FAQ |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Sword Bible" KJV- Easy Reading ed.
Hello all.
I've been reading up on KJO, and the 'debate'. I've had the thought: "Why can't somebody, some entity, just change the Elizabethan pronouns and verbs, and leave the rest alone?" { I realize there is some concern with the proper rendering of the plural forms of the pronouns when you do this. } Well, I found just such a bible, YESTERDAY. The copyright is 2007, so I don't know how many even know about it. I searched here first and could find no prior reference to it. The publisher's website is, apparently: www.whitakerhouse.com But, on the same page is the reference to King's Word Press www.swordbible.com Both sites seem to offer it for sale, and there are several on Amazon, also. The cover reads: Sword Bible KJVER The classic King James Version Outdated words replaced with their modern equivalents In so far as I can tell, this must refer only to verb forms an pronouns as I'd wished. A key feature is the inclusion of a superscript 'p' where the modern pronoun was originally rendered in the Elizabethan plural form. There are still the archaic words present, such as John Baptist's head on a 'charger', and most certainly the cockatrice, dragon, and satyr mentioned in a recent post. Also, the [i]use of ITALICS[/] also seems to be true-to-form. While I'm not a fan of Bible 'helps', I'm enamored with the few in this one. For the archaic words, they underline them, and include a possible modern equivalent succinctly at the end of each verse, or each column of versuses where the word/s appear more than once. As with the words of Christ in red, they also do so for the words of God in the OT. As with possible word definitions after verses, they include the Hebrew renderings of the names of God in the OT. Here's two Genesis examples: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Elohim "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, I am the Almighty God, ...Jehovah - El Shaddai (Yes, the preface covers tetragrammaton YaHWeH becoming 'Jehovah) The version I found is hardback, and I intend to buy a large-print soft-cover today. So, I'm willing to send this one on to one of you for a review so that you could report back to those here on the forum. That way, no one will have to part with the money to buy one only to be disappointed, yet again, in a 'modern' rendering that leaves you wanting. I'll include either a return box with postage on it, or a check for return postage as the recipient would like. Keep it for a few weeks/months until you've thoroughly wrung it out. With little KJV experience, I certainly am not qualified to so! I would think the proprietor of this site and forum would be a logical choice. However, if there's another reader here in the CONUS, and you all agree that he/she would be a good reviewer, by all means. Please let me know here in this post. Best, Vic-pneuby Last edited by pneuby; 04-28-2008 at 11:05 AM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Whenever I hear Bible verse quoted with "thees", "ye's", and the "eths", it leaves me without a doubt that what I'm hearing is the Word of God. (Kind-a "trademark") I find no necessity of any more updating of the Biblical English of God's Word.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The most important thing is to know what the "thee's", "ye's" and "eth" endings mean. Once someone knows that, there is no reason to change the Bible.
Thee, thy, thine, etc. is always singular - referring to one person. Ye, you, your, etc. is always plural - referring to more than one person. The "eth" ending on verbs means it is present tense, ongoing, continual - which makes more sense than when someone just puts an "s" at the end of a verb. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. A true believer will continue believing. Someone that says, "I used to believe in Jesus" but now is rejecting the faith was never a true believer. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I just wanted to add that a better way to understand the archaic words would be to purchase a Defined King James Bible. The archaic words are in bold with definitions below the pages. This way you do not disrupt the integrity of the text of the KJB. http://www.biblefortoday.org/kj_bibles.asp Quote:
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I have a wide-margined Defined King James Bible. It is excellent for Bible study - margin big enough to write some notes and cross-references in, and definitions for hard words at the bottom of each page.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you for that post, pneuby, and the links, which I have bookmarked.
I'm one who thinks we should have an updated edition of the King James, a very carefully updated edition of course (and preferably Church-authorized), and it sounds like it's worth looking into this one. Apart from the updated words, if it is identical to the Cambridge edition that is recommended by most at this site, it would be close to what I want. Of course we all have our druthers, and personally I'd rather keep the thees and thous because they do have meaning (although the solution of the superscript "p" is an interesting one). I don't see the validity of the argument Jerry gave for keeping the "eth" endings as it seems to me the modern plural "s" or "es" does mean the same thing -- just as ongoing and continual as the old form. I don't personally have a problem with most of the archaic words, but some people do. I'd like to see them officially updated rather than defined in the margins. However, just because we are so used to the old language by now, most of them shouldn't be changed anyway -- there's no reason to change Thou shalt not to You shall not, it seems to me. And, finally, I'm not a fan of the red letter versions, because, really, the whole Bible is God's word. My druthers duly aired, I hope someone here who has the knowledge to evaluate the Bible will take you up on your offer. (P.S. Yes, George, my "druthers" are irrelevant, I know. I could give an objective argument for all my recommendations if you like, but so could others who disagree with me.) Last edited by Connie; 04-28-2008 at 03:53 PM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
This says it all. You and almost everyone else are approaching this as if what anyone "personally" wants is relevant. It's not relevant.
Any English translation that omits the distinction between plural and singular pronouns is already flawed. Your personal "preference" is totally irrelevant. "Personal" desires and "preferences" just have no place in choosing a Bible. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
It does not insert the superscript 'p' into those verses. Just changes the 'eth' to 's'. Guess that might be a deal-breaker?
Quote:
Quote:
Seems to me that it gets a bit awkward in those latter two. The Lord is now at the Father's right hand. It's not like we can continue to 'hear' him, nor 'see' him. The word remains for us to read, or hear from others like our pastors and teachers. We are encouraged to be become more Christ-like, so that others may 'see' Christ in us. The 'keep on' rendering of the verses that you imply, and your last quote, imply a Lordship view of salvation. I believe the Word is pretty clear about free grace, despite the redundancy of that term. Yes, I think that some CAN, in fact, believe unto their salvation. Then, as in the parable of the wheat and the tares, squander God's opportunity for them in a Christian walk. I don't for a moment believe they've lost their salvation, nor that they simply never had it to begin with. I do believe that they will understand what it means to feel shame, up close and personal at the Bema Seat. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Does this sound okay for you?
"And whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Believe you this?" Does this sound Bible? "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, Diligent, I already noted that my personal choice has nothing to do with it in my final note to George. I guess I'm going to have to use objective language here all the time then because all I meant by that was that I think it would be RIGHT to keep the thees and thous but that there is no Biblical reason to keep the "eth" endings. I'm KJV-only but I disagree with what I consider to be a superstitious attitude about the English language here. I believe God inspires translations as well as the original languages, but that doesn't mean every single word has to be retained as they used it in 1611. A Godly and cautious updating of the Bible is quite possible and necessary to reflect the fact that the English language has changed over time. I think such updating should be done by mutually recognized Godly men appointed by various churches who are in agreement with each other, rather than by self-appointed or publisher-appointed men.
|
|
|