> General Discussions
Concordant Literal Version of the New Testament
Stacey:
--- Quote ---I am TRULY SORRY that I stirred up "a hornet's nest"
--- End quote ---
You didn't. What has been said here concerning the CLNT can also be applied to many, probably most, if not all, other translations. We have to be careful with ANY translation that we read or ANY teaching associated with that translation. After all, any Bible we read is a translation and not actual scripture and subject to the translators on bias and beliefs. The KJV is a perfect example of just that. How many of us believed in hell because a preacher preached it AND gave us the verses to look at in the KJV?
Anyway, does knowing what we have read here make the CLNT a bad version of the Bible? I don't know. Maybe someone else will chime in on that.
I ordered me one. :)
Marky Mark:
It is not the CLV translation of Scripture that is in question but rather the teachings of the "Concordant Publishing Concern" that I believe is in question. Ray uses the CLV for reference all the time in his work. I also like the CLV for studying.Its always a good idea to use multiple translations of Scripture in order to get a better understanding of what the Word is trying to convey to the reader.
Peace...Mark
Dave in Tenn:
Just for reading, it can be very clunky and obtuse. Figures of speech don't often translate word for word, and that is the POINT of this translation. But as a Bible Study aide, it's very helpful--which is why I'd rather have it in E-sword than in book form. Added bonus--its free. ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version