|
Hey Diff~
Thanks. And to my surprise, until recently I didn't realize CEV was Alexandrian. I thought it was MAJ (Byz). So, I thought it was better than your NIV type. Well, it reads a little more like the MAJ for some reason...probably the editors' choices as one of the reasons I don't like the ALEX are the primary translators who were involved in the spiritist movement. How to trust a Bible translation when it's translators hold seances.
Besides that is the whole Age for Accuracy debate, which I do not agree with. Location of discovery and degree of agreement is more important, as there was a tendancy to bury spurious writing that still contained Scripture rather than burning, whereas trusted and true Scripture was well worn and harder now to find.
IT's a big debate I realize, but going by original languages and witness of Scripture within Itself and the Early Church writers (before the councils) speaks volumes.
So for me, for serious study, it's Received Text. For easier read while studying, Byz MAJ. If just for a daily read, and you KNOW what has been removed and altered in the Min/Alex texts, then such a one as CEV provides a nice, clear reading. I've actually learned a few things through that translation.
Now, the WEB version, which I'm looking into, at first due to difficulty finding CEV epub, actually is based on the Byz MAJ, with reference in footnote to RT and MIN. Actually reads quite well.
Finding a WEB epub WITH a decent TOC is now the problem (grin.)
Things like straight up ASV are just too light, that is there is no reason to be as reductive in the Scripture as it is. NIV, well, I can't say anything positive in translation or intent. And some others are gender inclusive etc.... it's just ridiculous, almost like the editors are making apology for Scripture.
Well, that's my basic soapbox. I too have studied a ton of translations and history. IT's interesting to keep straight that's for sure !
Thanks for the reply !
Much joy in your studies.
Jim
|