I like the KJV, NASB, LITV, and Geneva; because of their dynamic interpretations and the fact that they all use the Textus Receptus manuscripts.What version/s do you use and why?
Don't know much about it so I won't comment, but I heard it is a paraphrase translation, so I would never use it.What do you think of The Message?
They do?I like the KJV, NASB, LITV, and Geneva; because of their dynamic interpretations and the fact that they all use the Textus Receptus manuscripts.
Now that I've read my post again, I meant to say translations instead of interpretations, and all of them use the Textus Receptus except the NASB (but it's still a fine translation).They do?I like the KJV, NASB, LITV, and Geneva; because of their dynamic interpretations and the fact that they all use the Textus Receptus manuscripts.
:o
What is meant by the term 'dynamic translations'? None of these uses the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation. None of them read smoothly in English, so could not be said to have a dynamic literary style. I don't see a way in which the adjective 'dynamic' could apply.Now that I've read my post again, I meant to say translations instead of interpretations, and all of them use the Textus Receptus except the NASB (but it's still a fine translation).
Back in the 1970s I had a version of Paul's epistles similar to the Cottonpatch version, but it was written in slang/street language. I don't remember what it was called. I lost it years ago. Anyone else ever heard of such a thing?