Child's Story Bible republished

[alexandermsmith]

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]

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...

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

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.

 

[bookslover]

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.

 

[ZackF]

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.

 

[Joshua]

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.

 

[Grant]

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 Emoji Standard Version (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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

 

[Joshua]

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 Emoji Standard Version (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.

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.

 

[JH]

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

 

[Tom Hart]

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

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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)…

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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]

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

Ahhhhh.

 

[bookslover]

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.

 

[bookslover]

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.

 

[JH]

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.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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.

 

[Logan]

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).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

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.

 

[KMK]

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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]

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

 

[Grant]

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

Does this work if I use it on the moderators

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Does this work if I use it on the moderators

Well this moderator noticed that you need educating. You 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

 

[Grant]

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)