<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Quaint, but inaccurate in places
Review: I applaud the publishers for the restraint they have shown in sticking to thier own rules: a simple up-dating with no theologically motivated changes. However, if one is interested in the ACCURACY of the originals, the RSV Common Bible is also KJV-based, includes the deutero-cannonicals (septuagint books), but is much more accurate (it even retains thees and thous in prayers! ). Perhaps the publishers have reinvented the wheel; and left some rough spots.
Rating:
Summary: Quaint, but inaccurate in places
Review: I applaud the publishers for the restraint they have shown in sticking to thier own rules: a simple up-dating with no theologically motivated changes. However, if one is interested in the ACCURACY of the originals, the RSV Common Bible is also KJV-based, includes the deutero-cannonicals (septuagint books), but is much more accurate (it even retains thees and thous in prayers! ). Perhaps the publishers have reinvented the wheel; and left some rough spots.
Rating:
Summary: Good Idea -- Could be Improved.
Review: I first reviewed this Bible last May, and after continued use I found one of my critcisms unfair.Strong Points: 1. Single column to the page. This makes the text much easier to read. I do not understand why so many printings of the Bible insist on using double or even triple columns to the page. The page layout alone almost justifies the price. 2. Division of prose into paragraphs. Too many printings of the Bible are formatted with all the verses beginning on a new line with the verse number on the left. This implies that the Bible is like the dictionary--a little used reference book--instead of a book that is meant to be read. 3. Consistent spelling of proper names. The translators of the Authorized Version were divided into six companies. Passages translated by one company often used a different spelling for a proper name than members of another company. This causes confusion for Bible readers. Consistent spelling is long overdue. 4. Introduction of quotation marks. In the early seventeenth century quotation marks were not in use. Now we expect to see them. 5. Based on traditional form of text. The Authorized Version was based on the form of the Hebrew Old Testament that has been used in the Synagogue for some time. The New Testament was based on the form of the text that had become standard in the Eastern church, with a few accommodations to standard text of the Western church. Modern translations are based on modern scholarship's best guess at what the original text read. Weak Points: 1. Words of Christ in italics instead of red. Traditionally italics were used in Bibles to indicate words that were supplied by the translators and not the author. Words of Christ were printed in red ink for emphasis. While I understand dropping the use of italics for supplied words, I see no reason to abandon the use of red ink. For the price being charged the publisher can certainly afford to print in two colors. 2. Did not consider similar work of Noah Webster in 1833. It's amusing that words that were considered obsolete by Noah Webster 170 years ago were retained in this 1998 revision. It's funny that use was made of Webster's dictionary but not his printing of the Bible. 3. Inconsistent spelling of third person singular verbs. Verb forms ending in 'th' were used in the seventeenth century where we now use forms ending in 's' (They used "he hath" where we use "he has" with no change in meaning). This printing of the Bible alternates between the forms for no reason within adjacent paragraphs. Consistency is needed. [Actually the translation is consistant, I just happened pick a rare passage where they slipped up when doing my review.] 4. Elimination of Translator's preface and footnotes. In 1611 the translators felt it important to include a preface and footnotes to better explain their translation. This Bible, while claiming to be the complete Bible of 1611, eliminates them. 5. Does not contain all books of the Septuagint Canon. In 1611 there were no Eastern Orthodox Christians that spoke English as their mother tongue. Now many do. Third and Fourth Maccabees and Psalm 151 should have been included at least as an appendix to the Apocrypha. In Summary. I think this is a very good printing of the Holy Bible, I also believe it can be improved upon. I recommend this Bible while looking forward to the second edition.
Rating:
Summary: Every Christian Should Have this Bible!
Review: In searching for a more literal and more literary English translation to replace the NIV, I stumbled upon the Third Millennium Bible. It is not a new translation, but a slight updating of the complete 1611 Authorized Version (the King James Version for those of us in America), including the most of the Apocrypha, not merely those books accepted by Catholics, but also most of those accepted by Orthodox Christians, placed between the Protestant Old Testament canon and the New Testament. I have used it with great pleasure, even using it when giving my testimony because of the fine literary qualities so familiar to users of the KJV. It's strength over the KJV is that it updates words which had different meanings in 1611 than they do today so as to avoid misinterpretation by the uninformed reader (of which I am one) who might not be aware of the change in the meaning of the word used in 1611. It also updates words which no longer are used at all in modern English and whose meaning is not otherwise clear. It retains the 1611 wording even if that wording is archaic wherever the reader would normally understand the meaning (e.g., Thee, Thou, hath, hast, etc.). I heartily recommend this version. I bought a copy with the leather binding, which is inferior to the leather binding one would hope to find on a bible, but which is adequate. The inclusion of Psalm 151 and 3rd and 4th Maccabees would also be a plus. For those reasons alone, I give this bible a 4-star rather than a 5-star rating. I wish more people were aware of this version.
Having said that, I decided that this version was not what I wanted for daily devotionals. Its somewhat archaic English sometimes gets in the way of readability and understanding for a 21st century American. For that, I settled on the English Standard Version. Unfortunately, the ESV lacks the Apocrypha, but the NRSV text edition of the Apocrypha can fill that gap.
I am now waiting anxiously for the complete Orthodox Study Bible, which will also provide the full Orthodox canon, with the NKJV for the New Testament and a new translation of the Old Testament from the Septuagint, using the NKJV as a starting point. (While I am an evangelical Protestant, I enjoy reading the Apocrypha books for edification and history, though not for doctrine.)
Rating: 
Summary: A Beauutiful Bible with Dignified language
Review: The Third Millennium Bible (TMB) is an excellent value. The TMB is an edition of the New Authorized Version (NAV) of the Bible, with the Apocrypha. The edition without the Apocrypha is known as the 21st Century King James Version. The TMB/NAV takes the 1611 King James Bible and update obscure words, but otherwise does not change the language of the venerable translation. It does not modernize the language as the New King James Version does. It simply makes the Authorized Version easier to read by eliminating words that are no longer used in everyday English, or correcting words that have a different meaning now than in 1611. The typeface is large, 12 pt type, easy to read in single column. This bible has the Apocrypha, so that Catholics and Orthodox as well as Protestant Christians will enjoy it. The quality of the actual binding is excellent, and the publisher offer a life time guarantee. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: King James Authorized Version 1611 UPDATED NOT REVISED
Review: Wonderful. This bible is an achievement. No revisions of The Word. The only thing updated is obsolete words which are replaced with modern equivalents. Punctuation and spelling are changed to modern. I have the 1611 Authorized Version and I use this bible as a study aid. I really get bent out of shape with some of the translations out there. This revision is the best. The format and typeface also get 5 stars.
<< 1 >>
| 
