Discussion about this post

User's avatar
RedBaron's avatar

I once had a NKJV, but once I saw what verses they moved to the bottom in small print, I eventually got rid of it.

I am working on my own KJV version and at the rate I am going, I might be done in 20 years. :-) I don't go nearly as far as the King James 2000. Largely what I do is eliminate a lot of the extra "ands" as well as update some of the punctuation. Also, instead of the British "honourable," I opt for the American "honorable". "That" is a word which even today is overused. I am keeping the old "thee," "ye," etc. So far, I am using quotation marks. About the most "radical" I get is changing Isaiah's name spelling in the New Testament to match the Old Testament and the same in the genealogies in St. Matthew.

The Anglican Orthodox Church (essentially the OLD Episcopal Church) uses the KJV, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1940 Hymnal. BTW, the BCP actually uses the Psalms from Tyndale's translation as well as a few Scriptures. While the KJV was installed in all Church of England churches, apparently it was too expensive to update the Book of Common Prayer to KJV as well, or perhaps they were just used to it as it was.

Thanks for your article and looking forward to more. Plan to save for future reference.

Expand full comment
Charles Clemens's avatar

Interlinear versions of the Bible, "emphasized" versions, and books that use trendy words and phrases can be blended together to make a miraculous mousse. Despite its insistence to confuse worship with obeisance, I like The New World Translation to the extent that it uses passive verbs when describing the curses brought down upon the Egyptians. In short, that translation says that YHWH allowed the evil spirits to murder all those babies.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts