Author Topic: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?  (Read 11478 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #75 on: June 24, 2009, 03:20:14 AM »

Then we have different views Paul.  I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide. 


I have no problem with our differing views,  but take note that saying  "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote.  Which is I think what you call a Strawman.

If you need me to clarify, I will.


I have no other conclusion based on your statements.  Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving.  Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action.  So its not a strawman.  You said:

"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved.  I don't and do not need too."

Two different meanings.  But go ahead and please clarify.


Paul


Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it,  I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?


Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #76 on: June 24, 2009, 03:21:29 AM »
Luk 12:51  Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

1Co 11:18  For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.



Would you say that heresies are blasphemy?



If they defame or devalue the value of the Truth then of course they are.

Paul


Well, then there is no worry about what scripture says must be.


Offline Beloved Servant

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
  • David's sling
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #77 on: June 24, 2009, 03:24:53 AM »
                                                         how can anyone disagree about love?


                                                      www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn7exBrCiUI

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #78 on: June 24, 2009, 03:25:52 AM »
                                                        how can anyone disagree about love?



Beats me...

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #79 on: June 24, 2009, 03:45:47 AM »

Then we have different views Paul.  I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide. 


I have no problem with our differing views,  but take note that saying  "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote.  Which is I think what you call a Strawman.

If you need me to clarify, I will.


I have no other conclusion based on your statements.  Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving.  Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action.  So its not a strawman.  You said:

"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved.  I don't and do not need too."

Two different meanings.  But go ahead and please clarify.


Paul


Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it,  I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?



What do you believe I left out that would retract from that statement that you made?

Paul

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #80 on: June 24, 2009, 03:47:28 AM »
                                                        how can anyone disagree about love?


                                                      www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn7exBrCiUI

Sure, Jesus even had to clarify that same understanding:

Mat 5:46  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47  And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Paul

Offline Beloved Servant

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
  • David's sling
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #81 on: June 24, 2009, 03:57:32 AM »
Paul,
Your God, your Father;                                                and
Jesus, your wondrous Brother want you to know Him in such a perfect union;
                                                                                that
                                                                     I am my Father in You

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #82 on: June 24, 2009, 04:07:37 AM »

Then we have different views Paul.  I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide. 


I have no problem with our differing views,  but take note that saying  "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote.  Which is I think what you call a Strawman.

If you need me to clarify, I will.


I have no other conclusion based on your statements.  Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving.  Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action.  So its not a strawman.  You said:

"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved.  I don't and do not need too."

Two different meanings.  But go ahead and please clarify.


Paul


Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it,  I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?



What do you believe I left out that would retract from that statement that you made?

Paul


My explanation of how I view either word being used is what you left out.    My explanation is why I do not need to be concerned which one is used.  But you extracted that small portion of what I have been writing to assert a claim.   Your disagreement of my explanation is another matter.


trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #83 on: June 24, 2009, 04:07:54 AM »
Paul,
Your God, your Father;                                                and
Jesus, your wondrous Brother want you to know Him in such a perfect union;
                                                                                that
                                                                     I am my Father in You

Thanks Beloved.

Paul

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #84 on: June 24, 2009, 04:09:10 AM »

Then we have different views Paul.  I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide. 


I have no problem with our differing views,  but take note that saying  "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote.  Which is I think what you call a Strawman.

If you need me to clarify, I will.


I have no other conclusion based on your statements.  Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving.  Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action.  So its not a strawman.  You said:

"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved.  I don't and do not need too."

Two different meanings.  But go ahead and please clarify.


Paul


Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it,  I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?



What do you believe I left out that would retract from that statement that you made?

Paul


My explanation of how I view either word being used is what you left out.    My explanation is why I do not need to be concerned which one is used.  But you extracted that small portion of what I have been writing to assert a claim.   Your disagreement of my explanation is another matter.



Paul, I say that it means something signficant to me to know the difference of Loved and loving and you seem to have a problem with that. 

Paul

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #85 on: June 24, 2009, 04:15:31 AM »

Then we have different views Paul.  I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide. 


I have no problem with our differing views,  but take note that saying  "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote.  Which is I think what you call a Strawman.

If you need me to clarify, I will.


I have no other conclusion based on your statements.  Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving.  Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action.  So its not a strawman.  You said:

"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved.  I don't and do not need too."

Two different meanings.  But go ahead and please clarify.


Paul


Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it,  I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?



What do you believe I left out that would retract from that statement that you made?

Paul


My explanation of how I view either word being used is what you left out.    My explanation is why I do not need to be concerned which one is used.  But you extracted that small portion of what I have been writing to assert a claim.   Your disagreement of my explanation is another matter.



Paul, I say that it means something signficant to me to know the difference of Loved and loving and you seem to have a problem with that. 

Paul


It is not for me to decide what should be significant for you.   

 I first misunderstood that you were accusing others of blasphemy,  I apologize for that misunderstanding.   After that I was sharing my point of view. You are welcome to disagree,  if you believe that I think we can just believe how we desire, then that is not entirely accurate.

My words at that point were to convey a futility I see in any further posts between us if you are making conclusions based on a small portion of what I wrote.   I do not see how further clarification will do any good.   If you believe in division then it will appear to be your intention to be so.

My walk is simply not seeing that as what I should do right now.   I will bid you good day.


Offline Beloved Servant

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
  • David's sling
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #86 on: June 24, 2009, 04:22:10 AM »

                                       

                                          www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRbA9iVKm3w&feature=related

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #87 on: June 24, 2009, 04:28:50 AM »

Then we have different views Paul.  I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide. 


I have no problem with our differing views,  but take note that saying  "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote.  Which is I think what you call a Strawman.

If you need me to clarify, I will.


I have no other conclusion based on your statements.  Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving.  Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action.  So its not a strawman.  You said:

"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved.  I don't and do not need too."

Two different meanings.  But go ahead and please clarify.


Paul


Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it,  I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?



What do you believe I left out that would retract from that statement that you made?

Paul


My explanation of how I view either word being used is what you left out.    My explanation is why I do not need to be concerned which one is used.  But you extracted that small portion of what I have been writing to assert a claim.   Your disagreement of my explanation is another matter.



Paul, I say that it means something signficant to me to know the difference of Loved and loving and you seem to have a problem with that. 

Paul


It is not for me to decide what should be significant for you.   

 I first misunderstood that you were accusing others of blasphemy,  I apologize for that misunderstanding.   After that I was sharing my point of view. You are welcome to disagree,  if you believe that I think we can just believe how we desire, then that is not entirely accurate.

My words at that point were to convey a futility I see in any further posts between us if you are making conclusions based on a small portion of what I wrote.   I do not see how further clarification will do any good.   If you believe in division then it will appear to be your intention to be so.

My walk is simply not seeing that as what I should do right now.   I will bid you good day.



Paul, your clarification is enough for me.  No need to turn away from the conversation.  I'm not attached to confrontation.  If you say that was not what you meant then I'm good with that.

Paul

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #88 on: June 24, 2009, 04:33:33 AM »

                                       

                                          www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRbA9iVKm3w&feature=related

Thanks for that.  I love the energy behind rejoicing about God's message.

Paul

Offline Tony N

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1657
  • Gender: Male
    • Saviour of All Fellowship
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #89 on: June 24, 2009, 05:17:54 AM »
Paul

Paul, truth be known, I actually like the AV's handling of the aorist in 1 Tim.2:6 . . .

1Ti 2:6  Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

over the CLNT:

1Ti 2:6 Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all
 (the testimony in its own eras),

and I often quote the AV rendering of 2:6 on message boards because to mose people who know nothing about the aorist, it is just too difficult to get past the "giving" part.
Just because God says He will save all mankind
does not necessarily mean He won't.

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #90 on: June 24, 2009, 05:40:16 AM »
Paul

Paul, truth be known, I actually like the AV's handling of the aorist in 1 Tim.2:6 . . .

1Ti 2:6  Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

over the CLNT:

1Ti 2:6 Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all
 (the testimony in its own eras),

and I often quote the AV rendering of 2:6 on message boards because to mose people who know nothing about the aorist, it is just too difficult to get past the "giving" part.

Tony, that is a good point.  I usually find a trusted source and stick to it.  I used to use the CLV alot and it wasn't really until the discussion we had in the works thread where I noticed that verse was quoted as it was.  I never thought to look at the next chapter at verse 6:1 and 6:2 of Romans to see that the same understanding was presented.  So what I'm saying is that I may have judged the CLV to quickly because it was at that point that I ceased to trust it.   But I will study the topic further but since the link you posted and looking at that in the context of the next chapter verses I can only conclude that I made an error in my judgement at this point.

Paul

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12891
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #91 on: June 24, 2009, 07:40:57 AM »
I need a little help on what 'aorist' actually means. (never seen the word outside this thread)

First a quote from Merriam-Webster
Quote
Main Entry:ao£rist
Pronunciation:***r*st, *a(a)r-
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Late Latin & Greek; Late Latin aoristos, from Greek, from aoristos undefined, from a- 2a- + horistos definable, from horizein to define * more at HORIZON

 : a set or one of a set of inflectional forms of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness or incompleteness, duration, or repetition and typically without reference to its position in time but sometimes (as in the indicative mood in Greek and Sanskrit) with reference to past time —  used first in Greek grammar and later in the grammar of Sanskrit and various other languages
If I understand the above correctly the abounding of grace can have stopped. Still goes on. Will restart again. etc.

http://www.dutchgrammar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=923
Read first message only. What mentioned tense(s) do fit best?
Just my personal feeling I can't really prove with verses: "simple/perfect past future tense"
My reasoning is this. Since the law entered sin increased. Somehow it think sin is still increasing or at least is bigger than when that verse was spoken/written down. Or Grace stopped abounding at that time it would mean there is not enough Grace to keep us out of hell to put it simple.
So that would mean Grace is still abounding. Another take on this is that grace stopped abounding but when it abounded it anounded enough to overcome all increase in sin that there will be in the future.
On topic: "What mentioned tense(s) do fit best?"
« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 07:02:56 PM by WhiteWings »
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline Tony N

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1657
  • Gender: Male
    • Saviour of All Fellowship
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #92 on: June 24, 2009, 10:11:29 PM »
WW

Here is a pic of the aorist and 2nd aorist of Romans 5:20


And the CLNT to the right.

Grace timelessly superexceeds. There are no time contraints on grace. It is not a done deal in the past but has superexceeding since Paul wrote that.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 10:14:31 PM by Tony N »
Just because God says He will save all mankind
does not necessarily mean He won't.

Offline Tony N

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1657
  • Gender: Male
    • Saviour of All Fellowship
« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 10:31:10 PM by Tony N »
Just because God says He will save all mankind
does not necessarily mean He won't.

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12891
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #94 on: June 25, 2009, 02:43:56 AM »
Thanks for the pics. I have ISA installed. To be honest what I read is to vague to draw any conclusions on.
For me as a none translating professional.
The word that possibly sets me on the wrong foot is over-exceeds.
Why not just exceed to stay in line with teh amount of sin as it increases. 1% more sin. 1% more grace.
For me over-exceeds is more like 1% more sin 1000% more grace. Sin kept expanding. Grace not. Today sin has expanded 800% so the covering of grace is still enough.
As said just guesswork. Or better said  a learning point. Certainly not picking sides because frankly I don't have a clue how exactly UI should read it.
The only thing I'm sure of is that the verse says that the max amount of sin (past/present/future) is covered.
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline reFORMer

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 1943
  • Gender: Male
  • Psalm 133
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #95 on: June 25, 2009, 04:50:39 AM »
Unlike other versions, the significant advantage of the Concordant Literal is that, whatever the verb tense is, it is given a mark to indicate it.  I think the aorist is called "Fact-State" by Knoch.  Tony would know.  It's a little line follwed by a zero in the upper half of the letter line.  Other versions do whatever they will for the aorist and, since it's another tense used to represent it in English, whatever it is, you won't know the actual underlying tense.  Only the CLV indicates the verb tenses!

I do wish they'd use much more the three little lines that represent there's a plural in the original.  Like when John says you have no need for any man to teach you, "you" is plural.  He's not talking to the individual believer.  Or, Co 1:26 "...Christ among you, the expectation of (the) glory" (a little iota or dot in the upper half of the letter line indicates "glory" has a definate article) is how CLV renders it, though "you" is plural and their little three line symbol would be better than "among" for "in" for reasons not to enumerate now.  Or when speaking of our warfare and commanding us to put on "the whole armor of God," or, ""Put on the panoply of God..." (CLV) it is using "you" and "your" as if singular.  The little three line thingy would help.  The passage (Ep 6:10ff) does begin with the plural "brethren" but it is not a sustained observation for most that the directive is to the local gathering, not isolated individuals.  AV (King James) does use the plural "ye" in this portion, but hardly anyone notices it.  Everybody has heard over and over again the nonbiblical phrase "personal salvation" introduced by early 20th Century revivalists, so that is what they think.  Not:  "ye all have been made to drink of one Spirit, so are one body in the Lord."  Evangelism today means making individual converts rather than a gift to the Church.  I digress; and, well, I shouldn't point out failures of the CLV.  They are so much less than other versions.

The indication of whether it is generic or specific in the original by the use of a definite article or not doesn't always work well in English.  CLV uses a little dot or boldface article to indicate its presence in the Greek.  If there is no article it is not in the English or the article used is lightfaced to show its absence in the original.  Other versions ignore the truth to make it readable.  Sometimes it is very important.  The absence of the article in the beginning of Hebrews affects the understanding of the entire book. "...God...speaks to us in a Son..."  If the article was there in the Greek it would be referring to the historical Son Jesus.  As it stands, it is generic, the category of Sonship or "Son-wise."  It makes Hebrews a much deeper, inward, and more experiential read.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2009, 05:04:16 AM by reFORMer »
I went to church; but, the Church wasn't on the program!  JESUS WANTS HIS BODY BACK!!  MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!!!

Offline Beloved Servant

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
  • David's sling
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #96 on: June 25, 2009, 04:57:07 AM »
reFORMer, just the word Sonship makes my heart beat all over my chest!

Offline Tony N

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1657
  • Gender: Male
    • Saviour of All Fellowship
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #97 on: June 25, 2009, 03:24:36 PM »
Unlike other versions, the significant advantage of the Concordant Literal is that, whatever the verb tense is, it is given a mark to indicate it.  I think the aorist is called "Fact-State" by Knoch.  Tony would know.  It's a little line follwed by a zero in the upper half of the letter line.  Other versions do whatever they will for the aorist and, since it's another tense used to represent it in English, whatever it is, you won't know the actual underlying tense.  Only the CLV indicates the verb tenses!

I do wish they'd use much more the three little lines that represent there's a plural in the original.  Like when John says you have no need for any man to teach you, "you" is plural.  He's not talking to the individual believer.  Or, Co 1:26 "...Christ among you, the expectation of (the) glory" (a little iota or dot in the upper half of the letter line indicates "glory" has a definate article) is how CLV renders it, though "you" is plural and their little three line symbol would be better than "among" for "in" for reasons not to enumerate now.  Or when speaking of our warfare and commanding us to put on "the whole armor of God," or, ""Put on the panoply of God..." (CLV) it is using "you" and "your" as if singular.  The little three line thingy would help.  The passage (Ep 6:10ff) does begin with the plural "brethren" but it is not a sustained observation for most that the directive is to the local gathering, not isolated individuals.  AV (King James) does use the plural "ye" in this portion, but hardly anyone notices it.  Everybody has heard over and over again the nonbiblical phrase "personal salvation" introduced by early 20th Century revivalists, so that is what they think.  Not:  "ye all have been made to drink of one Spirit, so are one body in the Lord."  Evangelism today means making individual converts rather than a gift to the Church.  I digress; and, well, I shouldn't point out failures of the CLV.  They are so much less than other versions.

The indication of whether it is generic or specific in the original by the use of a definite article or not doesn't always work well in English.  CLV uses a little dot or boldface article to indicate its presence in the Greek.  If there is no article it is not in the English or the article used is lightfaced to show its absence in the original.  Other versions ignore the truth to make it readable.  Sometimes it is very important.  The absence of the article in the beginning of Hebrews affects the understanding of the entire book. "...God...speaks to us in a Son..."  If the article was there in the Greek it would be referring to the historical Son Jesus.  As it stands, it is generic, the category of Sonship or "Son-wise."  It makes Hebrews a much deeper, inward, and more experiential read.

reFORMer,
I too which the CLNT used more triple horizontal lines showing more plural words.

The Fact-State verb form is an aorist. In the "Instructions for Use" pages 608,609 it is stated for the

FACT FORMS: Fact forms are indefinite as to time.

State Forms:
STATE or complete forms give the state resulting from an action.

FACT-STATE Forms:
Certain special verbs, because of their meaning, are a combined form, being both a FACT and a STATE.

Another nice thing about the CLNT is you can tell if something is absolutely not or relatively not by the use of a light faced "t" on the end of not. If light fact it is a relative not.

In 1 Corinthians 7:27 it is written:
You are bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.
You have been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

Paul is not laying down a commandment like Moses and so does not say you must absolutely NOT seek to be loosed.

Tony
Just because God says He will save all mankind
does not necessarily mean He won't.

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12891
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #98 on: June 25, 2009, 03:58:18 PM »
I too which the CLNT used more triple horizontal lines showing more plural words.

The Fact-State verb form is an aorist. In the "Instructions for Use" pages 608,609 it is stated for the

FACT FORMS: Fact forms are indefinite as to time.

State Forms:
STATE or complete forms give the state resulting from an action.

FACT-STATE Forms:
Certain special verbs, because of their meaning, are a combined form, being both a FACT and a STATE.

Another nice thing about the CLNT is you can tell if something is absolutely not or relatively not by the use of a light faced "t" on the end of not. If light fact it is a relative not.

In 1 Corinthians 7:27 it is written:
You are bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.
You have been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

Paul is not laying down a commandment like Moses and so does not say you must absolutely NOT seek to be loosed.

Another day, another thing learned... :thumbsup:
I have CLV only in electronic format. One in e-Sword and the other in ISA2.
I never noticed the little 'signs' in ISA2.
Is it possible that you post some information on teh exact use of the signs in ISA2?
(or another electronic version)
Thanks
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #99 on: June 25, 2009, 04:42:24 PM »
I too which the CLNT used more triple horizontal lines showing more plural words.

The Fact-State verb form is an aorist. In the "Instructions for Use" pages 608,609 it is stated for the

FACT FORMS: Fact forms are indefinite as to time.

State Forms:
STATE or complete forms give the state resulting from an action.

FACT-STATE Forms:
Certain special verbs, because of their meaning, are a combined form, being both a FACT and a STATE.

Another nice thing about the CLNT is you can tell if something is absolutely not or relatively not by the use of a light faced "t" on the end of not. If light fact it is a relative not.

In 1 Corinthians 7:27 it is written:
You are bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.
You have been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

Paul is not laying down a commandment like Moses and so does not say you must absolutely NOT seek to be loosed.

Another day, another thing learned... :thumbsup:
I have CLV only in electronic format. One in e-Sword and the other in ISA2.
I never noticed the little 'signs' in ISA2.
Is it possible that you post some information on teh exact use of the signs in ISA2?
(or another electronic version)
Thanks

I'm the same way.  I have ISA2 and E-Sword and both have the CLV but since I use mostly E-Sword, I had to go over to the ISA2 to see the things reformer was talking about.  That is good info.

Paul