Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 2493 | ||
Thanks, LB Lamb, for your response. Your points of view on translations are interesting, although I must confess I'd never really thought much along the paths that your views lead me except your rejection for obvious reasons some of the less-than-orthodox versions. Holman is listed as a non-profit organization and would hardly come under the category of commerical publishers. The translation team of this Bible, some 80 in number, are half of them Baptists and half of various other communions. It seems to me, with all respect, that your criterion of rejecting a transalation that is "developed and editorially controlled primarily by denominations" would leave the Authorized Version out, because it was most assuredly a product of and for the Anglican (Church of England) communion. The name of the publication is Holman Christian Standard Bible, not Holman Baptist Bible. As with any new translation, I opt to reserve my vote until I've had ample opportunity to examine it thoroughly and carefully. For a project of this magnitude which is projected to cost some 10 to 12 million dollars, I believe it only fair to give them a chance to prove their stuff. Public acceptance of a new translation has historically been a slow process, and that's good. It took the King James Version fifty years to find its place in the sun. | ||||||
2 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | PNLamb | 2661 | ||
For Bible study and reading I usually use the NASB, NIV, and AMPLIFIED. In regard to the KJV (Authorized Version): The version available today is different from the original one produced in the 1600s. It has been updated, corrected, and reworked many times. It is a beautiful Bible translation that has blessed countless people. | ||||||
3 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 2667 | ||
Agreed. KJV for four centuries has been, and continues to be, a beautiful work. Its words have music in them. Hailed by John Livingston Lowes "the noblest monument of English prose" it has long been regarded a paradigm of English usage. When I hear someone decry the old KJV I cannot help but think they are allowing their ignorance to ooze out. But, on balance, the English language of our time is considerably different from the Jacobean language of 1611. While no translation of the Bible since the King James translators set pen to paper in 1611 quite reaches the lofty linguistic heights they reached, we must in our efforts to seek the truth of God's beloved Word, look first for clarity of meaning at the expense of, if it must be, literary excellence. I cannot resist adding in defense of the Authorized Version, that for all its archaic vocabulary and turns of phrase, is far and away to be preferred over some of the modern renditions that masquerade as Holy Writ. | ||||||
4 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | PNLamb | 2669 | ||
Beautifully stated and quite true! | ||||||