Jump to content


File Information

  • Submitted: Jun 27 2011 01:30 PM
  • Last Updated: Jun 27 2011 03:48 PM
  • File Size: 1.58MB
  • Views: 20534
  • Downloads: 4,136
  • Author: A. E. Knoch
  • e-Sword Version: 9.x - 10.x

Support BibleSupport.com

  • If our e-Sword and MySword modules have blessed you, please consider a small donation.

    Your donation pays only for dedicated server hosting, bandwidth, software licenses, and capital equipment (scanners, OCR equipment, etc).

    Enter Amount $

    You do not need a paypal account to donate online.

e-Sword 9+ Module Download:
Download Concordant Literal Version (CLT) (2003).bblx.exe

* * * * * 19 Votes

A. E. Knoch

e-Sword Version:
9.x - 10.x

This presentation of the CLNT does not include the various textual notations of the printed text or the PDF files, we trust these pages will serve as a further means of introducing you to the CONCORDANT VERSION. For more information: http://www.concordant.org/

As an earnest Bible student, desiring to understand the Word of God, the compiler discovered that practically all solid progress in the recovery of truth during the last century had come through use of concordances. He found that those of his friends who based their study on a concordance made the surest and speediest advance in their knowledge of God. Hence he also began to test and correct his ideas as to the meaning of Bible words by tracing them through all their occurrences. The immense profit and pleasure of this plan awoke in him a strong desire to do all in his power to assist others in this safe and satisfactory method of assuring themselves of the real revelation which God has given.

Thus it was that the idea of a Concordant Version suggested itself to his mind. Instead of occasionally making current translations more harmonious with the Original by using a concordance, why not make a version which is already concordant? Indeed, such a version might do far more to bring the reader into accord with the facts than would be possible by the patient and prolonged study of a concordance. The greatest benefit would come, not only to the serious student, but also to the humble reader who would prayerfully use the Version and allow the contexts to color each word and define its force for him. The concordant method of studying the Scriptures uses a concordance to discover the meaning of a word. This is done by tracing the occurrences of the words in the Original, and not according to the various vocabularies found in English versions. The aim is to discover the usage and fix its signification by its inspired associations. It is in line with the linguistic law that the meaning of a word is decided by its usage. In this Version the efficiency and value of this method has been greatly multiplied by extending it to the elements of which the Greek words are composed, and by combining with it the vocabulary method, which deals with each word as having a definite province of thought which must be carefully kept within its own etymological and contextual boundaries.

The CONCORDANT LITERAL NEW TESTAMENT is not a “modern” version. Neither is it archaic. The method is such that little regard could be paid to the outward embellishment of thought. All appearances are subordinated to accuracy. Truth is itself both desirable and beautiful. The living Word was not clothed in sumptuous garb to entice the eye. He had no form nor comeliness. There was no beauty, that they should desire Him. The written Word needs no ornamentation. Familiar, finely phrased error will appeal to the ears, but inspired, precisely translated truth should be the pattern accepted into the sound mind. The concordant method seeks to convey the truth of the Word, not to adorn it for appeal.

Copyright © 1999-2011 Concordant Publishing Concern. http://www.concordant.org/

the only thing that is missing is Strong's.


You raise an interesting point about placing in Strong's numbering in a translation, and I think its noteworthy to address this issue.


There are many who like having a translations to have the Strong's numbering system included in the text, of which I am one of them. However there is a major problem that arises with it, which is, unless there is some form of a guide by the translators for the use of Strong's numbering, it generally is really difficult for a third party to do that work.


About the only reasons why the KJV and the NASB have the Strong's numbering system are:

  • The Strong's Concordance comes out in the KJV Edition which includes the Numbering system and includes Strong's Hebrew and Greek Lexicons

  • Logos has put out an edition of the NASB for e-Sword that includes Strong's Numbering, but you pay for that.

There is a Strong's Concordance available for the NIV (and I think, but unsure, the NLT) which is linked to the Strong's numbering. However Zondervan haven't produced an edition of the NIV for e-Sword which includes Strong's Numbering.


In regard's to e-Sword, most dictionaries which have Strong's numbering are keyed to the KJV Bible. The only one that isn't, is the NASB with has its own Strong's numbered dictionary.




MissionEditor is completely wrong visa-viz Knoch; Knoch NEVER wrote for the Watchtower.  The connection between Knoch and the Watchtower is quite simple:  AE Knoch had a written debate consisting of four letters/articles back and forth with CT Russell in around 1909 regarding Universal Salvation, Knoch affirmed, Russell denied.  After Russell's death, Knoch contracted with the Watchtower to print their Concordant translation, and the process was in the works.  In the early 1920s one of the member's of the Watchtower's Editorial Board left the Watchtower and joined Knoch's group.  Subsequently, JF Rutherford told AE Knoch was told that the Watchtower was no longer interested in printing the Concordant translation. Later, Rutherford wrote that one with "no authority" had offered to print the Bible.  The reality was, the WT was losing many prominent members to Knoch's group.  Unfortunately, my experience has been many "counter-cult" writers are to quick to make assumptions.

Both the old and new testament Concordant translations are, in my opinion, the most accurate available. Sure, if you believe in the heresy of eternal torture in hell (Gehenna), or the abomination of the Trinity doctrine, which was introduced to appease the pagan culture of the Catholic church, then you will find fault.


But if you are looking for truth, then these writings are as close to the originals as you can get. Of course, you can just read the KJV and disregard the proper rendering in the originals if it makes you feel better...

This has been a good study tool.  Just reading it illuminated much.  I had some great insights around Romans 7 and 8 just as examples that come to mind.  When I have considered something from a particular translation and want to check word order and concordance, I have found I can rely on this, skeptical as I was at times.  The rigorous use of "aionian"  eonian, eon in English can be awkward when we are used to eternal and everlasting, but I try not to make doctrinal conclusions on that per se, but just understand it as the translated word. Romans 8:28-9 was one that I was helped with.  I read in NIV "God works in all things..."  and I am used to "all things work together for good"  and when I asked "which is it?"  I made a study of it, and Concordant preserves correct word order and grammar helps indicate its context the purpose of this good work of God in all things, that we be conformed to the likeness of His Son, the firstborn among many brethren and it changed my previous understanding of that passage, and really the way I view God's purpose in my life, and I think much for the better.  There are many other examples and this translation has opened for me avenues of study, that apparently theologians and bible students are completely aware of and incorporate into all their thought and discussion, but I was completely blind to.  In many cases these discussions come from hermeneutic study in original language, but they are evident in Concordant, and not necessarily in some other KJV descended translations, which are all the big ones, although when one is more aware of context, the KJV and others are not offensive or contradictory, but, being bold and maybe controversial, don't necessarily have all we need for what seems to be correct understanding.  I am sure in many cases, just studying NASB or ESV is helpful and adequate, but in hermeneutic study it may not be alone. 


The slavish preservation of tense is something people may object to in this translation, but it comes with the translation philosophy and is necessary for that to perform its function.  Another thing that came to mind is I did a personal study on the word "Blessed"  because it seemed to have multiple meanings and I was sort of skeptical when people would constantly say bless you, or I want to bless you with this.  So I studied the words, and Christ is quoted using makarios which is sort of a sanctification in the sense of being above peril.  This is a gross oversimplification and there is nuance.  ANother word is eulugeton (eulugetos these are English speak for Greek words)  and it relates only to the deity and is a concept that when in God's presence he is recognized as good and praised automatically.  Again I probably don't describe it well, but it is exclusive to God and it is a quality of unmistakeable intrinsic good.  There are instances, I think if memory serves one is in I Peter?  where blessing is used in English translation to connote physical provision, but they are different Greek words and it is confusing, and I think inadequate, to have only one word for these 3 discrete concepts.  Blessed be the name of the Lord can only be understood as a testimony, not an action, and this is confusing when it is lumped in with provision and an internal happiness/security.  Knoch uses "happy" for makarios, which is not great in my opinion because it relates to the participle hap which has to do with chance (happenstance, happening)  but it at least uses a different word than the holy concept of eulogetos blessedness.  So when I have looked seriously for things, and been skeptical of this translation, time and again I have found, he has considered the concepts I have looked at at handled them carefully, and again, skeptical as I have been, I have always found this translation in harmony with my deeper studies.  I am only a lay person and study more than most, but cant consider myself expert.  I understand that people who have been conditioned to consider KJV dictated word of God, may not be ready for this translation, ad no one should deny their conscience in my belief system and understanding of Paul and Christ.  And I understand, when you view word of God as KJV, it makes sense, but again, this is a place where rigorous study of the bible, and a classical understanding of logos will teach much about John's statements concerning Christ, and to attribute the comments in John's introduction and in Hebrews 4:12 to the KJV bible, or to the Bible at all, is a distortion and a dangerous one I feel.  I know that the Westminister cathechism identifies the word of God as the 66 books, and I get it, but this is still not the logos of God (Christ) as expounded in John's introduction and I cant imagine any serious studet of the early church and the New Testament with reference to original language would think otherwise, but if I had not studied it, and relied on what I was taught in my protestant/evangelical world, I would not know that.  The whole mystical understanding of Christ is lost without a comprehension of the concept of logos, if words are to be relied on, and to make the KJV and such into Christ, seems an idolatry regardless of what respect one should have for Gospels, epistles, acts, revelation, Pentateuch, prophets....  I learned my dogmatic beliefs from them, so have to respect them, but KJV and etc alone, and their elevation to the position of Christ accords with my definition of idolatry which is the elevation of what is less than ultimate to a position of ultimacy.  Anyway, I don't recommend it for everyone, though I do recommend Jesus CHrist, the living and active logos of God, to everyone, and He is available, and yes I recommend the Bible highly once He is known. 

of course caution ...relax ..in ancient times only capital characters were in use...articles/,huh, you may ignore them,no one will ever notice :)

May YAH bless you for sharing this wonderful resource! Thank you!

The biggest problem I have with the CLV is the premise of always using one English word for one Greek word in the translation. Language is not meant to be spoken in this way. Words often time have more than one meaning. By translating with such rigid exactness this translation misses many of the idioms. The translator A.E. Knoch also uses some very questionable source Manuscripts that agree with his theology. It also is not a very readable translation lacking any flow, and often times uses outdated language. If someone is looking for a great literal translation Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and Young's Literal Translation are much more accurate, and much better translations.

I like the premise of one English word for one Greek word. It is knowing this that makes CLV a useful tool. However with that said the translation does not always hold true to this premise. As an example: Rev. 6:11


KJV "And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."


CLV "And to each of them was given a white robe, and it was declared to them that they should be resting still a little time, till their number should be completed by their fellow slaves also, and their brethren, who are about to be killed even as they were."


The word 'number' is not in any Greek MS that i'm aware of so why is it in the CLV?

Other files you may be interested in ..

26 user(s) are online (in the past 30 minutes)

3 members, 23 guests, 0 anonymous users

Leopold, Kenny Carter, holypig