[Linked Image]... right, I get it.

FYI, the article had nothing to do with Formal vs. Dynamic Equivalence theories of translation. The issue wasn't even TR vs Majority Text or Nestle Arland text. The subject of the article was the changing of the base textual source of the Bible which is now far different than the TR or Westcott-Hort, etc A secondary issue was the religious views of those doing this textual criticism which seriously changes the manuscript evidence which has been accepted and used throughout the centuries. And, of course, as I mentioned above, the suggested approval of these men and what they are doing by confessed conservative Christians.

ranton As an aside, I object to and reject the perpetual "need" to create new English translations of the Bible. There are a half-dozen +/- excellent translations that exist which have been very sufficient to convey the inspired truth of God in writing through many years. Most every new attempt to improve upon those faithful translations falls short in various ways which most importantly obscures and/or contradicts the core doctrines of the faith. rantoff


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]