There is nothing whatever abridged about the majority of modern Bibles. The 'dynamic equivalence' method may produce more words for a given verse than the 'literal' method, in fact. It is a method perfectly legitimate technically, is very widely used in secular translation generally, and is indeed desirable for anyone not studying. It has been of inestimable use in both conversion and teaching. For those who do not use original languages, literal and dynamic versions can usefully be used side by side.
That is, of course, if you look at it from a purely "scholarly" point of view. I've heard a thousand times that the KJV is "outdated", "incorrect" and so forth but the fact remains that it remains in use for a reason. There is quite a difference in paraphrasing and/or summarizing something especially when it comes down to man trying to play around with God's Word. It functions in the same manner that you don't read an abridged version of a classic novel and then claim to be an expert on it.Number two, you make the assumption that I don't have any experience with the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. While I am no scholar of any of the three languages, I know enough and have the assistance of some valuable resources such as the Strong's and I fine the KJV to be a pretty good job of a translation.I have no problems with people who want to cross reference Bibles and use other reasonable versions - of which I include the ASV and a couple others. However, I do have a problem when some modern "scholar" creates a summary as it does the same thing the Catholic church of middle ages was doing by claiming to do the work for you. I have a problem when somehow this modern version is supposed to tell me what to believe and to sum up something as incredibly complex and important as prophecy. I have a major problem with this modern day scholar supposedly knows better than the men commissioned by God who wrote the thing in the first place.
That is, of course, if you look at it from a purely "scholarly" point of view. I've heard a thousand times that the KJV is "outdated", "incorrect" and so forth but the fact remains that it remains in use for a reason. There is quite a difference in paraphrasing and/or summarizing something especially when it comes down to man trying to play around with God's Word. It functions in the same manner that you don't read an abridged version of a classic novel and then claim to be an expert on it.Number two, you make the assumption that I don't have any experience with the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. While I am no scholar of any of the three languages, I know enough and have the assistance of some valuable resources such as the Strong's and I fine the KJV to be a pretty good job of a translation.I have no problems with people who want to cross reference Bibles and use other reasonable versions - of which I include the ASV and a couple others. However, I do have a problem when some modern "scholar" creates a summary as it does the same thing the Catholic church of middle ages was doing by claiming to do the work for you. I have a problem when somehow this modern version is supposed to tell me what to believe and to sum up something as incredibly complex and important as prophecy. I have a major problem with this modern day scholar supposedly knows better than the men commissioned by God who wrote the thing in the first place.