Bible Translations

[BruceL]

Years ago I read The Future of the Bible by Jacob Van Bruggen which led me to adopt the KJV as my personal choice for a reliable Bible translation. I also have a 1560 Geneva Bible which I love but it is a large hardback, awkward to use as it is a photocopy of an original Geneva Bible and not ideal for people who find the KJV difficult. I will continue to use RHB's Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible as my personal study Bible.

I am looking for a more modern translation to use with others who find the language of the KJV too difficult. I am considering the NASB 95 over the LSB because in part I prefer LORD over Yahweh. I am not comfortable with dynamic equivalent translations. As my time is extemely constrained I am humbly asking for your guidance in this matter. Are there any serious concerns with using the NASB 95 or even the LSB? I will confess that I am just uncomfortable using or even saying Yahweh but maybe I am wrong about this. I just don't ever want to use His name in any way that would be a violation of the 3rd commandemnt.

 

[SolusChristus]

If you are using the KJV and/or are KJV-preferred, I would recommend using the NKJV as a more modern translation. It matches the KJV very closely and updates some of the archaic words found in the KJV. The Greek New Testament that was used to translate the KJV was the Textus Receptus which was also used for the NKJV. Some people in the "confessional bibliology" camp seem to have issues with the NKJV which I do not understand. I know that they include information in footnotes for when the Critical Text differs with the TR (which is one of their gripes) but the text itself of the NKJV is very similar to the KJV.

 

[Edward]

If you like the KJV, why not the NKJV. It's probably the closest of the modern translations.

Or see Matthew Everhard's comments here:

 

[Jake]

I find the LSB to be a quirky translation. It makes odd choices that other translations do not, and it's never been too popular. It's okay, but I personally would only use it for reference.

That said, I'm not sure what your concern is with "Yahweh." I think it's probably closer to how the divine name is pronounced than "Jehovah." I don't have a problem with using Jehovah as it comes up in traditional translations and Psalm renderings though, even though I consider it less accurate. If your concern is just not wanting to say the divine name, I think that is a superstition. The KJV itself uses Jehovah and Jah in at least 7 places, though not consistently.

It seems the NKJV is probably your best bet. It is similar to the KJV but uses more modern English. It even does a pretty good job footnooting differences between major manuscript traditions, so it works well to compare between the TR, MT, and CT as well as translations based on them. This seems ideal for you as a KJV user who wants to interact with others less comfortable with the KJV.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

Though I do cross reference other translations in my Bible software while doing exegetical work for sermons, this article I just posted on PB encourages otherwise keeping with the KJV (you'll see my own personal testimony of why I was motivated to do so for my personal Bible in my seminary Greek class): puritanboard.com/ams/the-marvelous-men-behind-our-majestic-and-enduring-king-james-version-of-the-english-bible.66 It does address the misnomer in my view of the KJV being too difficult and rather that its continual use is what may even contribute to preserving the English language.

 

[alexanderjames]

Thread 'Bible Translations (Help)'

May 25, 2025

I am relatively a new Christian, that is, having decided to follow Christ and learn how to follow Him. I used to have a 1984 NIV long ago when I was playing pretend. Now I’m trying to find a translation that would be my daily driver. Was trying to find a NIV 1984 life application study Bible. Bought a couple for $20-30 in good condition with promise of no writing or highlighting which wasn’t the case and used-like new are upwards $100+

So I like the NIV 84 because it keeps the traditional masculine translation similar to the ESV and it’s highly readable like the CSB. However I find the...

• DiscipleJimmy
• bible bible translation translations
• Replies: 41
• Forum: General discussions

 

[jwithnell]

My boys have NASB 95 and I have a slightly older one. It's a fine translation. As I homeschooled all our kids, I wove in KJV readings to keep that earlier modern English accessible to them.

 

[BruceL]

First of all, thank you very much all of you. The Matthew Everhard video was very nice. I like the NKJV which I started using last year when I purchased Ray Comfort's Evidence Study Bible primarily for its' apologetic notes to use when sharing my faith with unbelievers. I agree that it is a very nice translation. I think I defaulted to NASB 95 because if memory serves it was the first Bible I got when I joined a PCA church as at that time I found the KJV difficult. I had previously been attending Assembly of God churches. I am now wanting to help my son who is in his early 30's and though very intelligent is not someone who loves reading and has problems with the English in the KJV. I got him a LSB John MacArthur study Bible which he found confusing because he attends a church where they use the ESV. So I think that when he has grown more in his faith I will try to get him to try the NKJV and if he is uncomfortable with that LSB, NASB 95 or NASB 77.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I got him a LSB John MacArthur study Bible

Do note that the MacArthur study Bible is not confessionally Reformed. The Reformation Study Bible (in the ESV) and the Reformation Heritage Study Bible (in the KJV) are much better choices.

Because the NKJV is similar to the ESV and also a revision of the KJV, it is an ideal translation to use with both study Bibles.

Dr Everhard also made a YouTube video on why he considers the NKJV an excellent translation. Dr Everhard is a Jonathan Edwards scholar. He is the general editor of the Jonathan Edwards study Bible which will soon come out in the NKJV.

 

[BruceL]

For those of you who appreciate the KJV and would use an audio Bible I would highly recommend finding a copy read by Alexander Scourby. Here is a link to it on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyH3jcNYnj_vee7HfFWgGmcW2E3qdsHLi. I purchased it years ago from a website attached to Scourby. I ripped it in a format that I loaded on my iPhone. It is great to listen to when doing thing that do not require much thought like walking, mowing the lawn, etc.

 

[BruceL]

Do note that the MacArthur study Bible is not confessionally Reformed. The Reformation Study Bible (in the ESV) and the Reformation Heritage Study Bible (in the KJV) are much better choices.

Because the NKJV is similar to the ESV and also a revision of the KJV, it is an ideal translation to use with both study Bibles.

Dr Everhard also made a YouTube video on why he considers the NKJV an excellent translation. Dr Everhard is a Jonathan Edwards scholar. He is the general editor of the Jonathan Edwards study Bible which will soon come out in the NKJV.

Thank you Stephen for the link to the Matthew Everhard video on the NKJV. I will add him to my YouTube feed. I am aware of that Stephen, he is attending a Southern Baptist church. I was impressed with the historical notes in the MacArthur bible. I am praying for him to become a member of a Reformed church but I am just glad that to the best of my knowledge he is saved. He went with me to my Free Reformed Church of North America once and enjoyed the membership but he found the liturgy somewhat different as it was not what he was used to. He is still a babe in Christ so I just have to be patient and pray the he will discover the joys of the faithful Reformed/Presbyterian denominations and form of worship and wonderful Puritan writers like Thomas Watson and John Bunyan to begin with.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Because of my workload, I could not do this subject justice. Sorry about that.
~~~~~~~

Have any of you ever dealt with the restoration versus preservation of the Scriptures?

My gripe with some of the modern translations is that I know the people who translated made stuff up.

Example:
Here's 1 John 3:9 as an example. The ESV sais:

1 John 3:9 ESV
[9] No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.

The KJV has this:
1 John 3:9 KJV
[9] Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


1John 3:9 penned a strange thing: Those born of God can not sin. I can see the translators' reasoning: all men sin, so John must mean that a saved person will sin less, so they relied on their own wisdom rather than God's. I think John meant what he said. So what is the rule when you come across a difficult passage like this one? You go to places that speak more clearly to help with the seemingly impossible. That place is Romans 7, where Paul says he is unable to stop sinning. Paul calls himself 'I' in three different places. There is I the sinner who sins ceaselessly. Then we hear Paul say that in his new mind, he never sins. Both I's are true but from different perspectives.

Then John's statement is that Christ's seed is in him and it never sins.

I was told that the translators of the KJV, when they came across a passage they could not be sure of the meaning of. They didn't guess what it means and left it as it was without a final solution. I think we should do the same. So half the time, Paul was a hopeless sinner who could not cease from sin. Then I am powered by the seed within him. In other words, the real Paul never wants to sin and doesn't. I think this is a likely reason John said what he did properly.

Here's the NKJV on the passage:
9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Here's Young's:

1 John 3:9 (YLT)
9every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten.

We must resist the temptation to think we are smarter than God, or that His word needs our wisdom.

Ed

PS - Do you think we should correct Paul too?

 

[MW]

My gripe with some of the modern translations is that I know the people who translated made stuff up.

Example:
Here's 1 John 3:9 as an example. The ESV sais:

In the main I agree with you about modern translators "making stuff up," although they have developed sophisticated techniques to justify their inventions. But you have chosen a very difficult verse to make your case. John's Greek here is unusually technical, and the English can't duplicate the idea without making an interpretive decision.

John does not simply say "he does not sin." If John wanted to say that, he could have written οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, "he does not sin." Instead he says, ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ. In Johannine usage, ποιεῖν is a loaded verb. One sees this immediately when he speaks of a man "doing the truth." It is not concerned with isolated actions, but a committed way of life. He is describing intentional, characteristic, identity‑shaping action, not the mere occurrence of a sinful act. And it is the present ποιεῖ: he commits it habitually, characteristically. So to translate it as "does not sin," following the NKJV, fails to account for the technical usage of John's wording.

 

[SolusChristus]

Because of my workload, I could not do this subject justice. Sorry about that.
~~~~~~~

Have any of you ever dealt with the restoration versus preservation of the Scriptures?

My gripe with some of the modern translations is that I know the people who translated made stuff up.

Example:
Here's 1 John 3:9 as an example. The ESV sais:

1 John 3:9 ESV
[9] No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.

The KJV has this:
1 John 3:9 KJV
[9] Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

View attachment 12928
1John 3:9 penned a strange thing: Those born of God can not sin. I can see the translators' reasoning: all men sin, so John must mean that a saved person will sin less, so they relied on their own wisdom rather than God's. I think John meant what he said. So what is the rule when you come across a difficult passage like this one? You go to places that speak more clearly to help with the seemingly impossible. That place is Romans 7, where Paul says he is unable to stop sinning. Paul calls himself 'I' in three different places. There is I the sinner who sins ceaselessly. Then we hear Paul say that in his new mind, he never sins. Both I's are true but from different perspectives.

Then John's statement is that Christ's seed is in him and it never sins.

I was told that the translators of the KJV, when they came across a passage they could not be sure of the meaning of. They didn't guess what it means and left it as it was without a final solution. I think we should do the same. So half the time, Paul was a hopeless sinner who could not cease from sin. Then I am powered by the seed within him. In other words, the real Paul never wants to sin and doesn't. I think this is a likely reason John said what he did properly.

Here's the NKJV on the passage:
9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Here's Young's:

1 John 3:9 (YLT)
9every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten.

We must resist the temptation to think we are smarter than God, or that His word needs our wisdom.

Ed

PS - Do you think we should correct Paul too?

Hey brother, I agree with you that overall, we should take the approach that the translators of the KJV and NKJV took. That said, we should also avoid psychologizing about the translators of the ESV and their translation choices - i.e. assuming their motive was to rely on their own wisdom vs. the wisdom of God.

I do not know the ESV translators' reasoning process, however, it appears to involve the Greek word ποιέω. According to BDAG, this word has a range of meanings, including to do, make, practice, commit, etc. In 1 John 3:9, this word is also in the present tense. It seems that the ESV translators were trying to wrestle with the word being in the present tense (meaning ongoing/continuous) and the definition of the word itself. As I said I do not know the ESV translators' reasoning process but they could also have wished to avoid people thinking that, on the surface, the logic of the verse is that Christians do not sin at all. As you pointed out, Scripture interprets Scripture and other passages like Romans 7 would clear this up. Thus, in the end I agree that translating it as "does not sin" is a valid translation. Yet, I don't think we can assume that the ESV translators were relying on their own wisdom and not seeking the wisdom of God. Additionally, I do think that the way they translated the verse is a valid way to translate it.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

The KJV / TR are my gold standard. That being said, I have found — in teaching folks whose first language is not English — that modern versions may help them get some clarity on what is being said. I want them to have a close idea of what the Scripture we are looking at is saying. I even have bought some modern versions to give them as aids. Yet I regularly say that the KJV / TR are the gold standard.

I have even come to appreciate the readings of some modern versions, including the ESV!

 

[Ed Walsh]

Hey brother, I agree with you that overall, we should take the approach that the translators of the KJV and NKJV took. That said, we should also avoid psychologizing about the translators of the ESV and their translation choices - i.e. assuming their motive was to rely on their own wisdom vs. the wisdom of God.

Just so you all know, I spent five years from 2015 to 2020 reading the ESV two times a year. I wanted to use it for those words that we think we understand in Old English but do not. I'm not so concerned with the words that we have no idea what they mean. Then the obvious task is to look them up and find out what they do mean. I did all this to find the words that sound like what we know they are but mean something differently now. Armed with my eyes open to a bunch of definitions that I might not have ever understood from the KJV, I'm back to the KJV full time. But I compare at least 5 or 6 translations when I'm trying to find the answer- the correct answer. I found the ESV to follow the KJV in many ways. Thanks for your writing.

Ed
[automerge]1781235338[/automerge]

That said, I'm not sure what your concern is with "Yahweh." I think it's probably closer to how the divine name is pronounced than "Jehovah."

Jehovah came from the German and I don't have to tell you what German often sounds like. Yahweh is very similar to Numa for Spirit. Your tongue doesn't have to touch the roof of your mouth it just comes out of your breath and your heart seemingly very natural. Without any textual information at all I simply love the name Yahweh more than the name Jehovah.

 

[BruceL]

Ed, thank you so very much for your time and insights into this issue. Thank you also to those who posted in response to your post and to Grant Van Leuven for the link in his post on this topic. I will stay with KJV for personal use and start checking some of archaic words against their definition in Archaic Words and the Authorized Version by Laurence Vance 1996 in the event that I have not clearly understood their meaning. I will gently push my son towards the NKJV as I pray that he will come into the Puritan/Presbyterian/Reformed fold. My first prayer was that he come to saving faith in Christ and that has been answered. I am very reformed in my theology and thank God that after 22 years I have been blessed to find a wonderful reformed church that is only a 35 mile drive from where I live.

I realize that the issues related to translations are complex and involve not just the translation of texts but the determination of which texts are reliable. I will also confess that I have read some of the Tyndale Bible and found a copy of a Wycliff Bible. I enjoyed the Tyndale but the Wycliff was not so easily understood. There is something about older English which really appeals to me. The Van Bruggen book I mentioned earlier would be a great resource to share with someone who is reticent about using the AV/KJV. I mentioned it because I did not know if there is a book that has been written since it was published in 1978 that would address some of the translations that have come about since that time. I do agree with Matthew Everhard's statement that we have too many translations.

 

[Alex Moore]

See margins.

https://us.tbsbibles.org/store/viewproduct.aspx?ID=9346101

 

[BruceL]

See margins.

https://us.tbsbibles.org/store/viewproduct.aspx?ID=9346101

Thank you for the link to TBS.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I also have a 1560 Geneva Bible which I love but it is a large hardback, awkward to use as it is a photocopy of an original Geneva Bible and not ideal for people who find the KJV difficult.

I, too, have a hardback facsimile, but Tolle Lege Press republished the Geneva around 2011 in modern script/layout and with a (bonded) leather cover - that's what I use (as far as I know it is now out of print but you can find secondhand copies in the usual places - but it looks like they are pricey).

The online version of the modern-format Geneva is free on most Bible sites like BibleGateway and free to download to a phone.

Like the AV-KJV, it was translated by professing Christians and was authorized by both Church and State in a Christian nation (I'm not sure any other English translations can claim that heritage). I prefer the Geneva to the AV-KJV because I find the Geneva notes to be helpful - they are often devotionally profitable, which is not a characteristic of the notes I've seen in modern AV-KJV "study Bibles."

 

[BruceL]

I have the 1566 Geneva Bible in hardback published by Tolle Lege Press as well as several digital versions. I hear you on the Geneva notes. The 1560 notes are more textual than commentary. I think you might enjoy the notes in RHB's Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible. I have both digital and print editions. I also purchased a number of hard back copies to give to people I witness to who need a bible.

 

[DanSSwing]

If you are using the KJV and/or are KJV-preferred, I would recommend using the NKJV as a more modern translation. It matches the KJV very closely and updates some of the archaic words found in the KJV. The Greek New Testament that was used to translate the KJV was the Textus Receptus which was also used for the NKJV. Some people in the "confessional bibliology" camp seem to have issues with the NKJV which I do not understand. I know that they include information in footnotes for when the Critical Text differs with the TR (which is one of their gripes) but the text itself of the NKJV is very similar to the KJV.

But doesn’t the NKJV remove the 2nd person plural/singular distinction? I’ve long thought that retaining this distinction is one of the main advantages of the KJV.

 

[BruceL]

I, too, have a hardback facsimile, but Tolle Lege Press republished the Geneva around 2011 in modern script/layout and with a (bonded) leather cover - that's what I use (as far as I know it is now out of print but you can find secondhand copies in the usual places - but it looks like they are pricey).

The online version of the modern-format Geneva is free on most Bible sites like BibleGateway and free to download to a phone.

Like the AV-KJV, it was translated by professing Christians and was authorized by both Church and State in a Christian nation (I'm not sure any other English translations can claim that heritage). I prefer the Geneva to the AV-KJV because I find the Geneva notes to be helpful - they are often devotionally profitable, which is not a characteristic of the notes I've seen in modern AV-KJV "study Bibles."

I, too, have a hardback facsimile, but Tolle Lege Press republished the Geneva around 2011 in modern script/layout and with a (bonded) leather cover - that's what I use (as far as I know it is now out of print but you can find secondhand copies in the usual places - but it looks like they are pricey).

The online version of the modern-format Geneva is free on most Bible sites like BibleGateway and free to download to a phone.

Like the AV-KJV, it was translated by professing Christians and was authorized by both Church and State in a Christian nation (I'm not sure any other English translations can claim that heritage). I prefer the Geneva to the AV-KJV because I find the Geneva notes to be helpful - they are often devotionally profitable, which is not a characteristic of the notes I've seen in modern AV-KJV "study Bibles."

I also have the Tolle Lege but in hard back. The are the 1699 version of the Geneva Bible whose footnotes began including more commentary.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I have the 1566 Geneva Bible in hardback published by Tolle Lege Press as well as several digital versions. I hear you on the Geneva notes. The 1560 notes are more textual than commentary.

I also have the Tolle Lege but in hard back. The are the 1699 version of the Geneva Bible whose footnotes began including more commentary.

Yes, the TLP edition uses the 1599 notes which are different from the 1560 - the 1560 is more spartan and pretty much a mini-Calvin commentary, which has it's place. The 1599 notes (almost as many words as the Biblical text) feel more pastoral and I find them helpful during family worship and when following along when listening to a sermon. Some parts are notably different - especially the Junius/Beza's Revelation commentary which is one of the first modern historicist treatments.

http://www.genevabible.org/ is a fairly good source (it has some quirky axes to grind in my view) for anyone wanting to check out all the variations.

It wold be an interesting study for someone's PhD to compare the 1560 and 1599 Geneva Bible notes. I think it would show the development of Reformed thought between the early Reformation and the more mature Reformed orthodoxy often associated with the "Second Reformation" (especially the era of Theodore Beza, the Huguenots, Puritans, and Scottish Presbyterians). It would be tracing a progression that is more evolutionary than revolutionary as the 1599 notes build on the 1560 foundation rather than replacing it.

 

[ChristWarrior]

Years ago I read The Future of the Bible by Jacob Van Bruggen which led me to adopt the KJV as my personal choice for a reliable Bible translation. I also have a 1560 Geneva Bible which I love but it is a large hardback, awkward to use as it is a photocopy of an original Geneva Bible and not ideal for people who find the KJV difficult. I will continue to use RHB's Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible as my personal study Bible.

I am looking for a more modern translation to use with others who find the language of the KJV too difficult. I am considering the NASB 95 over the LSB because in part I prefer LORD over Yahweh. I am not comfortable with dynamic equivalent translations. As my time is extemely constrained I am humbly asking for your guidance in this matter. Are there any serious concerns with using the NASB 95 or even the LSB? I will confess that I am just uncomfortable using or even saying Yahweh but maybe I am wrong about this. I just don't ever want to use His name in any way that would be a violation of the 3rd commandemnt.

The NKJV version is a reliable bible translation that uses same textual source as the KJV, and would also say that the nas 95 is perhaps the best translation based off the so called critical Greek text, would be good to use both of them for your bible studies
[automerge]1781289287[/automerge]

My boys have NASB 95 and I have a slightly older one. It's a fine translation. As I homeschooled all our kids, I wove in KJV readings to keep that earlier modern English accessible to them.

Not familiar wit that book and author that was quoted, is that author KJVO?
[automerge]1781289394[/automerge]

Do note that the MacArthur study Bible is not confessionally Reformed. The Reformation Study Bible (in the ESV) and the Reformation Heritage Study Bible (in the KJV) are much better choices.

Because the NKJV is similar to the ESV and also a revision of the KJV, it is an ideal translation to use with both study Bibles.

Dr Everhard also made a YouTube video on why he considers the NKJV an excellent translation. Dr Everhard is a Jonathan Edwards scholar. He is the general editor of the Jonathan Edwards study Bible which will soon come out in the NKJV.

he was though a very through bible expositor and did hold to the reformed view of salvation as expressed in the Doctrines of grace

 

[SolusChristus]

But doesn’t the NKJV remove the 2nd person plural/singular distinction? I’ve long thought that retaining this distinction is one of the main advantages of the KJV.

Yes that is one weakness of the NKJV compared to the KJV. I think TBS has tried to mitigate the concerns of those who say that the KJV is difficult to understand. Someone else linked to it, but their Westminster Reference Bible defines archaic words in the margin which is helpful. Other KJV Bibles sometimes have a section at the back called "the King's English" or something where archaic words are defined. I know the Reformation Heritage Study Bible typically defines words in the notes.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

. I was impressed with the historical notes in the MacArthur bible. I am praying for him to become a member of a Reformed church but I am just glad that to the best of my knowledge he is saved.

Yes there are good things about the MacArthur study Bible. There is helpful historical information and MacArthur is a Calvinist.

Keep encouraging your son. It would be wonderful if he started reading Thomas Watson and John Bunyan.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Concurred with others on the benefits of the NKJV for those people who simply cannot understand KJV language.

From experience in the rural South, which is far from the most educated part of the United States, the concerns of "people today can't read the KJV" are greatly exaggerated. I am not a KJV-onlyist, or even a Textus Receptus-onlyist, but I have to deal with the fact that in the rural Ozarks where the KJV is the default Bible translation and anything else has to be defended and creates a perception that the church using a non-KJV text is liberal or "loose," I just can't afford the unnecessary fight. I need to be able to tell fundamental Baptists, "We're KJV."

However, as @Jerusalem Blade points out, there are legitimate issues with people for whom English is their second language. Less than we might think, however. Our niece, when she moved to the US and we enrolled her in the local Christian school which expected all Bible work to be done from the KJV, had no problem within a year, especially once we got her a KJV-Korean interlinear Bible.

The NKJV, in addition to being based on the same underlying Greek/Hebrew texts as the KJV, is close enough in style that it's probably the best choice for a KJV church that needs an alternative translation for English-as-a-Second-Language people.

 

[alexanderjames]

In the main I agree with you about modern translators "making stuff up," although they have developed sophisticated techniques to justify their inventions. But you have chosen a very difficult verse to make your case.

Are you able to please share some of the most compelling examples in your view to support such a statement?

 

[BruceL]

But doesn’t the NKJV remove the 2nd person plural/singular distinction? I’ve long thought that retaining this distinction is one of the main advantages of the KJV.

But doesn’t the NKJV remove the 2nd person plural/singular distinction? I’ve long thought that retaining this distinction is one of the main advantages of the KJV.

I have decided outside of compelling evidence to switch back and forth between the KJV and NKJV using the Archaic Words book which is really just a dictionary to verify words that I might not understand the precise meaning of.

But doesn’t the NKJV remove the 2nd person plural/singular distinction? I’ve long thought that retaining this distinction is one of the main advantages of the KJV.

But doesn’t the NKJV remove the 2nd person plural/singular distinction? I’ve long thought that retaining this distinction is one of the main advantages of the KJV.

Yes, the TLP edition uses the 1599 notes which are different from the 1560 - the 1560 is more spartan and pretty much a mini-Calvin commentary, which has it's place. The 1599 notes (almost as many words as the Biblical text) feel more pastoral and I find them helpful during family worship and when following along when listening to a sermon. Some parts are notably different - especially the Junius/Beza's Revelation commentary which is one of the first modern historicist treatments.

http://www.genevabible.org/ is a fairly good source (it has some quirky axes to grind in my view) for anyone wanting to check out all the variations.

It wold be an interesting study for someone's PhD to compare the 1560 and 1599 Geneva Bible notes. I think it would show the development of Reformed thought between the early Reformation and the more mature Reformed orthodoxy often associated with the "Second Reformation" (especially the era of Theodore Beza, the Huguenots, Puritans, and Scottish Presbyterians). It would be tracing a progression that is more evolutionary than revolutionary as the 1599 notes build on the 1560 foundation rather than replacing it.

Thank you for the link to the Geneva Bible website Northern Crofter. I have added it to my bookmarks.