KJV Better than Originals?
John Byron comments on a web site that makes that suggestion. One of the champions of this bizarre position, Peter Ruckman, preaches just down the road.
John Byron comments on a web site that makes that suggestion. One of the champions of this bizarre position, Peter Ruckman, preaches just down the road.
C. S. Lewis thought so! (HT: Peter Kirk on Facebook, blog).
It has been some time since I discussed the MyBibleVersion.com site, and indeed it has been some time since I updated it. Today I added Google FriendConnect and the ability to comment. Comments are active on the index page and on each of the Bible version detail pages. I believe this will give me the…
Via Dave Black, I found this post, which outlines the participles of this passage well. I have expressed my view on this passage previously, and it takes the participles into account and aligns with one of the positions suggested.
If you’re looking for a history of the KJV, you are likely to be disappointed by this book. There is a history, and considering the very sparse information on the topic, it’s a pretty good one, but it is concealed in the incredibly wordy prose of this ponderous document. Considering my own propensity for long…
I’m glad to see this, though I do disagree with a few points. First, I don’t agree that using a formal equivalence translation means you are closer to the original. You are closer in some ways–reflecting the words and structure of the original language–yet you are often further in other ways, including reflecting the thought….
As I’ve been reading a commentary based on the New Living Translation (NLT), it has been interesting to note how the commentators differ from the readings of the translation on which the commentary is ostensibly based. For example, as I finished reading the section on Numbers today (pp. 217-443), written by Dale A. Brueggemann, I…