Interlinear Greek-English New Testament-PR

Rating:
Summary: The Best Interlinear I've Ever Purchased
Review: Brother Jay P. Green, Sr.'s "Interlinear Greek-English New Testament" is awesome, IMHO.

Furthermore, this Interlinear is highly recommended & very much useful for studying the Word of God. Also, as another reviewer rightly notes, it has the Authorised Version down the right side, literal translation down the left side. While the Greek is in the middle. Beneath the Greek is a translation of each word and above the Greek is a number. The number can be looked up in Strong's Concordance to see the exact meaning of each word.

Lastly, I just want to say that I too take issue with the bad review titled "Bad textual choice, bad introduction" by the reviewer who did not leave a name. Though I need not offer a rebuttal since a Mr. Scott Adams has already did a good job in that area.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Rating:
Summary: Larger print
Review: I did not realize that this version has a much larger print than the Hardback edition (1985) of Green's Interlinear Bible. So it is very readable, the font is large and the strong numbers are not a problem any longer. Also the print of the English words has been improved, as well of the Greek words. Green's interlinear used to be superior by the original text it uses (not liberal) and its excellent translation. Now with these typographical improvements (readability of fonts..., etc.) it seems to be unbeatable!

Rating:
Summary: The Perfect Mate
Review: I spend hours studying Scripture and this Bible is the perfect companion to any King James Study Bible. It brings the Scriptures to life as you dive into the Greek meaning utilizing the Strong's numbering system. The most important feature about this Bible is that it was painstakingly produced. Too many times I have seen similar Bibles that are simply incorrect in their interpretations. For example the same Greek word may not carry the same meaning depending on how it's utilized, therefore you should see different numbering references for the same word. Many times, interlinears are produced using the same Strong's number for all usage and this is simply incorrect. it is also dangerous, especially if you want to properly interpret Scripture. You don't have to worry with this one. I highly suggest this work!

Rating:
Summary: One of the best interlinears out!!
Review: If you are interested in knowing what the underlying Greek would be from the KJV (as reconstructed by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894), this is a good resource. I found that the leather bound (black) edition to be most helpful for class work. The print quality, for the most part, is good with the exception that printing the verse numbers in bold so that they stand out from the rest of the text would have made searching easier. Of merit is the wide margins which leave ample room for commentary. With the student in mind, it is well worth the additional money to purchase the leather versions of your study guides--unless you enjoy suffering through the process of transferring notes from one book to another. Your brother in Christ.

Rating:
Summary: From Alpha To Omega
Review: Mr.Green's work here is a very useful tool when doing Bible study,especially while studying and learning the New Testament greek as I currently am. Having it coded with the Strong's concordance is an added bonus to his well interpreted sciptural work. I am especially pleased with the pocket version and never leave home without it. Go with God!

Rating:
Summary: Jay P. Green's Interlinear is a staple in my study tools.
Review: The Interlinear Greek -English New Testament by Jay P. Green Sr. is a valuable study tool in any Christian's library. Easy to read and compare verses...and each word has corresponding Strong's numbers! A must for the dedicated bible student to seek deeper for the truth in translations.

Rating:
Summary: love the set, but 1 problem.
Review: The set is highly suggested and extremely useful. It has, in the NT the KJV down the right side, Literal Translation down the left, in the middle is the greek. Beneith the greek is a translation of each word and above the greek is a number. The # can be looked up in the Strongs to see the exact meening of each word. The only PROBLEM I have with it is the OT is out of print and impossible to find.

Rating:
Summary: Takes issue with bad review
Review: This is more of a reaction to the strongly biased review, titled "Bad textual choice, bad introduction," dated March 13, 2001, than anything else. That reader felt s/he had an ax to grind, and I fear some innocent soul could be swayed to think there was substance to the largely baseless accusations that were made.
I address those baseless accusations below, on a nearly point by point basis, hoping my comments may prove helpful to some people.
Baseless accusation # 1. "It does not use any known or accepted Greek text as its basis." Answer: Oh? Who is qualified to determine if a Greek text is known or accepted? I have several hardcopies of that "unknown" text, and I also have several software copies. The text is popularly called Scrivener's, and it is still available.
The previous reviewer goes on to say, "it uses a marginal scholar's attempt to reconstruct the Textus Receptus based on the King James Bible. In other words, it takes the English translation and works backwards." Answer: The previous reviewer "seems" to refer to Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. as a marginal scholar. I just finished reading one of Dr. Scrivener's works, entitled, "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament," published in four editions in the last years of the 19th century. The fourth edition is in two volumes, totaling about 900 pages. The reviewer expects us to accept without support the assertion that Scrivener is a "marginal scholar."
Dr. Scrivener collated many Greek manuscripts and editions personally. The popular "unknown" text the previous reviewer referred to is only one product of Dr. Scrivener's long career. Perhaps an obvious purpose of this edition of the Greek New Testament is to let KJV readers see the Greek text that the translators in 1611 actually used. There was more than one edition of the Greek New Testament available to the translators, and the Scrivener's edition gathers all the texts actually used by the KJV translators together in one convenient place. This quickly allows the inquirer to see that there is a corresponding Greek text underneath the English translation, and that this Greek text was afforded credence by the translators in 1611. This is not what the KJV reads like in Greek. This is what the Greek text underlying the KJV looks like. The KJV translators gave an English translation of the Greek.
I quote the final paragraph of the preface to my hardcopy version of Scrivener's text, published by the Trinitarian Bible Society: "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the "Textus Receptus" underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with the "New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version," edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., and published by Cambridge University Press in 1894 and 1902."
Baseless accusation # 2. "It reproduces that same scholar's vitriolic and immensely wrong attack on Westcott and Hort in the introduction." Answer: I confess, I have not read the introduction recently, though I certainly have read it. I presume the introduction referred to by the previous reviewer is the Preface in my black leather copy. That was written by the translator of the interlinear translation, Jay P. Green, Sr. I suspect the previous reviewer confused Green with Scrivener. Scrivener was long dead before Green ever thought about using his text as the basis for his interlinear translation.
In Scrivener's "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament," he certainly does name Hort by name, but not in a vitriolic fashion. Scrivener names all the principal players of the field of textual criticism in his day and in days prior. He explains their methodologies and he proposes his own. Scrivener insisted on taking the facts of evidence into consideration at all times. It is not vitriolic for Scrivener to point out that Hort did not do this. Scrivener (or perhaps it was the editor of his fourth edition, Edward Miller) did accuse Hort of ignoring evidence and basing his conclusions at times on conjecture that has no historical basis whatever. He provided many examples from Westcott and Hort's Greek text as well as direct quotations from Westcott and Hort's "Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek" to support this criticism. Many other principals in the field of New Testament textual criticism were also praised and criticized according as Scrivener saw fit. This was not being vitriolic, this was providing informed commentary for the uninformed but interested student.
Finally, let me comment on the previous reviewer's phrase, "It asserts - without any shred of evidence, historical or theological - ...." I'm afraid the previous reviewer combines Green and Scrivener into one person, and then accuses that person of doing what Hort actually did do. I generally fault the reviewer's reasoning, judgment and assertions as expressed in the previous review, and I certainly think the book under review is a good investment.
By the way, I use Green's interlinear constantly. I used a colored felt tip marker and highlighted every single verse identifier to make the verse divisions easier to find. If I want to see what other Greek texts say, then I use other reference works.

Rating:
Summary: Takes issue with bad review
Review: This is more of a reaction to the strongly biased review, titled "Bad textual choice, bad introduction," dated March 13, 2001, than anything else. That reader felt s/he had an ax to grind, and I fear some innocent soul could be swayed to think there was substance to the largely baseless accusations that were made.
I address those baseless accusations below, on a nearly point by point basis, hoping my comments may prove helpful to some people.
Baseless accusation # 1. "It does not use any known or accepted Greek text as its basis." Answer: Oh? Who is qualified to determine if a Greek text is known or accepted? I have several hardcopies of that "unknown" text, and I also have several software copies. The text is popularly called Scrivener's, and it is still available.
The previous reviewer goes on to say, "it uses a marginal scholar's attempt to reconstruct the Textus Receptus based on the King James Bible. In other words, it takes the English translation and works backwards." Answer: The previous reviewer "seems" to refer to Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. as a marginal scholar. I just finished reading one of Dr. Scrivener's works, entitled, "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament," published in four editions in the last years of the 19th century. The fourth edition is in two volumes, totaling about 900 pages. The reviewer expects us to accept without support the assertion that Scrivener is a "marginal scholar."
Dr. Scrivener collated many Greek manuscripts and editions personally. The popular "unknown" text the previous reviewer referred to is only one product of Dr. Scrivener's long career. Perhaps an obvious purpose of this edition of the Greek New Testament is to let KJV readers see the Greek text that the translators in 1611 actually used. There was more than one edition of the Greek New Testament available to the translators, and the Scrivener's edition gathers all the texts actually used by the KJV translators together in one convenient place. This quickly allows the inquirer to see that there is a corresponding Greek text underneath the English translation, and that this Greek text was afforded credence by the translators in 1611. This is not what the KJV reads like in Greek. This is what the Greek text underlying the KJV looks like. The KJV translators gave an English translation of the Greek.
I quote the final paragraph of the preface to my hardcopy version of Scrivener's text, published by the Trinitarian Bible Society: "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the "Textus Receptus" underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with the "New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version," edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., and published by Cambridge University Press in 1894 and 1902."
Baseless accusation # 2. "It reproduces that same scholar's vitriolic and immensely wrong attack on Westcott and Hort in the introduction." Answer: I confess, I have not read the introduction recently, though I certainly have read it. I presume the introduction referred to by the previous reviewer is the Preface in my black leather copy. That was written by the translator of the interlinear translation, Jay P. Green, Sr. I suspect the previous reviewer confused Green with Scrivener. Scrivener was long dead before Green ever thought about using his text as the basis for his interlinear translation.
In Scrivener's "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament," he certainly does name Hort by name, but not in a vitriolic fashion. Scrivener names all the principal players of the field of textual criticism in his day and in days prior. He explains their methodologies and he proposes his own. Scrivener insisted on taking the facts of evidence into consideration at all times. It is not vitriolic for Scrivener to point out that Hort did not do this. Scrivener (or perhaps it was the editor of his fourth edition, Edward Miller) did accuse Hort of ignoring evidence and basing his conclusions at times on conjecture that has no historical basis whatever. He provided many examples from Westcott and Hort's Greek text as well as direct quotations from Westcott and Hort's "Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek" to support this criticism. Many other principals in the field of New Testament textual criticism were also praised and criticized according as Scrivener saw fit. This was not being vitriolic, this was providing informed commentary for the uninformed but interested student.
Finally, let me comment on the previous reviewer's phrase, "It asserts - without any shred of evidence, historical or theological - ...." I'm afraid the previous reviewer combines Green and Scrivener into one person, and then accuses that person of doing what Hort actually did do. I generally fault the reviewer's reasoning, judgment and assertions as expressed in the previous review, and I certainly think the book under review is a good investment.
By the way, I use Green's interlinear constantly. I used a colored felt tip marker and highlighted every single verse identifier to make the verse divisions easier to find. If I want to see what other Greek texts say, then I use other reference works.

Rating:
Summary: An important addition to any believers library
Review: When we read any English translation of the Bible, we are subjected to the thoughts of the translator. This may lead us to make decisions about the Bible that are contrary to what the Bible actually says. That's where this book comes in... in it, we can see the actual words of the authors, as well as the KJV and a literal translation. It also contains all the Strong's concordance numbers for each word. Everything you need to gain an in-depth understanding of the Word of God, without the thoughts of a translator. This should be in the library of anyone who seriously wants to understand the New Testament.