Pro-KJV but not a KJO

[Yeshua1]

Translation theory and textual criticism are two different disciplines. A pet peeve of mine is that they are often crammed together for no reason.

Would you agree with me that the translation philosophy is more important then which greek text was used as the textual source?

 

[John of Japan]

Would you agree with me that the translation philosophy is more important then which greek text was used as the textual source?

I see them as both important. I don't rank them in importance.

 

[Yeshua1]

I see them as both important. I don't rank them in importance.

Could you make a good translation off the Nestle text?

 

[John of Japan]

Could you make a good translation off the Nestle text?

Yes, but I wouldn't.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, but I wouldn't.

Did the Nas and Esv teams make good translations from them?

 

[John of Japan]

Did the Nas and Esv teams make good translations from them?

I've read through both as part of my calling as a Bible translator, and both are accurate to their source texts.

 

[Yeshua1]

I've read through both as part of my calling as a Bible translator, and both are accurate to their source texts.

I am reading right now an older book by Kenyon concerning NT textual, is it valid?

 

[John of Japan]

I am reading right now an older book by Kenyon concerning NT textual, is it valid?

If it's Frederic Kenyon, he was a genuine textual critic on the Alexandrian side, but that's a pretty old book (1939). So it's quite behind the times.

 

[Yeshua1]

If it's Frederic Kenyon, he was a genuine textual critic on the Alexandrian side, but that's a pretty old book (1939). So it's quite behind the times.

Well People keep quoting Dean Burgeon, and he was older then that!