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.
Thanks for your comments. That's what I was looking for when I started Substack - not lots of subscribers, but a few seriously interested people.
About the Anglican Church and the book of Common Prayer, I don't know much about those things. I have read something about Whitefield and the Wesleys, including biographies and a few sermons, as well as general British history, so have some idea in general of Anglicanism, but have never pursued that in depth. I believe in spite of its sorry beginnings in the reign of Henry VIII God was able to bring good out of the Anglican Church and think some Baptists are mistaken to omit the martyrs of Bloody Mary from their historical trail of blood. Parts of the BCP I have seen here and there were profoundly biblical, but I have never read the whole book.
About your own work on the KJV, I don't know if you are doing it only for yourself. Certainly there was real spiritual value in earlier English versions, such as the Coverdale, Matthew, Great and Geneva Bibles, and I would never insist that no other wording or phrasing is possible. The main problem is with the corruption of the text itself according to the principles of modern pseudo-scientific textual criticism. A related problem is the belief that the Bible should be treated just like any other book, according to principles originally devised for secular literature, as if the Bible were on the same plane as Homer and Virgil.
Anyway, I am going to try and cover some of the main issues, and am always glad to get some feedback, in case I missed or need to add or correct something.
I ultimately am doing it for publication, but certainly not to get rich. I would certainly grant any non-profit, like the Gideons, the right to publish as many as they give them away and are not sold. I would want reasonably priced Bibles to be available for all, and so would be careful to not just give a publisher the right to do what they wish. There is nothing wrong with a more expensive Bible for those who desire one, but publishers have a way of maximizing their profits are the expense of availability. I may have to pay for printing and do my own marketing, online, or through online bookstore portals. Too early to attack such things just yet.
Quite a few lesser known versions have been brought out I think. I think there is nothing inherently wrong with a new version, if it is free from textual corruption, and if it is done on the foundation of Christ. People who prefer the newer versions, or those who dislike the newer versions will probably stay where they are. If you are changing ands, punctuation and spelling, I would guess it would be too archaic for the modernists.
If the modernists hate it, that is typically a good thing. There will be no verses with numbers by them, stating this isn't in this manuscript or the other. Such have unfortunately caused many new Christians to doubt the foundations of Christianity. What a tragedy and what those "textual critics" will have to answer for at the Judgement Seat of Christ.
You are right, even casting doubt on verses or phrases, such as "only begotten son" is iniquity - and about the judgment seat of Christ, with whom was Christ most angry when he was on earth? They had thieves, liars, murders and immoral people in Roman Palestine - but his greatest anger was reserved for false teachers, of whom many secular "scholars" are in the front rank.
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.
I had never heard of the New World Translation, but looked it up and found it was a Jehovah's Witness translation, that explicitly denies the full deity of Christ in John 1:1. I don't believe we have to live in an intellectual monastery, and have read or looked at different and opposing views over the years, including Marx, Darwin, secular thinkers of various sorts. Some Christians have studied the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, whatever in order to understand them, but I never found that sort of studying edifying.
About God allowing evils spirits to murder those babies, the New World Translation says "Then at midnight, Jehovah struck down every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharʹaoh who was sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the prison, and every firstborn of the animals."
People often look at different versions and translations, even paraphrases and find something good of them, but the basic question is, What do we think of the Bible, the Word of God? Were man directly inspired by the Spirit of God to give us inerrant truth? If so, those words should be treated with great reverence and maintained as closely and as accurately as possible.
One of the what-ifs of history. I had not heard of the Cathars, though I had heard of the Albigensians, another name for them. According to Wikipedia their ideas go back a long way. Their idea of a good God and an evil God (Satan) in conflict with each other seems at first to provide some explanation for the evil in the world, but that raises more questions.
I thought I should add that the main reason Christianity had such a huge influence on Western Europe is because it was true. Even with the medieval additions of the papacy, which accumulated slowly over centuries, the ideas of Christ come into the world, his sacrificial death and resurrection, a resurrection from the dead followed by a judgment and heaven or hell - these were so powerful because they are real. The modern rejection is rebellion that leads to darkness - though Christianity did not bring paradise on earth and does not promise that before Christ's return.
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.
Thanks for your comments. That's what I was looking for when I started Substack - not lots of subscribers, but a few seriously interested people.
About the Anglican Church and the book of Common Prayer, I don't know much about those things. I have read something about Whitefield and the Wesleys, including biographies and a few sermons, as well as general British history, so have some idea in general of Anglicanism, but have never pursued that in depth. I believe in spite of its sorry beginnings in the reign of Henry VIII God was able to bring good out of the Anglican Church and think some Baptists are mistaken to omit the martyrs of Bloody Mary from their historical trail of blood. Parts of the BCP I have seen here and there were profoundly biblical, but I have never read the whole book.
About your own work on the KJV, I don't know if you are doing it only for yourself. Certainly there was real spiritual value in earlier English versions, such as the Coverdale, Matthew, Great and Geneva Bibles, and I would never insist that no other wording or phrasing is possible. The main problem is with the corruption of the text itself according to the principles of modern pseudo-scientific textual criticism. A related problem is the belief that the Bible should be treated just like any other book, according to principles originally devised for secular literature, as if the Bible were on the same plane as Homer and Virgil.
Anyway, I am going to try and cover some of the main issues, and am always glad to get some feedback, in case I missed or need to add or correct something.
I ultimately am doing it for publication, but certainly not to get rich. I would certainly grant any non-profit, like the Gideons, the right to publish as many as they give them away and are not sold. I would want reasonably priced Bibles to be available for all, and so would be careful to not just give a publisher the right to do what they wish. There is nothing wrong with a more expensive Bible for those who desire one, but publishers have a way of maximizing their profits are the expense of availability. I may have to pay for printing and do my own marketing, online, or through online bookstore portals. Too early to attack such things just yet.
Quite a few lesser known versions have been brought out I think. I think there is nothing inherently wrong with a new version, if it is free from textual corruption, and if it is done on the foundation of Christ. People who prefer the newer versions, or those who dislike the newer versions will probably stay where they are. If you are changing ands, punctuation and spelling, I would guess it would be too archaic for the modernists.
If the modernists hate it, that is typically a good thing. There will be no verses with numbers by them, stating this isn't in this manuscript or the other. Such have unfortunately caused many new Christians to doubt the foundations of Christianity. What a tragedy and what those "textual critics" will have to answer for at the Judgement Seat of Christ.
You are right, even casting doubt on verses or phrases, such as "only begotten son" is iniquity - and about the judgment seat of Christ, with whom was Christ most angry when he was on earth? They had thieves, liars, murders and immoral people in Roman Palestine - but his greatest anger was reserved for false teachers, of whom many secular "scholars" are in the front rank.
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.
I had never heard of the New World Translation, but looked it up and found it was a Jehovah's Witness translation, that explicitly denies the full deity of Christ in John 1:1. I don't believe we have to live in an intellectual monastery, and have read or looked at different and opposing views over the years, including Marx, Darwin, secular thinkers of various sorts. Some Christians have studied the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, whatever in order to understand them, but I never found that sort of studying edifying.
About God allowing evils spirits to murder those babies, the New World Translation says "Then at midnight, Jehovah struck down every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharʹaoh who was sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the prison, and every firstborn of the animals."
People often look at different versions and translations, even paraphrases and find something good of them, but the basic question is, What do we think of the Bible, the Word of God? Were man directly inspired by the Spirit of God to give us inerrant truth? If so, those words should be treated with great reverence and maintained as closely and as accurately as possible.
I sometimes wonder how different Christianity would be in the 21st century if the Cathars had defeated the Papacy.
One of the what-ifs of history. I had not heard of the Cathars, though I had heard of the Albigensians, another name for them. According to Wikipedia their ideas go back a long way. Their idea of a good God and an evil God (Satan) in conflict with each other seems at first to provide some explanation for the evil in the world, but that raises more questions.
I thought I should add that the main reason Christianity had such a huge influence on Western Europe is because it was true. Even with the medieval additions of the papacy, which accumulated slowly over centuries, the ideas of Christ come into the world, his sacrificial death and resurrection, a resurrection from the dead followed by a judgment and heaven or hell - these were so powerful because they are real. The modern rejection is rebellion that leads to darkness - though Christianity did not bring paradise on earth and does not promise that before Christ's return.