# A modernized KJV version



## Polanus1561 (Nov 14, 2018)

https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/the-childrens-king-james-bible.html

Please see sample in link. Translation looks solid. (Rhb can be trusted). Children's bible it is but it has not been simplified. If they repackaged it to not be a children's edition - it can be a NKJV alternative 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 14, 2018)

I looked at the sample pages, but it seemed unclear as to what precisely has been “simplified.”


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 14, 2018)

Most obviously from the sample, the removal of "thee" and "ye", replaced by modern pronouns. In 40:2 "Speak ye comfortably..." becomes "Speak lovingly..." That would presumably make the KJV more accessible. It is an interesting marketing choice to make it a Children's Bible, when it might serve a wider purpose. Presumably the rationale is that the full strength KJV is better (for example preserving distinctions between singular and plural 2nd person forms).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 14, 2018)

I’m curious as to why this would be any better than simply using the NKJV.


----------



## Tom Hart (Nov 14, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I’m curious as to why this would be any better than simply using the NKJV.



This one's said to be based on the Textus Receptus. The NKJV is not quite true to that claim, or so I have heard.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 14, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> This one's said to be based on the Textus Receptus. The NKJV is not quite true to that claim, or so I have heard.



That is simply KJV only propaganda with no foundation in reality. I assure you the NKJV is translated from the TR.


----------



## Tom Hart (Nov 14, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> That is simply KJV only propaganda with no foundation in reality. I assure you the NKJV is translated from the TR.



I could be misinformed, but does not the NKJV make use of the Alexandrian texts? For the OT, the Dead Sea Scrolls were also made use of.

I am a novice here, so any correction or input would certainly be appreciated.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 14, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I could be misinformed, but does not the NKJV make use of the Alexandrian texts? For the OT, the Dead Sea Scrolls were also made use of.
> 
> I am a novice here, so any correction or input would certainly be appreciated.


Here is Michael Marlowe's write up on the NKJV in his 'Bible Researcher'

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Nov 15, 2018)

Anyways, back to the OP and away from yet another derailing over this translation vs that translation. I talked to Dr. Beeke about an hour ago. We discussed a lot so I am trying to remember specifics on this. He said much of the text is the same. He said this is a great way to ease someone into the KJV. Also, there aren't that many copies left and it won't be reprinted.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 15, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I could be misinformed



Yes.


----------



## Tom Hart (Nov 15, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Yes.



Straight to the question, then:

_With regard to manuscript bases, does the NKJV differ in any way from the KJV?_


----------



## mgkortus (Nov 15, 2018)

iainduguid said:


> It is an interesting marketing choice to make it a Children's Bible, when it might serve a wider purpose.



I agree with Dr. Duguid—this could very well serve a wider purpose. When I read the sample I do not think of it as a children's version but simply a really good translation.


----------



## mgkortus (Nov 15, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I’m curious as to why this would be any better than simply using the NKJV.



I am also curious about this: in what ways is it different from the NKJV? Also, I wonder how much of this new translation is the result of plugging in the footnotes from the Reformation Heritage Study Bible?


----------



## Brian R. (Nov 15, 2018)

mgkortus said:


> I am also curious about this: in what ways is it different from the NKJV? Also, I wonder how much of this new translation is the result of plugging in the footnotes from the Reformation Heritage Study Bible?



We have this children's bible. I just checked the copyright date. It's 2006; so it would have been produced about 8 years prior to the RHB study bible.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 15, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Straight to the question, then:
> 
> _With regard to manuscript bases, does the NKJV differ in any way from the KJV?_



No. But it does footnote where the TR deviates from both the CT and the MT. It also occasionally corrects some poor translation choices on the part of the KJV translators. It is for these reasons that the KJV only crowd hates the NKJV and engages in ridiculous slander against it.


----------



## brendanchatt (Nov 15, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Yes.



The NKJV preface indicates it is somewhat different. Also, it is not restricted to the NT. The OT was translated from the Masoretic, but in consultation with different versions of the same, as well as Greek versions of the OT and the Vulgate (the latter two of which, I'm assuming would have been considered by the AV translators as well).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 15, 2018)

Is this the translation that Jay Green did?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 15, 2018)

brendanchatt said:


> The NKJV preface indicates it is somewhat different. Also, it is not restricted to the NT. The OT was translated from the Masoretic, but in consultation with different versions of the same, as well as Greek versions of the OT and the Vulgate (the latter two of which, I'm assuming would have been considered by the AV translators as well).



All of which has nothing to do with the Textus Receptus, since the TR only consists of the New Testament. Regarding the NT, the preface of the NKJV states “because the NKJV is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the NT and to indicate major Critical and Majority text variant readings in the footnotes.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brendanchatt (Nov 15, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> All of which has nothing to do with the Textus Receptus, since the TR only consists of the New Testament. Regarding the NT, the preface of the NKJV states “because the NKJV is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the NT and to indicate major Critical and Majority text variant readings in the footnotes.”



I mentioned the OT after 'also.' Before that, I was referring to this: "Although these variations are duly indicated in the popup notes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text."

I think I may have misread this. Is this just a general statement about similarity among manuscript traditions?

BTW, I use the NKJV very much.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 15, 2018)

brendanchatt said:


> I mentioned the OT after 'also.' Before that, I was referring to this: "Although these variations are duly indicated in the popup notes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text."
> 
> I think I may have misread this. Is this just a general statement about similarity among manuscript traditions?
> 
> BTW, I use the NKJV very much.



Yes, this is just a general statement in response to the presence of variant readings in the footnotes.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 16, 2018)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> He said this is a great way to ease someone into the KJV. Also, there aren't that many copies left and it won't be reprinted.



These two sentences are virtually contradictory. A "great way" to propagandize for the KJV. . .that "won't be reprinted." Maybe it's not that wonderful after all.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Nov 16, 2018)

bookslover said:


> These two sentences are virtually contradictory. A "great way" to propagandize for the KJV. . .that "won't be reprinted." Maybe it's not that wonderful after all.


Propagandize? Respectfully, If you're going to quote my post, please don't add words. I would disagree with you. How many great Puritan publications are no longer in print? Say, Christopher Love's "The Zealous Christian" or Bullinger's "Decades" were both reprinted in our generation but are no longer in print. This KJV alternative is an older publishing. He said the demand isn't what it used to be. Which is fair. The ESV is leading the race. That doesn't diminish the value of it.


----------



## Logan (Nov 16, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Is this the translation that Jay Green did?



I'm almost certain it is. We have the early publication of this, from the 50s or 60s and rather than being the "Bible" I think it is just the New Testament. The older version was interspersed with about 200 retellings of individual stories for smaller children, with decent illustrations (no 2nd commandment violations). I liked it, though I bought it more for the stories than the modernized KJV NT portion.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Nov 17, 2018)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Propagandize? Respectfully, If you're going to quote my post, please don't add words. I would disagree with you. How many great Puritan publications are no longer in print? Say, Christopher Love's "The Zealous Christian" or Bullinger's "Decades" were both reprinted in our generation but are no longer in print. This KJV alternative is an older publishing. He said the demand isn't what it used to be. Which is fair. The ESV is leading the race. That doesn't diminish the value of it.



Robert, I didn't add words to your post. "Propagandize" is my word. I was just interested in the contrast I perceived between how good that book is for introducing people to the KJV (a translation which should be allowed to fade into a well-earned permanent retirement) and the fact that it's going out of print nonetheless due to lack of demand for it.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Nov 17, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Robert, I didn't add words to your post. "Propagandize" is my word. I was just interested in the contrast I perceived between how good that book is for introducing people to the KJV (a translation which should be allowed to fade into a well-earned permanent retirement) and the fact that it's going out of print nonetheless due to lack of demand for it.


Fair enough. I suppose I misinterpreted your comment. My apologies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 17, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Robert, I didn't add words to your post. "Propagandize" is my word. I was just interested in the contrast I perceived between how good that book is for introducing people to the KJV (a translation which should be allowed to fade into a well-earned permanent retirement) and the fact that it's going out of print nonetheless due to lack of demand for it.


Which item are you referring to: (1) The KJV of Scripture or (2) the Children's KJV mentioned in the OP?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Nov 17, 2018)

book lover said:


> the KJV (a translation which should be allowed to fade into a well-earned permanent retirement)


I would respectfully disagree with this comment as well. Although, I am not a KJVPrimary user but use it on occasion. I think it is a beautiful rendering of the Word with some issues just as any translation. I am actually going to challenge myself to do most of my reading out of the KJV next year. When studying, I will of course use multiple translations.


----------



## Tom Hart (Nov 17, 2018)

bookslover said:


> ...the KJV [is] a translation which should be allowed to fade into a well-earned permanent retirement...



I'd be interested to hear just why you think the KJV should be thus shelved.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## bookslover (Nov 18, 2018)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Fair enough. I suppose I misinterpreted your comment. My apologies.



No harm done. It's all good.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 18, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Which item are you referring to: (1) The KJV of Scripture or (2) the Children's KJV mentioned in the OP?



Aren't they the same? I was under the impression that one of the goals of the book was to introduce children to the KJV.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 18, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I'd be interested to hear just why you think the KJV should be thus shelved.



Robert and Tom: The KJV should long since have been retired because the language is more than 400 years old now - actually, in the New Testament, it's older than that since about 80% of the New Testament consists of Tyndale's translation imported more-or-less entire into the KJV, and Tyndale's translation was nearly 100 years old _then.
_
I, too, love beautiful language, but the Bible is a special case. Since the purpose of the Bible is for God to communicate with us, clarity should take precedence over beauty. If beauty obscures a passage, then the beauty should be sacrificed for clarity. In all books, understanding its message is the purpose of reading. And that's _especially_ true in the Bible's case. 

There's no reason why people should have to struggle with (in the New Testament) 16th-century language in order to be able to understand it. Any decent modern translation (NASB [sort of], ESV, and possibly the CSB [I say "possibly" because I've read very little of it, as yet], etc.) is superior to the KJV for the purpose of communicating _to people living today._ And that's going to be even more the case as time rolls on.

Besides, Christians living in non-English-speaking countries have gotten along without the KJV just fine. They have God communicating to them in French, German, Tagalog, whatever.

Clarity over beauty. Time for the KJV to enjoy its retirement.


----------



## Tom Hart (Nov 18, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Robert and Tom: The KJV should long since have been retired because the language is more than 400 years old now - actually, in the New Testament, it's older than that since about 80% of the New Testament consists of Tyndale's translation imported more-or-less entire into the KJV, and Tyndale's translation was nearly 100 years old _then.
> _
> I, too, love beautiful language, but the Bible is a special case. Since the purpose of the Bible is for God to communicate with us, clarity should take precedence over beauty. If beauty obscures a passage, then the beauty should be sacrificed for clarity. In all books, understanding its message is the purpose of reading. And that's _especially_ true in the Bible's case.
> 
> ...



You're right, to a point, that it is the message that counts the most, and beautiful words less so. But remember that large portions of the Bible is in fact poetry. Not just the psalms, but also Proverbs and the prophets contain poetic language. Of the modern translations, I think it is the NKJV that renders poetry best. But the KJV is still better.

On the whole, in spite of some occasionally awkward phrasing, and some strange words ("unicorns" and "voice of the turtle") the KJV is a beautifully done translation. Yet that is not my principal reason for preferring it.

And let's not pretend the KJV is hard to understand. It's not. I grew up with the NIV and it wasn't really big leap to switch to the KJV. In fact, familiarity with the KJV has improved my English. It's easier to read Shakespeare, for example. (Surely we shouldn't retire Shakespeare as well?) My wife is Korean, and aside from a few words here and there, she has no trouble with the KJV.

I'm not really sure where you were going with your comment on Christians who speak other languages. Let them have their translations. The KJV is an English translation, for English speakers.

The KJV is a very accurate translation.

It distinguishes between different second-person pronouns.

It is common. Many people still use it. Surely that's a reasonable argument in its favour.

It was quoted in "A Charlie Brown Christmas."

It uses the Textus Receptus. I like that.

You can have your preferred translation. I'm not a KJV Only-ist. But you needn't think the KJV should be tossed. It's still a good translation, and it is dear to many Christians.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Nov 19, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> You're right, to a point, that it is the message that counts the most, and beautiful words less so. But remember that large portions of the Bible is in fact poetry. Not just the psalms, but also Proverbs and the prophets contain poetic language. Of the modern translations, I think it is the NKJV that renders poetry best. But the KJV is still better.
> 
> On the whole, in spite of some occasionally awkward phrasing, and some strange words ("unicorns" and "voice of the turtle") the KJV is a beautifully done translation. Yet that is not my principal reason for preferring it.
> 
> ...



As for the second-person pronouns, in a modern translation, context will tell you whether it's singular or plural.

As for "A Charlie Brown Christmas," well, there's that, I guess. Heh.

As for the Textus Receptus, keep in mind that that was an advertising slogan (as we would say today), not a scientific description of the text - sort of like using the phrase "authorized version" for the KJV: the king authorized the creation of the new translation but, by the time the translation was completed, the king had moved on, shall we say, and never authorized it in any other sense. So, "authorized text" is also sort of an ad slogan for the KJV. (Besides, King James was no expert in biblical languages or translation theory. So, in what sense was he qualified to authorized anything - except for the bare fact that he was the king?).

Also, Christians weren't exactly thrilled with the KJV when it first appeared. It took about half a century for it to catch on. Most Christians were happy with their Geneva Bibles at the time.

My sense is that many (most?) of the people who use it do so for sentimental reasons - it was what they grew up on, it's what grandma used, they used it when they were kids, etc. - rather than for reasons having anything to do with the quality of the text.

So, maybe the KJV can get a room next to the Geneva Bible's room at the Old Bibles Home.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Nov 19, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> It was quoted in "A Charlie Brown Christmas."


Done and done. If it is good enough for Charlie Brown, it is good enough for me. I'm going KJVO.


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 19, 2018)

I've done a lot of thinking on the KJV versus other English translations. Over 30 years ago, when I began reading the Bible in earnest, I started out with the KJV. I found it difficult to understand some of Paul's thought process in particular, and bought an NIV as an adjunct to clarify passages I found difficult in the elder translation. I was blissfully unaware of any controversy surrounding the English translations.
In the ensuing years I've read quite a bit on both sides of the debate and I've come to a happy conclusion for myself. I still read the KJV for edification. study, and pleasure. I still read various other English translations for comparison and/or clarification. If I'm going to memorize verses it will be from the KJV translation, and I still think it speaks to my heart and soul more deeply than any of the 20th, or 21st century versions.
At least in my house it is not ready to be put out to pasture just yet.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## zdhoughton (Nov 27, 2018)

I was surprised to discover such translations as the Modern English Version or KJ21 were out there; for a long time, I had surmised the only TR-based (at least generally based) Bibles reasonably available out there were the Geneva, AV, Green's work, and (depending on who you ask) the NKJV. Still, none of the relatively new wave seem to have caught on in any appreciable way--at least, I don't believe they have.


----------

