Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | LITV | Bible general Archive 2 | Ray | 137746 | ||
Hi Kalos, A Lteral Translation of the Holy Bible, 1985,1995, 1996 by Jay P. Green, Sr is in the margin of an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament that I use. It uses capitalization of Deity similar to the NASB and NKJ so I would recommend that book as a gift. :) From the heart, Ray |
||||||
2 | LITV | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 137760 | ||
For what it's worth Ray: I have just come from reading the customer reviews of the LITV at amazon.com I noticed one thing virtually all the reviews had in common: The people who LOVE the LITV are the same ones who HATE the NASB, NKJV, NIV and all other modern (i.e., post-1611) translations of the Bible. Kalos |
||||||
3 | LITV | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 137765 | ||
Kalos, an endorsement of LITV by haters of post-1611 Bible versions would be more like a caveat emptor for some of us! --Hank | ||||||
4 | LITV | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 137780 | ||
Hank: I agree. And what I was trying to say in my previous post was: I noticed one thing virtually all the REVIEWS had in common: The people WRITING THOSE REVIEWS who LOVE the LITV are the same ones who HATE the NASB, NKJV, NIV... I did not mean to imply that everyone on earth who loves the LITV also hates the modern translations. I was speaking only of the reviewers mentioned above. Another common theme among the reviewers who disliked English (I meant to say MODERN English) translations of the Bible is this: they are pretty much Textus Receptus-Only people. It would seem that they preferred the TR because it was so in line with the KJV, which, of course, is the orginal text. I agree with what you wrote. When I see people who are TR-Only endorsing a book, red flags immediately appear. John |
||||||
5 | LITV | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 137783 | ||
John, the strange dichotomy in KJV Only circles is that many of those who ostensibly offer the argument that they hold to the KJV because of its textual basis, that is, the Textus Receptus do, at the same time, summarily reject the NKJV, calling it a New Age perversion, although it is merely a revision, albeit a major one, of the KJV and is based on the same text. One wonders what the LITV did differently to escape a similar fate. Having TR/KJV-Only people endorse a translation does, as you say, raise red flags. It's about as convincing as having Ted Turner endorse an expository sermon on the Ten Commandmants. --Hank | ||||||
6 | LITV | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 137790 | ||
Hank: Good observations. The reason KJV/TR-Only folks reject the NKJV is because it is not the KJV. Having diligently compared the text of the NKJV with that of the KJV, they come to the profound conclusion that the NKJV is not word-for-word exactly the same as the KJV. On the other hand, if every new translation were identical to the KJV, what would be the point of new translations? By the way, Hank, in searching the Web for information relevant to various postings, I have come across material I would have quoted were it not for the fact that those websites belonged to KJV-Only people, who condemn those who are not KJV-Only. Just recently I found a website that could not discuss any doctrine or issue without bashing other Greek texts (non-TR) and translations that were not the KJV. Grace to you, Kalos NOTE TO ALL: I've been using the KJV all my life. My problem is not with it, but with the notion that the KJV is the only translation we should use. My problem is with the harsh, mean-spirited, un-Christian rhetoric of those who defend the KJV-Only position. |
||||||