A “Mansion” over the Hilltop? by Doug Kutilek
“In my Father’s house are many mansions.” So reads the first clause of John 14:2 in the archaic KJV (italics added). In modern American English, “mansions” means only one thing: large stately houses on substantial acreages, reminiscent of “Tara” and “Twelve Oaks” in Gone with the Wind. And that is exactly how multitudes (including the author of the Gospel song “Mansion over the Hilltop”) misunderstand the obsolete language of the KJV here. (“Mansion” occurs nowhere else in the KJV).
At the very least, anyone who assumes “mansions” here has its modern sense should logically be moved to ask--“How can there be Tara-esque mansions in the Father’s house?” And raising such a rational question should instruct the thinking reader that somehow something is awry here. And indeed something is.
Why is “mansions” used here? What does it mean, or did it mean, in the early 17th century when the KJV was made? Was that different than its present meaning? And what of the original Greek that it ostensibly represents? What does it mean? First the Greek.
The Greek word here (without variation in printed Greek texts) is monai, the plural of mone. This word is found elsewhere in the NT (in the singular) only in v. 23 of John 14, where the KJV inconsistently translates it “abode.” Outside the NT, the word is not rare, occurring commonly in classical Greek authors, the apocrypha, Philo, Josephus and elsewhere. It is related to the very common verbal root meno, which means “to stay, remain, last, persist, continue.” It comes as no surprise then that Greek dictionaries give “staying, abiding” and “dwelling-place, room, abode” as definitions of mone in its various uses. Nothing here to conjure up images of opulent houses in plantation settings.
Tracing how this word was translated in ancient and Reformation era Bible versions while enable use to discover how “mansions” found its way here in the KJV.
The earliest Latin version--or versions, since they are multiple and diverse--of the NT is today designated as the Old Latin. These were made in the very late 2nd through the 4th centuries A. D. Of extant manuscripts of the Old Latin version(s), I have access to two in John 14. Both read mansiones in v. 2 (at v. 23, one is defective; the other reads habitaculum =”habitation, room”). Mansiones is the plural of mansio, meaning “a remaining, stay, sojourn; station, halting place.” I suspect that the other Old Latin manuscripts read the same.
In the late 4th century (ca. 385 A.D.) the diversity of Old Latin versions led to Jerome’s attempt to standardize the Latin text in what is today called the Latin Vulgate (the Vulgate is unquestionably the most influential translation of the NT ever made, dominating the Middle Ages in Europe and strongly influencing every Reformation-era translation there. See “The Latin Vulgate Bible Translation in Historical Perspective” part I, As I See It, 5:4, April 2002; and part II, As I See It, 5:5, May 2002). In the Gospels, the Vulgate is a cursory revision and standardization by Jerome of the Old Latin versions. Not surprisingly, it reads here the same as the Old Latin, namely: mansiones.
It doesn’t take a Ph. D. in Greek or Latin to recognize that the KJV’s use of “mansions” at John 14:2 is a direct transfer into English of the word employed by the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate versions. That the KJV was heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate in its text and translation may come as a surprise to some, but it is acknowledged by all who are familiar with the facts of the case. In truth, every page of the KJV NT has vocabulary borrowed directly from the Latin Vulgate; “mansions” in John 14:2 is but one example among thousands (see “Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’?” in As I See It 6:2, February 2003).
Among English translations, the Anglo-Saxon version (made from the Vulgate before 1000 A.D.) translates (rather than borrows) the Latin mansiones by eardung-stowa (=”tabernacle, habitation”) both times. My Anglo-Saxon dictionary does not list mansio at all, so it apparently did not pass from Latin into Anglo-Saxon as a loanword.
Wycliffe’s version of circa 1385, also made from the Vulgate, reads “dwellings” (v. 23, “dwell”). Tyndale’s version, based on the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek text, in consultation with the Vulgate, Erasmus’ own Latin version, and Luther’s German version, has “mansions” (v. 23, “dwell”) in all editions (1526, 1534, 1535, 1536). “Mansion” is also found in Tyndale’s version at 2 Corinthians 5:1, to describe the human body--the Greek literally is “house”--as the dwelling-place of the spirit (the Vulgate has domus, “house” cf. “domicile”). Cranmer’s (1539), also known as the Great Bible, reproduces Tyndale in both places in John 14, and alone of 16th century English versions, at 2 Corinthians 5:1 as well.
The Geneva NT (1557, 1560, 1602 editions), similar to Wycliffe (but not directly influenced by him), has “dwelling places” (v. 23, “dwell”). The Bishops’ Bible (1568), the base text for the KJV revision, reads “dwelling places” (v. 23, “dwelling”).
The Roman Catholic Rheims NT (1582), made from the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text, not surprisingly borrows the Vulgate word “mansions” (but in v. 23 has “abode,” a translation not found in any previous English version).
Then there is the KJV of 1611. It abandons the reading “dwelling places” found in the Bishops’ Bible (of which the KJV was an official revision) and in the Geneva Bible (the English Bible most influential in the making of the KJV). Instead, it reads precisely as the Roman Catholic Rheims: “mansions” (“abode,” in v. 23). That the KJV follows the lead of the Rheims in v. 23 is certain, in as much as no other English version before 1611 so translated the word there. This makes highly likely that the KJV was also imitating the Rheims (rather than reverting to Tyndale / Cranmer) in v. 2.
Other Reformation era versions are not germane to our present discussion. Luther’s German version (1534, 1545) has “Wohnungen”=”dwelling places, habitations, rooms, abodes” (v. 23, “Wohnung,” the singular of the same word), and so this did not influence directly Tyndale and Cranmer, though it may have influenced the Geneva and Bishops’ versions.
The Reina Spanish version of 1569 (and also the Valera revision of 1602) has “moradas” (v. 23, “morada,” singular), which means “stayings, remainings; habitations, abodes.” It is somewhat surprising to me that mansiones was not borrowed from the Vulgate since a related word, “mansion” exists in Spanish, and the Reina-Valera commonly borrows Vulgate vocabulary in its translation.
I do not possess Reformation-era versions in other Romance languages (French, Italian) so am not able to investigate how they rendered the word, though post-Reformation versions in French, Italian, Portuguese, and of course Romanian, do not use any word cognate with “mansions” here. Nor do I have access to Calvin’s Latin or French versions here (Calvin’s versions and commentaries did often influence the Geneva English version, and sometimes the KJV). Beza’s influential Latin version reads habitationes (“dwelling-places” / “habitations”).
Thus far the translations. We must now briefly consider the history of the use of the word “mansion” in English, and for this we turn inevitably to the Oxford English Dictionary, almost always the “last word” in such matters.
The OED gives seven separate uses of this word over time, as follows (with the date of the earliest attested usage; I summarize, paraphrase and occasionally supplement rather than quote directly):
1. the act of remaining (1340);
2. a place where one stops or dwells; place of abode (1386). This includes a separate dwelling place, such as an apartment in a large house (1400). Tyndale’s usage in John 14:2 and an earlier one in a religious document (1340) are placed here. “Mansions” is also used of abodes in hell (by Milton; 1629. Perhaps we need a song for the unconverted “I’ve got a mansion, far beneath the hilltop”!);
3. a structure serving as a dwelling place (1340), including the chief residence of a landed aristocrat (synonym of “manor”), specifically, a stately residence (1512). The word also has been used to describe a large building divided up into separate apartments (1860);
4. a halting place on a journey; the distance between two rest stops (1382);
5. an astrological term for the 28 monthly stages of the moon (1386); “house” is now commonly used for this (think “Age of Aquarius” by the Fifth Dimension--“When the moon is in the seventh house . . .”)
6. a parcel of land (1450)
7. as an adjective (1618)
Most of these usages are labeled as “obsolete.” The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, an abridgment and up-dating of the original OED, lists only two current usages, that of a large stately house, and of an apartment building.
The words “manor” (as in “manor-house” and “lord of the manor”) and “manse” (in British English a synonym of “parsonage”) are etymologically related to “mansion” though not derived from it, and are obviously similar in usage.
So then, sorting through the historic usages of “mansion” as reported in OED, it is clear that the OED correctly classifies Tyndale’s (and subsequently the KJV’s) use of “mansion” in John 14:2 under the meaning an apartment in a large house. We might say a guest chamber for an honored visitor. I think of the special room prepared by the Shunamite woman and her husband for the prophet Elisha, 2 Kings 4:10; and Samuel Johnson’s visit to the Thrales’ estate, where he more or less remained continuously for 20 years! In the Father’s house, we are honored guests, with our own well-furnished apartment, and we never have to leave, because we are home.
While “mansions” adequately and accurately represented in English the meaning of the Greek word monai in 1611, it certainly does not do so today, because of four centuries of extensive change in the English language. As a consequence, the KJV is at this point now obsolete, archaic, and misleading, and therefore inadequate (and this is but one of many hundreds of such places where the KJV does not conform to modern English usage, and therefore fails to communicate accurately to the modern reader. This is why I do not recommend the KJV to anyone, if they are seriously interested in knowing what the Bible teaches; indeed, I recommend that people not read it because of its frequently archaic language, recommending instead a modern English version or two).
How do modern conservative English versions treat John 14:2? The NIV has “rooms” (v. 23, “home”); the NASB “dwelling places” (v. 23, “abode”); the NKJB “mansions” (with footnote, “literally, dwellings”; v. 23 “home”); the ESV “rooms” (v. 23, “home”); HCSB “dwelling places” (v. 23, “home”). All of these are suitable (if you ignore the NKJB’s text, and follow its footnote) and adequately convey the sense and meaning of the original to the modern reader, in a way that “mansions” certainly does not. Not only will these modern translations be understood, they will not be misunderstood. With so many better options for English readers, not only here but throughout the Old and New Testaments, how can anyone justify continuing to use--and imposing on church members--a translation which they are guaranteed to misunderstand repeatedly? Exactly what is the point of that?
---Doug Kutilek
I appreciate this brother so much.
J. Wendell
At the very least, anyone who assumes “mansions” here has its modern sense should logically be moved to ask--“How can there be Tara-esque mansions in the Father’s house?” And raising such a rational question should instruct the thinking reader that somehow something is awry here. And indeed something is.
Why is “mansions” used here? What does it mean, or did it mean, in the early 17th century when the KJV was made? Was that different than its present meaning? And what of the original Greek that it ostensibly represents? What does it mean? First the Greek.
The Greek word here (without variation in printed Greek texts) is monai, the plural of mone. This word is found elsewhere in the NT (in the singular) only in v. 23 of John 14, where the KJV inconsistently translates it “abode.” Outside the NT, the word is not rare, occurring commonly in classical Greek authors, the apocrypha, Philo, Josephus and elsewhere. It is related to the very common verbal root meno, which means “to stay, remain, last, persist, continue.” It comes as no surprise then that Greek dictionaries give “staying, abiding” and “dwelling-place, room, abode” as definitions of mone in its various uses. Nothing here to conjure up images of opulent houses in plantation settings.
Tracing how this word was translated in ancient and Reformation era Bible versions while enable use to discover how “mansions” found its way here in the KJV.
The earliest Latin version--or versions, since they are multiple and diverse--of the NT is today designated as the Old Latin. These were made in the very late 2nd through the 4th centuries A. D. Of extant manuscripts of the Old Latin version(s), I have access to two in John 14. Both read mansiones in v. 2 (at v. 23, one is defective; the other reads habitaculum =”habitation, room”). Mansiones is the plural of mansio, meaning “a remaining, stay, sojourn; station, halting place.” I suspect that the other Old Latin manuscripts read the same.
In the late 4th century (ca. 385 A.D.) the diversity of Old Latin versions led to Jerome’s attempt to standardize the Latin text in what is today called the Latin Vulgate (the Vulgate is unquestionably the most influential translation of the NT ever made, dominating the Middle Ages in Europe and strongly influencing every Reformation-era translation there. See “The Latin Vulgate Bible Translation in Historical Perspective” part I, As I See It, 5:4, April 2002; and part II, As I See It, 5:5, May 2002). In the Gospels, the Vulgate is a cursory revision and standardization by Jerome of the Old Latin versions. Not surprisingly, it reads here the same as the Old Latin, namely: mansiones.
It doesn’t take a Ph. D. in Greek or Latin to recognize that the KJV’s use of “mansions” at John 14:2 is a direct transfer into English of the word employed by the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate versions. That the KJV was heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate in its text and translation may come as a surprise to some, but it is acknowledged by all who are familiar with the facts of the case. In truth, every page of the KJV NT has vocabulary borrowed directly from the Latin Vulgate; “mansions” in John 14:2 is but one example among thousands (see “Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’?” in As I See It 6:2, February 2003).
Among English translations, the Anglo-Saxon version (made from the Vulgate before 1000 A.D.) translates (rather than borrows) the Latin mansiones by eardung-stowa (=”tabernacle, habitation”) both times. My Anglo-Saxon dictionary does not list mansio at all, so it apparently did not pass from Latin into Anglo-Saxon as a loanword.
Wycliffe’s version of circa 1385, also made from the Vulgate, reads “dwellings” (v. 23, “dwell”). Tyndale’s version, based on the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek text, in consultation with the Vulgate, Erasmus’ own Latin version, and Luther’s German version, has “mansions” (v. 23, “dwell”) in all editions (1526, 1534, 1535, 1536). “Mansion” is also found in Tyndale’s version at 2 Corinthians 5:1, to describe the human body--the Greek literally is “house”--as the dwelling-place of the spirit (the Vulgate has domus, “house” cf. “domicile”). Cranmer’s (1539), also known as the Great Bible, reproduces Tyndale in both places in John 14, and alone of 16th century English versions, at 2 Corinthians 5:1 as well.
The Geneva NT (1557, 1560, 1602 editions), similar to Wycliffe (but not directly influenced by him), has “dwelling places” (v. 23, “dwell”). The Bishops’ Bible (1568), the base text for the KJV revision, reads “dwelling places” (v. 23, “dwelling”).
The Roman Catholic Rheims NT (1582), made from the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text, not surprisingly borrows the Vulgate word “mansions” (but in v. 23 has “abode,” a translation not found in any previous English version).
Then there is the KJV of 1611. It abandons the reading “dwelling places” found in the Bishops’ Bible (of which the KJV was an official revision) and in the Geneva Bible (the English Bible most influential in the making of the KJV). Instead, it reads precisely as the Roman Catholic Rheims: “mansions” (“abode,” in v. 23). That the KJV follows the lead of the Rheims in v. 23 is certain, in as much as no other English version before 1611 so translated the word there. This makes highly likely that the KJV was also imitating the Rheims (rather than reverting to Tyndale / Cranmer) in v. 2.
Other Reformation era versions are not germane to our present discussion. Luther’s German version (1534, 1545) has “Wohnungen”=”dwelling places, habitations, rooms, abodes” (v. 23, “Wohnung,” the singular of the same word), and so this did not influence directly Tyndale and Cranmer, though it may have influenced the Geneva and Bishops’ versions.
The Reina Spanish version of 1569 (and also the Valera revision of 1602) has “moradas” (v. 23, “morada,” singular), which means “stayings, remainings; habitations, abodes.” It is somewhat surprising to me that mansiones was not borrowed from the Vulgate since a related word, “mansion” exists in Spanish, and the Reina-Valera commonly borrows Vulgate vocabulary in its translation.
I do not possess Reformation-era versions in other Romance languages (French, Italian) so am not able to investigate how they rendered the word, though post-Reformation versions in French, Italian, Portuguese, and of course Romanian, do not use any word cognate with “mansions” here. Nor do I have access to Calvin’s Latin or French versions here (Calvin’s versions and commentaries did often influence the Geneva English version, and sometimes the KJV). Beza’s influential Latin version reads habitationes (“dwelling-places” / “habitations”).
Thus far the translations. We must now briefly consider the history of the use of the word “mansion” in English, and for this we turn inevitably to the Oxford English Dictionary, almost always the “last word” in such matters.
The OED gives seven separate uses of this word over time, as follows (with the date of the earliest attested usage; I summarize, paraphrase and occasionally supplement rather than quote directly):
1. the act of remaining (1340);
2. a place where one stops or dwells; place of abode (1386). This includes a separate dwelling place, such as an apartment in a large house (1400). Tyndale’s usage in John 14:2 and an earlier one in a religious document (1340) are placed here. “Mansions” is also used of abodes in hell (by Milton; 1629. Perhaps we need a song for the unconverted “I’ve got a mansion, far beneath the hilltop”!);
3. a structure serving as a dwelling place (1340), including the chief residence of a landed aristocrat (synonym of “manor”), specifically, a stately residence (1512). The word also has been used to describe a large building divided up into separate apartments (1860);
4. a halting place on a journey; the distance between two rest stops (1382);
5. an astrological term for the 28 monthly stages of the moon (1386); “house” is now commonly used for this (think “Age of Aquarius” by the Fifth Dimension--“When the moon is in the seventh house . . .”)
6. a parcel of land (1450)
7. as an adjective (1618)
Most of these usages are labeled as “obsolete.” The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, an abridgment and up-dating of the original OED, lists only two current usages, that of a large stately house, and of an apartment building.
The words “manor” (as in “manor-house” and “lord of the manor”) and “manse” (in British English a synonym of “parsonage”) are etymologically related to “mansion” though not derived from it, and are obviously similar in usage.
So then, sorting through the historic usages of “mansion” as reported in OED, it is clear that the OED correctly classifies Tyndale’s (and subsequently the KJV’s) use of “mansion” in John 14:2 under the meaning an apartment in a large house. We might say a guest chamber for an honored visitor. I think of the special room prepared by the Shunamite woman and her husband for the prophet Elisha, 2 Kings 4:10; and Samuel Johnson’s visit to the Thrales’ estate, where he more or less remained continuously for 20 years! In the Father’s house, we are honored guests, with our own well-furnished apartment, and we never have to leave, because we are home.
While “mansions” adequately and accurately represented in English the meaning of the Greek word monai in 1611, it certainly does not do so today, because of four centuries of extensive change in the English language. As a consequence, the KJV is at this point now obsolete, archaic, and misleading, and therefore inadequate (and this is but one of many hundreds of such places where the KJV does not conform to modern English usage, and therefore fails to communicate accurately to the modern reader. This is why I do not recommend the KJV to anyone, if they are seriously interested in knowing what the Bible teaches; indeed, I recommend that people not read it because of its frequently archaic language, recommending instead a modern English version or two).
How do modern conservative English versions treat John 14:2? The NIV has “rooms” (v. 23, “home”); the NASB “dwelling places” (v. 23, “abode”); the NKJB “mansions” (with footnote, “literally, dwellings”; v. 23 “home”); the ESV “rooms” (v. 23, “home”); HCSB “dwelling places” (v. 23, “home”). All of these are suitable (if you ignore the NKJB’s text, and follow its footnote) and adequately convey the sense and meaning of the original to the modern reader, in a way that “mansions” certainly does not. Not only will these modern translations be understood, they will not be misunderstood. With so many better options for English readers, not only here but throughout the Old and New Testaments, how can anyone justify continuing to use--and imposing on church members--a translation which they are guaranteed to misunderstand repeatedly? Exactly what is the point of that?
---Doug Kutilek
I appreciate this brother so much.
J. Wendell
Labels: KJV Only ?
posted by J. Wendell at 9:59 AM
10 Comments:
So do I bro. John! His AISI, or "As I See It" newsletter is always chock-full of interesting & excellent studies, & just plain enjoyable as well as fascinating reading. By the way, I appreciate you & Rose as well! God Bless.
By
David Wyatt, at 18/4/09 10:24 PM
Why thank you kind Sir!
David you made my day. I am so glad that you gain much from Mr.Kutilek, he is a teacher with a missionary heart in action.
John
By
J. Wendell, at 20/4/09 7:02 AM
Hi John,
Currently I am using the Geneva Bible with my KJV. (Thus, I am not a KJVO person)
I don't think that the archaic issues are as bad as suggested by this article. My issue with many of the modern versions is the text from whence they spring, and the dynamic equivalence method they use as well as some of their actual translations. I know that we could argue endlessly to and fro about the merits or otherwise of each particular set of texts (which I am not skilled to do) but if we can settle ourselves (say) on the TR text, then the KJV isn't going to lead us astray, as suggested by the article.
I wouldn't decide that it is worth burning at the stake for the mansions translation, but I do notice that Young in his literal translation (where, in the foreword of his accompanying notes, he lambasts the KJV) renders it as mansions. He makes no mention of it in his explanatory note. Personally, I don't think it is a great deal one way or the other. If this is the height of DK's problems with the KJV, then it will probably register about 0.000001 on the Richter Scale :o)
Regards,
P/s Regards to Rose as well.
By
Colin Maxwell, at 21/4/09 2:45 AM
Dear brother Maxwell,
Thank you for your comment. I agree with you that this on face value seems over blown. Let me explain. There is, and has been a movement that would have missionaries convert people to the KJV so that they could get saved. I find myself engaged in conversation with KJV only from time to time and they are surprised to find out that there are variations between the KJV 1611 and the one they typically carry. One told me variations never existed in the 1611 version, and I ask which one the Cambridge or Oxford?
To condemn another because of his or her use of any other text in my view is… well foolish. I will say that the KJO people I know are very strong advocates of inspiration, unfortunately many hold to duel inspiration too.
Regards to you too,
John
By
J. Wendell, at 21/4/09 6:32 AM
Hi John,
My experience with the KJVO is that they are more likely to fall out with me than I am with them. They almost go looking for the fight and invariably make sure they get it. I refuse to let them intimidate me away from checking up on the Greek/Hebrew. I see the subtle shift from their reference to the KJV (the word version being a weak chink in their armour) to the KJB i.e. the King James Bible. Some of their arguments, although well intended, are actually an embarrassment to their cause.
Having said that, I think that we need to make a difference as to when a word is transliterated as opposed to translated and also see that a better translation of a word does not necessarily mean that the lesser one is an error.
For those KJVO who believe that their translation is perfect, the question to ask then is whether or not it can ever, ever, ever (x3!)be improved upon?
I think the words of the article though where we read: "...indeed, I recommend that people not read it..." is a little bit of KJVO but in reverse. There is nothing in the archaisms of the KJV text that cannot be corrected (say) in the margin or the footnote.
The issue runs deeper though than a mere translation - you invariably get into the texts (endless arguments) and whether or not (for example)our Lord really did say Father, forgive them for they know not what they do on the Cross or if this is just some pious scribe spicing it all up in his evangelical zeal. Have these words have been preached on for hundreds of years as gospel truth when they were anything but?
Enjoy chatting you!
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 21/4/09 7:53 AM
Bro. John,
Thank you, & may I say that you also made my day as well?!
Bro. Colin, I certainly appreciate you & your heart for our Savior! I have been helped & encouraged by your posts at this & others blogs more than once! I just mention, that as far as I know, & this is not that far(!) that the NIV is the main modern translation that uses the dynamic equivalency method of translation, which in my opinion often becomes more interpretation than translation, & I know that all translations may suffer from this to a degree. But some, such as the NASB & others to my knowledge do not use this method but are more literal in their tranlating methods. Again, I am no expert, but from my studies, I have seen that the NIV is the main one to use the DE method. I am willing to be corrected though! may the Lord bless you all!
By
David Wyatt, at 26/4/09 9:29 PM
Hi John/David:
David: I enjoy your posts as well. I take your point that all the versions use the DE method to some extent, although the NIV has blatantly used it as its main means. This confuses the role of the translator and the interpreter. By putting the interpretation into the very text (even if the right one) then we cannot search the Scriptures to see whether it be so, since the scripture itself is made to conform to the interpretation. As said, little harm done if the interpoled interpretation is correct, but what if it is not? The old RC Douay Version made sure that they got "penance" into texts like Luke 13:3 and the New World Translation of the JW's is also notorious in this matter.
I guess it pushes us back to the set of texts we accept as pure. This surfaces in texts like Luke 23:34 ("Father, forgive them...") and the footnotes that invariably cast doubt (i.e. "Best MSS omit")upon the very dying words of the Crucified Saviour.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 27/4/09 3:47 AM
Good discussion!
By
J. Wendell, at 27/4/09 7:20 AM
Bro. Colin,
I have recently gotten away from blogging as much & missed your excellent response. So true! I had at 1st been excited about the new NRT Bible, especially with the 57,000-plus footnotes, etc. But I was soon disappointed by their even greater interpretation over translation method. One thing I often found in studying it (before I gave it away!) was that after they "translated" a text until I barely recognized it, they would then put in a footnote, "Litterally" & then it was almost what the KJV or NKJV had it! So, IOW, rather than being a clearer ranslation, it seemed more like an interpretation far worse than the NIV. Oh well, sorry for my ramblings! God Bless you all!
By
David Wyatt, at 13/5/09 9:51 PM
Forgive my typo! I meant the NET Bible, not the NRT!
By
David Wyatt, at 13/5/09 9:52 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home