FORMATTING THE KJV REVISION

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

I am makign a revision ot he KJV text, reaitning most of he beutiful style and old language, but updatign the grammer to suit modenr abilities to read, and rpelacing some archane words hat no lnger convey th text properly. However, I am still retaining the Thee's and Thou's,a nd nbasing the tex ton the "Textus recipitus", in this cae scribveners. Its the closest to the Majority text I have.

On this note, some things i need to address. I inrtend to do several editiosn of the reivsion.

Standard, which is a Protestant Cannon Bible, wihe tstandard 66 Books.

Another edition, whih has the Apocrypha ( deuterocannonicals) in a sperate, middle seciton, like the origional KJV.

A second comelte one, whith the deuterocannonicals in a seperat section, Minus the additiosn to esther and daniel, which are palced instead in the books of Daniel and esther, but alernated in texttype, much lke the Jerusalem Bible has them.

A Catholic Edition, which renders the 7 additional books inthe Cahtolci Churhces Cannon in the order they are foudn in Catholic Bibles.

An Orhodox Bible, same as the Catholic in that i apply suc things as the 151 Psalm ( from another translaiton, worded as if form 1611)

Now, here are the queatsions.

1: Iralics ar eused to shwo where words where added or altered for trnasaitonal purposes. hwever, when I add the additiosn to Daneil and esther, iw as thinkignof doign them in italics. this prved to be untenable, so I woudl liek recomendaitosn on ho to incert the additions while makign them distinct form the rest of the text. ( I wil not simpley merge them, but will make them distinct somehow.)

2: Additions found in late MSS byt not in the Majority, such as the HJohnnian Cmma, and the dxology at the end of the Lords Prayer, ar retained, but as with above, my origional plan to follow he Jeruslaem Bibel lead and italisise these htigns falls short, scne italics ar ised alreayd How do I mke them distinct?

Likewise, I wold liek to make them distinct from the aditions to daneil and esther. ( For insance, if I ued Italcs in dnaiel and esther, I woudl not for the doxology and Joihnnian comma)

3: Fonts. I was toyng wihhte idea of alternaitgn fotns. Perhaps oen type, say Victorian, for the Old estament, Lucidia Handwritign fot her Apocrypha, and Times New rman for the NT. ( Not set in stone, just to give you the idea).

How woudl you prefer this, NY OT and Apoc, or else subdivided. ( such as the Torah get sone font, the porphets another, ect...)

Or shodil i keep the whoe of it consistant tohout?

OK, I leave htis open for suggestions. any takers?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 30, 2004

Answers

I am makign a revision ot he KJV text, reaitning most of he beutiful style and old language, but updatign the grammer to suit modenr abilities to read, and rpelacing some archane words hat no lnger convey th text properly. However, I am still retaining the Thee's and Thou's,a nd nbasing the tex ton the "Textus recipitus", in this cae scribveners. Its the closest to the Majority text I have.

On this note, some things i need to address. I inrtend to do several editiosn of the reivsion.

Standard, which is a Protestant Cannon Bible, wihe tstandard 66 Books.

Another edition, whih has the Apocrypha ( deuterocannonicals) in a sperate, middle seciton, like the origional KJV.

A second comelte one, whith the deuterocannonicals in a seperat section, Minus the additiosn to esther and daniel, which are palced instead in the books of Daniel and esther, but alernated in texttype, much lke the Jerusalem Bible has them.

A Catholic Edition, which renders the 7 additional books inthe Cahtolci Churhces Cannon in the order they are foudn in Catholic Bibles.

An Orhodox Bible, same as the Catholic in that i apply suc things as the 151 Psalm ( from another translaiton, worded as if form 1611)

Now, here are the queatsions.

1: Iralics ar eused to shwo where words where added or altered for trnasaitonal purposes. hwever, when I add the additiosn to Daneil and esther, iw as thinkignof doign them in italics. this prved to be untenable, so I woudl liek recomendaitosn on ho to incert the additions while makign them distinct form the rest of the text. ( I wil not simpley merge them, but will make them distinct somehow.)

2: Additions found in late MSS byt not in the Majority, such as the HJohnnian Cmma, and the dxology at the end of the Lords Prayer, ar retained, but as with above, my origional plan to follow he Jeruslaem Bibel lead and italisise these htigns falls short, scne italics ar ised alreayd How do I mke them distinct?

Likewise, I wold liek to make them distinct from the aditions to daneil and esther. ( For insance, if I ued Italcs in dnaiel and esther, I woudl not for the doxology and Joihnnian comma)

3: Fonts. I was toyng wihhte idea of alternaitgn fotns. Perhaps oen type, say Victorian, for the Old estament, Lucidia Handwritign fot her Apocrypha, and Times New rman for the NT. ( Not set in stone, just to give you the idea).

How woudl you prefer this, NY OT and Apoc, or else subdivided. ( such as the Torah get sone font, the porphets another, ect...)

Or shodil i keep the whoe of it consistant tohout?

OK, I leave htis open for suggestions. any takers?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 30, 2004.


How about making the additions a different color?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 30, 2004.

Zarove--

I am not sure if I understand you correctly, but I believe that a modern up-to-date., version of the KJV already exists.

Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translatiors applies the most recent research in archaelology, linguistics, and textual studies.

here

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 30, 2004.


The New King James is a dissapoitnment, and is not rellay a reivsion of the old King James, but a new trnalsaiton that follows some of he lingual surcutres that are familair to KJV users.

Its mistakes and alteraitons are Legion.

My revision is a simple revision, NOT a new translaiton, and a labour of love.

I do nt use the NKJV.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.VOM), December 30, 2004.


AS to davuc...cant, blakc ink is cheapest and Im self publishing...

So, has to be black...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 30, 2004.



The perfect KJV in my opinion would be a 10 font, Christ's words in red, marginal references, black leather, gilded edges and genuine black cowhide, and of course the deuteros.

Did you check out that link I posted to that KJV on the other thread?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 30, 2004.


Make that a 12 font!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 30, 2004.

ou relaise that as a self publisher prodicign his labour of love, I wint do leather or guilded edges, or even coloured fonts...

Has t be in rved range Gail...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 30, 2004.


Remember, im self generatign these by patung a print shop...Maybe in a eyar or two I can offer them...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 30, 2004.

What about a concordance and/or cross references?

For the Catholic version, are you going to consider alternate translations of certain passages that could go either way? How would you identify these and will this receive an Imprimater?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 01, 2005.



I think the Bible you have described has already been published. It's called the Third Millenium Bible (with deuteros) and the KJ21 (wo the deuteros). I had this Bible and it was very nice, somewhere between the KJ and the New KJ but yet keeping the Elizabethan thee's and thou's. Here's a link

http://www.tmbible.com

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 01, 2005.


Mine is my own rendition...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 01, 2005.

Zarove, perhaps this could be a start? From Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin: Bad Translations in the KJV

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 01, 2005.

Another interesting article: Translations before the King James: The KJV Translators Speak!

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 01, 2005.

Didnt I alreayd over the supposed errors list on another thread on the Cahtolci site? Cant we ignore this? any legitimate erros will vanish int eh revsion, and most of the errors listed here arnet errors.

Ill answer them if asked, but lets not inthis thread which is abo product management.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 01, 2005.



Zarove, I don't know the original languages so I would have no means to say either way. I was not intending to attack the KJV or its alleged errors, but rather provide a Catholic perspective for you to aid in your revision process. Please don't take this the wrong way -- I was just trying to help.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 02, 2005.

Its les seen as an attakc na dmor an an annoyance.

I mena, come on, AegoPagus is betterthan Mars Hill? aegopagus means " Ares Hill', and Mars is the Latin Name for Ares...

He advocates a refusal to translate it as better than a translation in an english translaitin!

These coplaints are handled alreayd, and arent worth my time relaly, since its poitnless to look into this form " A Catholic Perspectice" off an anti-KJV page. Its not a Catholci perspective, tis just another attakc because most KJV users woa re KJVO are anti- Papit in snetement. its a Kne jerk desire to find fault that has uttelry no place in this discusiion, save those few complaints of his that have Merit, but which are brouth on by ancent wording, andnkt flaweed translation. ( such as Observe rater than guard... the KJV is correct if we use Jacobean english...)

The oen I find the ufnniest is how he said that the proper trnaslaiton for Ministerial is proestly, and that the Protestants who transalted the KJv didnt liek the Proesthood so suppressed it.

Unfortunatlry, it was translated for the Churhc of england, which has a Priesthood. Why would the churhc of england suppress the peosthood whn they too claim apostolic succesiona nd a Valid Priesthood?

Juts doesnt make sence...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 02, 2005.


Zarove said: Why would the churhc of england suppress the peosthood whn they too claim apostolic succesiona nd a Valid Priesthood?

Good question, I don't know. But I have a guess -- maybe they wanted their version to be used not just by the Church of England, but Protestants and Christians in general around the world, who do not accept the priesthood other than "priesthood of all believers". If this is what they wanted, then surely it has occurred. Regardless of the reason behind it however (and Akin may be wrong), I think an accurate translation is better than not.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 02, 2005.


That sort of the probem, it IS accurate... even akin said so. The Ministerial work was oden by proests, btut he term " Minestarial" is acurate and is even in soem Cahtolci editiosn of the Bible...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 02, 2005.

Lets take a closer look at what is claimed shall we, in romans 15:16.

This time fromt he Catholic douay-RTheoms trnaslaiton, taken form the Latin vulgate no less, the Official bible of the Cathlic chruch at this time. ( Circa 1611.)

Ro 15:16 That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles; sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost.

Unfortiunatlruy, if the King James Bibel mistranslated it, so did the Duay-Rheims. I am even LESS convenced that the Douay-Rheims woudl do so dilineratlry to suppress the Priesthood to acomodate Protestant Positions.

now really, should I beleive that the douay-Rheims Bible is nothing but a compromise of sacred scripture to suppress the Priesthood?

Unfortunatlry, this is just an unkind attack. Just like the " Aegeopagus" whre he advocates NOT translatign the term as superior to transating it, this complait is untenable.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 02, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ