A modernized KJV version

[Polanus1561]

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

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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

 

[iainduguid]

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).

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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

 

[Tom Hart]

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.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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]

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.

 

[JimmyH]

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'

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

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]

I could be misinformed

Yes.

 

[Tom Hart]

Yes.

Straight to the question, then:

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

 

[mgkortus]

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]

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.]

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.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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]

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).

 

[TylerRay]

Is this the translation that Jay Green did?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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.”

 

[brendanchatt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[bookslover]

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]

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.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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?

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

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]

...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.

 

[bookslover]

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

No harm done. It's all good.

 

[bookslover]

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.