New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

[Alen]

Has anyone heard of it? I read up on it a while ago, and it seemed interesting, and would be much more readable.

Here is a link.

Reading up on it again in a Wikipedia article, I found out some interesting changes they have made, besides putting the text in paragraphs, just want to see your thoughts on this:

*Divides the text into paragraphs (and poetic line-divisions for poetic portions like the Psalms);

*Introduces modern spelling in preference to that of the 18th century--"assuaged" rather than "asswaged," "music" rather than "musick," "show" instead of "shew," etc.;

*Adds quotation marks for dialogue and words indicated as spoken in the Bible text;

*Restores certain readings of the 1611 edition that were modified by later editions.

Also a quote from the article:

One of the more radical changes is to eliminate the main text's differentiation of the "supplied words" usually printed in italics in current KJVs.

-Alen

[BroJesse]

Many of the KJVs already have "Americanized" spelling which change the spelling of words like musick to music etc.

In particular I think it's publishers like Nelson and Cornerstone, Holman etc.

This Cambridge is probably fine for reading and the paragraphing does help. I would personally be also concerned about the typeface used - it needs to be comfortably readable if one is to be able to maintain a good reading speed.

[Calvary]

*Restores certain readings of the 1611 edition that were modified by later editions.

That would be my concern. What changes? Are they spelling, typos or are they textual?

Type face, spelling updates don't make me lose any sleep, but the trick is to make changes and maintain its KJB status, and that is slight of hand.

The NKJV did the same thing, trying to maintain that it was in the lineage of the KJB while it was translated from Zane Hodges' Majority text not the ecclectic Erasmus' text (on the whole).

When a publisher says he's making changes we need to see if there is a list of said changes and compare spiritual things with spiritual.

God bless,

Calvary

[Will]

Actually, it was the Stephanus TR that was used for the KJV.

[Guest Guest]

The "modernized" spelling in the KJV is dangerous. That indicates a counterfeit KJV.

Katy-Anne

[BroJesse]

I would prefer that they keep the italics in there as it is useful in differentiating the words. However, given that this is a paragraph bible meant for reading and not studying, it is less of a problem.

I would however want to look at what features have been put in there to help one with serious reading (not studying).

[Will]

The "modernized" spelling in the KJV is dangerous. That indicates a counterfeit KJV.

Katy-Anne

Why do you say that? The KJV had it's spelling updated and modernized in the 18th century.

[Guest Guest]

It's not a modernization of spelling. Besides that, if it was spelled that way then when they translated a perfect Bible, it needs to stay that way.

Here is an article that can explain it better than I can.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-KJV.html

Katy-Anne

[Will]

It's not a modernization of spelling. Besides that, if it was spelled that way then when they translated a perfect Bible, it needs to stay that way.

Here is an article that can explain it better than I can.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-KJV.html

Katy-Anne

KJV 1611:
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of workes: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it bee of workes, then is it no more grace, otherwise worke is no more worke.

The modernized spelling of the 1769 Revision of the KJV:
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.


KJV 1611:
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches bee broken off, and thou being a wilde oliue tree wert graffed in amongst them, and with them partakest of the roote and fatnesse of the Oliue tree:

KJV 1769:
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

[dwayner79]

It's not a modernization of spelling. Besides that, if it was spelled that way then when they translated a perfect Bible, it needs to stay that way.

Here is an article that can explain it better than I can.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-KJV.html

Katy-Anne

So you study from an actual 1611? And the spelling of words can't change? :? :? :?

Your stand on the KJV is absolutely amazing to me.

[dwayner79]

Btw, E-Sword has a 1611... makes for some fun reading.

[Will]

Btw, E-Sword has a 1611... makes for some fun reading.

I have a facsimile copy. :mrgreen:

[Guest Guest]

The spellings of the words in the KJV I have haven't changed, it's just that American's spell them differently. LOL.

My KJV is a 1611 that was reprinted again in some other year...haven't got it with me right now, but apart from correcting the typos and the spelling which basically just evened out, it is indeed a 1611.

Katy-Anne

[Anon]

I wouldn't personally like the paragraph idea...and I prefer to keep the italics.

I don't suppose spelling changes are bad as long as that's all they are doing is changing the spelling, or adding quotation marks. (Seems like some passages would be hard to put quotes in...)

Good points by showing the original 1611, I had forgotten how difficult it was to read.

[dwayner79]

Growing up, I always had my KJV and my friends had NIVs, etc. I was always at an advantage during "Sword drills" becuase my friends had paragraph styles.

I happen to like it for reading, but I find that it is still some guy trying to decide where the breaks should be. They still don't get them right. Of course, the original texts had no breaks at all, but all told the chapter/verse markings are good.

So the moral of the story is leave your paragraph edition at home during Sunday School.

@ Katy-Anne I am even more confused. Are you ok with changing the spelling or not?