1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by rlvaughn, May 29, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 2 of 8
  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    He did seem to buy into his own hype on his version being nest english translation for today!
     
    #21 Yeshua1, May 31, 2017
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That would be about the same as the Majority text though, correct?
     
    #22 Yeshua1, May 31, 2017
  3. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We've had a lot to say about Jay Green since I brought him up. If any of you are familiar with both Jay Green's translations of the Textus Receptus and the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) -- how would you compare them? Prefer one over the other?

    I haven't spent much time looking at the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) at Bible Gateway, but it seems to me that it might likely be very similar to the New Scofield Reference Bible that was a King James Bible with word changes in the text.
     
    #23 rlvaughn, May 31, 2017
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That would be a really nice study bible, but think no longer in print...
     
    #24 Yeshua1, May 31, 2017
  5. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which one?
     
    #25 rlvaughn, May 31, 2017
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The New Scofield Kjv, the one where the changes were put between brackets, with Kjv word in margin!
     
    #26 Yeshua1, May 31, 2017
  7. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks. We have a "New Scofield" from a number of years back; I don't know whether or not it is still in print.
     
    #27 rlvaughn, May 31, 2017
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are new scofields now, but they are Kjv, and not the one that put the word changes right in text!
     
    #28 Yeshua1, May 31, 2017
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,402
    Likes Received:
    1,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have some inside information on this translation. First of all, Jay Green wasn't TR-only. He claimed to favor the Byzantine/Majority. The interlinear (which I wore out, but still have the OT) used Scrivener's TR per the Trinity Bible Society because it was readily available in 1976. That was before computers (BC), for you whippersnappers, so this was literally a cut and paste process. (I've done that at a Christian publisher's myself).

    More tomorrow.
     
    #29 John of Japan, May 31, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The New Scofield Reference Bible with a slightly modified KJV text, published in 1987, is no longer in print.

    But the New Scofield Notes are still published with the text of the NKJV, and NIV, published by Oxford University Press. But now they call it The Scofield Study Bible III.
     
    #30 TCassidy, May 31, 2017
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For the most part, the 1994 KJ21 and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible merely updated some archaic language in the KJV. Rarely, they may make a change that would be considered more than updating.

    Jay Green's Modern KJV or the Literal Translation in his Interlinear Bible would make more revisions and changes to the KJV than just updating archaic language. They would be more like the NKJV than like the KJ21 although they would differ some from the NKJV. In the Old Testament, Green's Literal Translation used "Jehovah" consistently instead of "LORD" while his Modern King James Version did not.

    For one example, at Leviticus 11:30, the KJ21 and TMB keep the KJV's rendering "ferret" while the NKJV, Green's Literal Translation, and the Modern KJV have "gecko."
     
    #31 Logos1560, Jun 1, 2017
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From the book of Genesis, here are five more comparisons of the 1994 KJ21 and Green's English translations along with the KJV and NKJV.

    Gen. 1:28
    replenish the earth [KJV, KJ21, TMB]
    fill the earth [NKJV, Green's Literal, MKJV]

    Gen. 6:5
    God [1611 KJV]
    GOD [1769 KJV, KJ21, TMB]
    LORD [NKJV, MKJV]
    Jehovah [Green's Literal Translation]

    Gen. 30:37
    hazel [KJV, KJ21, TMB]
    almond [NKJV, MKJV, Green's Literal]

    Gen. 36:24
    mules [KJV, KJ21, TMB]
    water [NKJV]
    hot springs [Green's Literal, MKJV]

    Gen. 39:1
    officer of Pharaoh [KJV, NKJV, KJ21, TMB]
    eunuch of Pharaoh [Green's Literal, MKJV]
     
    #32 Logos1560, Jun 1, 2017
  13. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,402
    Likes Received:
    1,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Concerning the OT of Green's interlinear, Dr. Robinson was the general editor of that. He worked to cut and paste various sections, and to finalize the contributions of about 7 others, though Green would often override the renderings, since there were space limitations due to having to manually type the English below the original Hebrew & Aramaic. Note that Green himself did not know Hebrew or Aramaic, and depended on his team to do the actual OT translation.
     
    #33 John of Japan, Jun 1, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,402
    Likes Received:
    1,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    According to a knowledgeable source, Jay Green himself did the interlinear NT, so all errors of translation (and there are many) are his. He actually had very little Greek training, believe it or not. He only had training in beginning Greek, which he learned privately from J. Oliver Buswell in his home for a year. This explains why I myself didn't use Green's interlinear NT that much, though it wore out very quickly, and bought a better one when I could.
     
    #34 John of Japan, Jun 1, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    27,233
    Likes Received:
    1,037
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but it appears, since we have the NKJV, we should put the other "moderized" KJV bibles on the back shelf.
     
    #35 Van, Jun 1, 2017
  16. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,855
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks to JoJ and Logos for the clarification on Green's textual proclivities. Green did show himself sympathetic to the Majority Text even as early as his first interlinear.

    "Although it is admitted that Erasmus has added to his
    Received Text two or three readings from the Latin Vulgate,
    without Greek manuscript authority (e.g. Acts 9: 5, 6), and one
    from the Complutension Bible which as no Greek manuscript
    authority (1 John 5: 7), we have not deleted these from the Greek
    text as supplied by the Trinitarian Bible Society - though we do
    not accept them as true Scripture."

    Yet although the MKJV, his last translation, appears to be more than updating archaic words, it also is true that he maintains the TR text in several spots in contradiction to the MT; for example, "book of life" in Revelation 22:19 (both Pickering and the English Majority Text Version have "tree of life); both Pickering and the EMTV reject the Comma Johanneum, while Green — who had already said it is not "true scripture" — maintains the TR reading. If he were an MT proponent, he certainly must not have been a thoroughgoing one.
     
    #36 rsr, Jun 1, 2017
  17. Billx

    Billx Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
    #37 Billx, Jun 2, 2017
  18. Billx

    Billx Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A ragtag Evangelist came by this week. He accosted me about "are you Kjv only?" I said I have almost every English translation but personally love the old book. He press a bit more by asking about the octagenarian parish. My reply, I believe in the priesthood of the believer and they choose their bibles. I just wish they would read ... any of them. Most carry them but never read let alone study them. God save us all
     
    #38 Billx, Jun 2, 2017
  19. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From a consumer standpoint, I can't decide which three people would buy the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21). People like me who have been using the KJV for years don't need it, and people who want updated language won't want it. So I'm not sure what niche it fills. A very small one, apparently.
     
    #39 rlvaughn, Jun 2, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,818
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My NKJV has 'donkeys.'
     
    #40 Martin Marprelate, Jun 3, 2017
Page 2 of 8
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...