Talk:Bible translations

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


If anyone wants, I have a NASB from which I can pull their translation notes where they come out and tell you that there are certain passages that may not have been in the original text. They use italics anywhere that a word is not literally word for word from the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic. There's also always notes letting you know what the literal meaning of the passage is. For passages that don't appear in certain earlier passages, they also make mention of that. --D3matt 22:43, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Verbosity and confusion are not desirable.--Andy Schlafly 23:02, 11 October 2009 (EDT)


If we're going to be intellectually honest, there needs to be a much harsher criticism of the KJV. The original intentions of the translation were not entirely honorable. The original manuscript had terrible errors (thou shalt commit adultery?). There are countless passages that are rendered from very poorly to being downright heretical. We Conservatives should not be afraid of truth, especially as far as The Good News is concerned. --D3matt 22:43, 11 October 2009 (EDT)


Wow... Just wow...

* Lucifer means "morning star" [1]
* capstones are even more important than cornerstones
* I'll leave Luke 1:15 alone...  there's a note in my NIV stating that it literally is "Or from his mother's womb"

--D3matt 22:43, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Most people don't know what a "capstone" is. I don't know why you downplay Luke 1:15, as footnotes don't change the text. Lucifer has a religious meaning.--Andy Schlafly 23:01, 11 October 2009 (EDT)