Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?

[jabcat]

I really didn't (still don't, really) know much about Weymouth.  Found this by Gary Amirault regarding it, thought it was interesting;

"The original Weymouth 's New Testament, for example, did not contain the word Hell in it at all. After he died, a couple of ministers republished Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech Translation, put the words "Hell" back into it and didn't inform the reader that they had changed the original translator's work to conform to their Dark Age tradition rather than leaving it as it was correctly translated."

[Beloved Servant]

Yea, Jab,
that is interesting.
Man, the devil gets his hands in everything.

[WhiteWings]

I've never been able to get any of those online Bible software programs to work on my computer

I've put something online that might work for you. It's a special packed version of ISA 2.
http://www.scripture4all.org/
Download the 34 MB file. And just start it. Nothing to install.
It starts and works. Or doesn't work at all.
It also works directly from for example an USB stick.

Download: https://rcpt.yousendit.com/703444832/12d863b12193f64461bccbab9f6f8bc4
The link expires in 7 days. (If you read this after the link expired PM me and I'll renew it)
If this works; and there is need for it I can also build a pre-setup e-Sword. Also just one file. No install. Click and go USB stick version.

[Tony N]

I downloaded the software and Add-on versions, but the only text that will come up when I'm off-line is the KJV, and the interlinear. The other tabs show up, but when they are highlited, the window is void of text.

Lee

Where you see "av" on the upper right and the Authorized Version below, just right click on the letters av and you can see you can click on the clv to get the Concordant Literal Version to come up.

Tony

[Tony N]

Hello,
I've been here for less than a "work-week" of hours, and I have yet to see anyone post a scripture reference containing a quote from A.E. Knoch's Concordant Literal New Testament or the Concordant Version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I have no "dog in the fight" over which Bible version to use, but I was introduced to the theology of Universal Reconciliation by A.E.Knoch's writings, including the Concordant Literal New Testament.
Is there a reason I don't see any references?

Lee

Based on my experience here, someone awhile back posted some verses from the CLV and it led me to conclude that it promoted some blasphemous renderings so I don't use it at all now.  I have it loaded only to see what others see the context that others who quote from the CLV see.

Paul

Paul,
I've been using the CLNT since the 70's and haven't yet seen anything blasphemous in it. Some may think I am biased because I was so thrilled by it that I've been working for Concordant Publishing for many years now.

Here is a guy who may have been the one saying it has blasphemous stuff in it and my response to him:

http://www.saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableOne.html

There are three parts to my reply to him.

Tony

[trettep]

Hello,
I've been here for less than a "work-week" of hours, and I have yet to see anyone post a scripture reference containing a quote from A.E. Knoch's Concordant Literal New Testament or the Concordant Version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I have no "dog in the fight" over which Bible version to use, but I was introduced to the theology of Universal Reconciliation by A.E.Knoch's writings, including the Concordant Literal New Testament.
Is there a reason I don't see any references?

Lee

Based on my experience here, someone awhile back posted some verses from the CLV and it led me to conclude that it promoted some blasphemous renderings so I don't use it at all now.  I have it loaded only to see what others see the context that others who quote from the CLV see.

Paul

Paul,
I've been using the CLNT since the 70's and haven't yet seen anything blasphemous in it. Some may think I am biased because I was so thrilled by it that I've been working for Concordant Publishing for many years now.

Here is a guy who may have been the one saying it has blasphemous stuff in it and my response to him:

http://www.saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableOne.html

There are three parts to my reply to him.

Tony

Tony, I have found it to be blasphemous in how it interprets certain tenses.  I can recall such a conversation with you in the discussion of Works thread some time back.

Paul

[sven]

I have a print version of the CLNT, but online I quote other translations.

[Tony N]

Hello,
I've been here for less than a "work-week" of hours, and I have yet to see anyone post a scripture reference containing a quote from A.E. Knoch's Concordant Literal New Testament or the Concordant Version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I have no "dog in the fight" over which Bible version to use, but I was introduced to the theology of Universal Reconciliation by A.E.Knoch's writings, including the Concordant Literal New Testament.
Is there a reason I don't see any references?

Lee

Based on my experience here, someone awhile back posted some verses from the CLV and it led me to conclude that it promoted some blasphemous renderings so I don't use it at all now.  I have it loaded only to see what others see the context that others who quote from the CLV see.

Paul

Paul,
I've been using the CLNT since the 70's and haven't yet seen anything blasphemous in it. Some may think I am biased because I was so thrilled by it that I've been working for Concordant Publishing for many years now.

Here is a guy who may have been the one saying it has blasphemous stuff in it and my response to him:

http://www.saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableOne.html

There are three parts to my reply to him.

Tony

Tony, I have found it to be blasphemous in how it interprets certain tenses.  I can recall such a conversation with you in the discussion of Works thread some time back.

Paul

Hi Paul,
I'm not being combative or anything but just curious if you could give me a verse you believe is blasphemous in the CLNT?

Thanks

Tony

[trettep]

Hi Paul,
I'm not being combative or anything but just curious if you could give me a verse you believe is blasphemous in the CLNT?

Thanks

Tony

Hi Tony, an example we discussed before was Romans 5:20:

CLV
Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,

YLT
Rom 5:20  And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,

Notice how the tense is interpreted there.  YLT is showing past tense while the CLV shows the present tense.

Here is a pickup of where this was discussed a bit before in the works thread http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=4944.475

Paul

[Tony N]

Hi Paul,
I'm not being combative or anything but just curious if you could give me a verse you believe is blasphemous in the CLNT?

Thanks

Tony

Hi Tony, an example we discussed before was Romans 5:20:

CLV
Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,

YLT
Rom 5:20  And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,

Notice how the tense is interpreted there.  YLT is showing past tense while the CLV shows the present tense.

Here is a pickup of where this was discussed a bit before in the works thread http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=4944.475

Paul

You call that blasphemous?
Dear Paul, Knoch was showing the aorist form of the verb.

[trettep]

Hi Paul,
I'm not being combative or anything but just curious if you could give me a verse you believe is blasphemous in the CLNT?

Thanks

Tony

Hi Tony, an example we discussed before was Romans 5:20:

CLV
Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,

YLT
Rom 5:20  And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,

Notice how the tense is interpreted there.  YLT is showing past tense while the CLV shows the present tense.

Here is a pickup of where this was discussed a bit before in the works thread http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=4944.475

Paul

You call that blasphemous?
Dear Paul, Knoch was showing the aorist form of the verb.

Yes, I do.  I know the verb is aorist but the CLV is using the present tense.

Paul

[Tony N]

It is actually a timeless sense as in John 3:16 "God thus loves the world." The KJV and other versions say: "God so loved the world" as if His love ended, as in past tense.

Some novels today are written in the aorist tense as:

"This guy comes into the bar, shoots this guy, then he takes out a hatchet and begins whacking away at some of the patrons, runs out of the bar where the cops shoot him." Yet the incident may have happened a year earlier.

[trettep]

It is actually a timeless sense as in John 3:16 "God thus loves the world." The KJV and other versions say: "God so loved the world" as if His love ended, as in past tense.

Some novels today are written in the aorist tense as:

"This guy comes into the bar, shoots this guy, then he takes out a hatchet and begins whacking away at some of the patrons, runs out of the bar where the cops shoot him." Yet the incident may have happened a year earlier.

We disagree Tony.  I have Dr. Young's literal translation and if Dr. Young wanted to translated it in the present tense then I'm sure he would have.

Consider the very next verse as worded in the CLV:

Joh 3:17 For God does not dispatch His Son into the world that He should be judging the world, but that the world may be saved through Him.

Is God still dispatching His Son into the world?  The Son has already been sent into the world (past tense).

Paul

[Tony N]

Does it say God is still dispatching His Son into the world?

God is going to dispatch His Son into the world again when every enemy is under His feet:

Mat 22:44 Said the Lord to my Lord, 'Sit at My right, Till I should be placing Thine enemies underneath "Thy feet!"'?

Then God is going to dispatch His Son into the world again for the new earth age.

[Doc]

Dallas  .  My sister said this past week that her pastor (Baptist) knows a lot about the Greek.  I said the seminaries usually have their own interpretations of what the words mean...didn't sense that went over real big. 

The CLV is not my absolute favorite, but I do use it;  it's one of my favorites.  James (reFormer) quotes from it a lot.  I usually quote from The Christian Bible (1991), Young's, or (though IMO it's less accurate but I like the way it reads) the New American Standard.

 

My dad went to Dallas, which explains the screwed-up theology I was raised with. It was even when Walvoord was president.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations,  blasphemy over that?   I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer.   Thank you Jesus.

[trettep]

Does it say God is still dispatching His Son into the world?

God is going to dispatch His Son into the world again when every enemy is under His feet:

Mat 22:44 Said the Lord to my Lord, 'Sit at My right, Till I should be placing Thine enemies underneath "Thy feet!"'?

Then God is going to dispatch His Son into the world again for the new earth age.

Tony, now your talking future tense.  I just read it as Dr. Young interpreted it.  Were not going to agree on this Topic.  I just wanted to mention that I felt the CLV was blasphemous in interpreting verses as it does and provided a specific reference to show the case.  I don't want to get into a debate about it.  Just wanted to give another perspective.

Paul

[trettep]

I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations,  blasphemy over that?   I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer.   Thank you Jesus.

I'm constantly looking at what is blasphemous.  It is the biggest crime of the modern era.  It is no wonder that the name of the beast is Blasphemy.

Paul

[Paul Hazelwood]

I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations,  blasphemy over that?   I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer.   Thank you Jesus.

I'm constantly looking at what is blasphemous.  It is the biggest crime of the modern era.  It is no wonder that the name of the beast is Blasphemy.

Paul

Well, if Blasphemy is some trick to where we have to worry about a word here or there in a bible, then were all screwed.   Good luck.

[trettep]

I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations,  blasphemy over that?   I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer.   Thank you Jesus.

I'm constantly looking at what is blasphemous.  It is the biggest crime of the modern era.  It is no wonder that the name of the beast is Blasphemy.

Paul

Well, if Blasphemy is some trick to where we have to worry about a word here or there in a bible, then were all screwed.   Good luck.

Blasphemy means to "hold cheap" or defame.  When we hold God to something cheaper then we commit blasphemy.  When we present God's Word in a light that paints a different picture of His nature then we commit blasphemy.  Words are the most powerful thing I know.  God used His Word to create the Kosmos.  Words are so powerful that men have been executed or liberated by the very use of words.  If we don't have concern for the meaning of words in the Bible then we have errored.  We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon.  As you know this website has a community of people that are very devoted to what words actually mean.  So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.

Paul

[Paul Hazelwood]

So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.

And much foolish division comes about over the very same thing. 

[Paul Hazelwood]

We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon. 

What I do not care about is the division over the word, people draw the line in the sand and point fingers when the truth is that the bible is actually greater in meaning when people learn that it is both in the proper context.  But will you want to find unity in that or will you disagree and draw your line?

[Tony N]

I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations,  blasphemy over that?   I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer.   Thank you Jesus.

I'm constantly looking at what is blasphemous.  It is the biggest crime of the modern era.  It is no wonder that the name of the beast is Blasphemy.

Paul

Well, if Blasphemy is some trick to where we have to worry about a word here or there in a bible, then were all screwed.   Good luck.

Blasphemy means to "hold cheap" or defame.  When we hold God to something cheaper then we commit blasphemy.  When we present God's Word in a light that paints a different picture of His nature then we commit blasphemy.  Words are the most powerful thing I know.  God used His Word to create the Kosmos.  Words are so powerful that men have been executed or liberated by the very use of words.  If we don't have concern for the meaning of words in the Bible then we have errored.  We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon.  As you know this website has a community of people that are very devoted to what words actually mean.  So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.

Paul

Paul, the aorist is showing a state of timeless fact. It has the sign of the past and sign of the future. If the aorist is blasphemy then Paul's writings are all blasphemous for he used the aorist quite often as did all the writers of the New Testament.

It think it would be better if you chose a different word than "blasphemous"

"blasphemous" according to Merriam Webster is "impiously irreverent : profane"

[trettep]

So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.

And much foolish division comes about over the very same thing. 

When is it ever foolish to be concerned about what God actually means by the things He says?

Paul

[trettep]

We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon. 

What I do not care about is the division over the word, people draw the line in the sand and point fingers when the truth is that the bible is actually greater in meaning when people learn that it is both in the proper context.  But will you want to find unity in that or will you disagree and draw your line?

I have to disagree when someone wants me to believe a lie.  Don't you?

Paul