJV.


Oh wow. I guess I was taken in by the use of thee's and thou's... I didn't think about the ASV retaining that.


----------



## C4MERON (Aug 6, 2021)

I just purchased a copy of the re-print earlier this week. I began reading it to my children just after dinner in the hope of it being a source with which to read to my children who vary in ages from (nearly) 4 to 11. I do engage in separate sessions of biblical instruction with my 2 older boys at other times, but hopefully this will also be something we can form a rhythm around too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------

