Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Different Translations in General

Sorry to bump this to the top, but I believe this is a central issue. In showing different translations of the Bible, I'm afraid we may giving a false impression of what that means. Most translations use the same early Greek manuscipts. The only difference is in intentional style. For instance the NIV attempts to translate idioms into their perceived meaning of the day whereas the NASB goes with a straight literal translation. It's not that the two, or any other versions of the Bible that translate from the Greek, are at odds. They are different styles.

Paraphrased Bibles are different as their goal is not a literal translation but a simplistic one that speaks to the audience of today. They are not meant for specific accuracy, but for people to be able to read the Bible more easily and still understand the meaning. I had a Living Bible in the 1970s, which is paraphrased. I remember one of the sayings of Jesus to the Pharisees was 'Talk is cheap'. I can tell you that was not literally in the original Greek, but was put in that form for the audience reading it to better relate. Learn together 14:22, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Personally, I strongly dislike these paraphrased bibles, most espicially The Message. I'm not even a believer, but I do have a respect for history and the cultural significence of the bible in both testaments - paraphrased 'translations' often bear little simularity to the origional text. And, though I can only speak for The Message on this, I have noticed that particular version is quite willing to subtly distort meanings to steer readers towards a desired interpretation. Most often by giving a clear, unambiguous phrasing for something which is much-disputed in the origional. If an atheist can give the text the respect a document of such sigificence deserves, I would hope believers are willing to do so as well and reject those pseudo-translations. Surely the bible is important enough to put a little effort into ensuring you are reading it correctly? I think the worst for me though is The Message doesn't even label itsself as a paraphrasing - it's introduction boasts about how it's an accurate translation direct from the origional greek. Well, it isn't. Suricou 15:07, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
I appreciate your "non-believer" comment, because at least you recognize the significance of the Bible. The vast majority of non-believers, even highly educated ones, are astoundingly ignorant about the Bible and run away from it. One could ask the most basic questions about the Bible of the top professionals and college grads and they would flunk the test in high percentages. The primary effect of atheism is to drive people away from the Bible. The more one reads it, the less atheistic one becomes.
As to the "Message", I'm not a big fan of its translation either. But I do recognize the value in "functional" (or the even looser "paraphrase") translations. The best-selling Bible today, the NIV, is a functional translation rather than a literal one. There are pros and cons to each approach.--Andy Schlafly 21:23, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on Hell

Right now this claim is very unsubstantiated. I think the readers of this article will get more out of it if we tell them how the passage about the adulterous woman conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on hell-- not merely say that it does. --Ben Talk 10:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Good point. Will try to improve it now per your suggestion.--Aschlafly 13:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Many Christians don't believe in Hell or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. See Jesus' Teaching on Hell, Samuel G. Dawson BernardH 13:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)
or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. That is not believing in Hell; that is believing in Purgatory. Bugler 05:31, 10 December 2008 (EST)

"Many Christians believe etc." What kind of argument is that? Truth is independent of belief. What "many christians believe" has no impact on the reality of Hell.

Still, no one has yet attempted to explain how the passae conflicts with Jesus' emphasis on Hell. We've sufficiently demonstrated that the passage is used (or misused) to arue against hell, but the page still doesn't explain how or why it is actually in conflict with the reality of Hell (or Jesus' emphasis thereon). --Ben Talk 10:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven in the authentic passages, with Jesus as judge. In this phony passage, however, Jesus refuses to judge and the woman never asks for forgiveness. Based on the authentic passages, she's headed for Hell. Based on the phony passage, she's not.--Aschlafly 13:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
As for emphasis on Hell or Heaven, this passage mentions neither. The passage emphasizes A) The general sinfulness of man John 8:7, The fact that there is no condemnation through Jesus Christ, (John 8:11, {see Romans 8:1}) as long as there is repentance "Go. From now on Sin no more." As for the woman not asking for forgiveness, another example of Jesus forgiving without being asked can be found in Luke 5:17-26. Biblically speaking, she is no more headed to Hell than you or I, or any other person born except for Jesus. (Romans 3:22-23) Everyone deserves Hell. Jesus offers forgiveness as a free gift to anyone who will repent. (Romans 6:23) To sum everything up, the passage does not have a bearing on the existence of Heaven or Hell, and does not contradict other passages. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 01:55, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Well put Tim, and well researched. Learn together 17:27, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Thanks. I believe that the best source for interpreting the Bible, is the Bible itself. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:22, 11 December 2008 (EST)
OK, so why does the entry now promote a version of the Bible that "amplifies" it with liberal ideology? I'm referring, of course, to the discredited "Amplified Bible," which violates John's prohibition against adding anything to the Bible.--aschlafly 23:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Actually, I think that the Amplified version simply tries to give more of the meaning of the Greek words, because it is impossible to pack all of the meaning of a Greek word into an english word. Could you give an example of where it is "amplified with liberal ideology"? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:48, 11 December 2008 (EST)
See [1].--aschlafly 00:34, 12 December 2008 (EST)
That doesn't answer Tim's question of an example of 'where it is "amplified with liberal ideology" '. I've found nowhere else on the Internet where that translator (if indeed he was, although he was involved with the translation) rejected the Amplified Bible; he did reject the NASV, but no other source says that he rejected the Amplified. Further, the argument about adding to the Bible in that reference is nonsense; Tim had it right about simply giving more of the meaning of the Greek words. Philip J. Rayment 02:46, 12 December 2008 (EST)
Also, I checked out your reference to Luke 5:17-26, and Jesus forgave sins of those who had faith. There is no indication of faith by the adulteress. Luke 5:17-26 is nothing like the adulteress story.--aschlafly 23:34, 11 December 2008 (EST)
I was simply pointing out another example of Jesus forgiving someone who did not ask. That was a minor point. Could you respond to my main points?--Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:46, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Human Ghosts?

"It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts"

I have never heard anyone claim that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts. On the contrary, it is against the idea. Could you please point out the basis for the claim that these versions have introduced the idea of human ghosts. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 14:28, 7 December 2008 (EST)

You're right that the Bible does not support the idea of human ghosts. But I've given examples now of how modern translations (erroneously) do.--Aschlafly 15:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
The examples do not show that modern translations support the idea of human ghosts. All the examples support is that modern translators believe that the people the Bible was talking about believed in human ghosts. Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)
The "commentator" mentioned in this section is a KJV-only person, who provides a poor argument overall. The quote of him is wrong (as mentioned above the examples do not show what is claimed) and should be removed. Philip J. Rayment 21:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
I would imagine that when people say that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts they are referring to 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul has a witch summon the deceased Samuel for counsel. I have always been personally surprised by the depiction of this story in the bible and I wonder if its translation has changed from the older manuscripts. --Laches 13:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)
That's a curious case! The connections between human ghosts and the Holy Ghost are patently absurd, however. I think it has to do with the German (perhaps Old-English?) rootword Geist, which means both Ghost and Spirit. Translation is often a problem. - Rod Weathers 13:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Adulteress story

I've removed some bits for the following reasons:

  • I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against capital punishment.
  • I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against hell. The reference supposedly supporting this claim was actually using the passage to argue against condemnation of any sort, as part of a larger argument against the existence of hell, but this passage itself wasn't being used to argue against hell itself.
  • I can't see how the passage conflicts with other teaching about hell.

Philip J. Rayment 21:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Quite the contrary, it's used extensively by liberal denominations who try to push the "no condemnation" "everyone is saved" view. I've personally had numerous conversations with "liberal Christians" who brought up the passage to deny Hell itself. - Rod Weathers 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Right. There's no denying how this passage is used to deny the existence of Hell (which, by the way, should be capitalized), oppose capital punishment, and even bully anyone who condemns sin in an effective way. There is already one reference to an example and more could be easily found.--Aschlafly 12:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)
I'm going to half-agree with Andy here: I have heard people (ministers included) reference this story as an argument against capital punishment, and/or to downplay the notion of harsh punishments from God. However, I must take issue with the idea that the story's "authenticity is rejected by modern biblical scholars". While some reject it entirely, and most dispute its placement, my understanding is that it is considered to be an actual Jesus story, and the implication that all scholars reject it out of hand is preposterous. At the very least, there should be a "some" inserted between "by" and "modern".--RossC 14:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Given that there's now further testimony of the passage being used to oppose hell and capital punishment, I'll accept that. However, not all the objections have been addressed.
Further, Andy's edit comment and reply here are offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated. As I have repeatedly pointed out before, it is NOT censorship to remove inaccurate information (which is what I believed this to be). Further, it is NOT a valid argument to simply declare yourself correct ("There's no denying...").
Finally, there was no explanation for the reversion of a wording change that was made at the same time.
Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Philip, your edits again distort the entry without justification. For example, you say that the passage is "misused" to deny the existence of Hell (which you notably spell with a small "h"). There is evidence that the passage is fake, but no justification for saying it is "misused". The passage, if taken at face value, does support an argument denying the existence of Hell.
The passage taken at face value does not deny the existence of Hell. It is an example of Christ's forgiveness, which he offers to everyone, regardless of the severity of their sin. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Another change is you insist on putting a website in the text rather than in a footnote, perhaps to try to downplay the (undeniable) point being made. Websites belong in the footnotes.--Aschlafly 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Your "reversion explained" does not explain the wholesale reversion of my edits including formatting changes nor much of my rewording, such as the sentence introducing the different translation comments.
The passage does not directly nor indirectly mention hell, so does not deny the existence of hell, at face value or otherwise.
The "misused" word was yours. I didn't add that.
I did not spell Hell with a lower-case "h". The only use of that in the section is in a quote that you inserted.
I did not "insist" on putting a web-site in the text. I did put it in the text, but only because it's normal practice when quoting someone to say in the text who is being quoted. As there was not an author's name to attribute it to, I attributed it to the web-site.
Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated You are skating on very thin ice with abusive comments like that. Bugler 05:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)
You have a problem with the truth? Philip J. Rayment 06:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)
You are both out of order. When comments get above six colons, the indent should be reset to the edge of the page.--CPalmer 07:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Did you just make that up, Mr. nine-colons?  :-) Philip J. Rayment 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
I thought it was a rule, but maybe I'm wrong. The amount of time I spend on here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd dreamt it.--CPalmer 09:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't know the six colon rule, CP, but I do now! As for Philip: I don't have any problem with the truth; what I do have a problem with is your increasingly aggressive and intemperate attitude towards Andy, who, as the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia is entitled to courtesty and respect, not insult. Bugler 07:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)

If I'm increasingly aggressive and intemperate toward Andy, then I'm merely following the example set by our Founder and Leader. Is there any better way to show courtesy and respect other than to try and be like him? Philip J. Rayment 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Philip, your angry and insulting comments are increasingly inappropriate. We're going to keep a high level of discourse here consistent with our purpose. Also, website references belong in footnotes, not the text.--Aschlafly 08:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
If we are going to keep a high level of discourse here, why do you insult me by ignoring my questions and comments, by calling my attempts to make the article more accurate "censorship", and calling me "liberal"? Philip J. Rayment 09:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Philip, we're building an encyclopedia here. I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk. Your edits have far too high a percentage of talk and edits that are reverted. Deleting information is censorship, and I don't think I ever called you a liberal. Supporting gun control is a liberal position; claiming that "beauty is on the eye of the beholder" is an atheistic view; and spelling Hell with a small "h" does suggest a denial of it.--Aschlafly 09:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)
You did call me a liberal, and refused to apologise for it. Deleting false information is not censorship.
I previously pointed out that I did not spell "Hell" with a lower case "h", although I now realise that although that's true in the article, I did spell it that way in at least one comment on this page. However, I would also point out that the Bible translators also spell it with a lower-case "h"![2].
Philip J. Rayment 06:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)
I don't know if using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell is a very common thing. The provided source links to a forum post, where the Adulteress Story seems like a very minor point in the guy's argument. Anyone who is trying to use that verse to deny Hell is really just grasping at straws. Could we find a better source for this? I searched briefly but found no other instance of using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell. FernoKlumpMr. Schlafly! Look at this petition! 10:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Since Mr. Aschlafly has refused to participate in discussion any further ("I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk.") and has shown no further evidence to his side other than offering ad hominum and other fallacious statements like "undeniable", why not just go with Mr. Philip Rayment's edits? It boggles the mind as to how one can push their side of the discussion without giving any sort of reason. Seems pretty simple which side to pick... Jalast Jeweler 11:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Regardless of whether you agree with other users or not, we do not tolerate personal insults on this encyclopedia, Jalast Jeweler. Please keep it civil and objective. - Rod Weathers 11:11, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we make a reference to anyone using this passage to say there is no Hell. Jesus himself says there is a Hell, more than once. Because it is not mentioned here -- at all, does not suddenly remove Jesus' direct references. It would be like my talking with Andy and his mentioning that he has two children. I would then talk with him again and he mentions he has two children. I talk with him a third time and we discuss the Republican Party. Could anyone seriously state Andy doesn't have any children because he didn't mention it when we talked again? Anyone making such a ridiculous statement should be pitied, not quoted, and the same is true with this article. Learn together 14:32, 11 December 2008 (EST)

a new kettle o' fish

I'm starting a new subsection here to explain the changes I just made to the article, and also to bypass the fussiness above, and perhaps have an actual discussion on the merits, as it were.

  • I changed "authenticity has been rejected by modern biblical scholars" to "authenticity and placement have been disputed by many modern biblical scholars" because a bit of research on the issue showed me that a few scholars think the story is totally bogus, many think it the story is accurate but misplaced, and a fair number think the story is accurate and correctly placed. Therefore, to say or imply that all agree that the story is bogus is just plain wrong.
  • I indicated somewhere above that I have indeed heard (as Andy wrote) various folks use this passage as an argument against capital punishment, and a few use it to argue against Hell in general. However, the most recent assertion that some use it to "argue against opposition to sinful behavior...(including) permissiveness to alternative lifestyles, desecration and belittlement of Christianity and Christians by the unfaithful" is just ludicrous--I've never heard anyone ever argue anything like that, ever. If that's going to be in the article, you're going to need some serious cites. Therefore, I changed it back to something like Andy first wrote (which still includes his supporting cite).--RossC 21:25, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Your second point is fine, but your first point is simply not accurate. The overwhelming consensus is that the passage is not authentic, and all modern versions of the Bible confirm this as well as all or nearly all biblical scholars across the political spectrum. Our description will reflect that, and I'm changing it now.--Aschlafly 21:34, 10 December 2008 (EST)
To avoid any contention this may cause, could either of you provide citings? That way we could be sure and add them to the article, rather than just asserting either way. --LiamG 21:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Andy, can I ask how you're defining "authentic"? I know that the Catholic Church views this passage as canonical. And Liam, I'll try to find and post some of what I've been reading, but I'll do that tomorrow, as it is past my bedtime....--RossC 22:02, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Liam, numerous citations are in this entry and in the Essay in the footnote demonstrating the passage is not authentic, and by "authentic" I mean the obvious: it was not part of the Gospel as written by John and was inserted 100 years or more after that Gospel was completed.--Aschlafly 22:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Disappearing Hell

Andy, the word in the Greek is Hades. [3] Learn together 20:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Wow, that's a great source you have there! The KJB translates "Hades" as Hell. That's what I thought it meant. Do you feel otherwise?--aschlafly 20:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
It is a good source. ;-) I just wish they'd also give translations for the Old Testament Septuagint.
The modern translations are just being literal when they translate is as Hades. I believe it's fair to translate it as Hell. Gehenna is usually translated as Hell more often because it has the direct reference to a burning fire. Gehenna would be referenced to appeal to the Jewish perspective and Hades for the Greek. Both cultures were prominent in Palestine at that time. Learn together 01:17, 12 December 2008 (EST)


I'm trying to put this link in from Biblelogos and the spam filter keeps stopping me! --Ṣ₮ёVeN 20:02, 12 December 2008 (EST)


What is the distinction between God and the Spirit of God? And why is it Liberal to use the term God rather than Spirit of God?--TuckerM 20:59, 15 December 2008 (EST)

The distinction is between "wind" and "Spirit of God".--aschlafly 15:14, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Ending of Mark's Gospel

Would it be a good idea to add the ending of Mark's Gospel? Some versions (eg the New English Bible I used for Essay:Jesus' emphasis on Heaven and Hell have a much longer concluding paragraph than eg the KJV.--CPalmer 14:33, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, let's look at that. A new section would be welcome on this!--aschlafly 15:13, 19 December 2008 (EST)
I would say no, its an addition. And changes the reading of the whole Gospel. Would be rather dishonest of a conservative bible to include items we know were added.

Significance of "The Past"

I'm not sure what the significance is of there not being references to the past in the Gospels of the New Testament. Hopefully, an answer here can be added to the main page as part of the corresponding section there. I searched the KJV and found numerous references to the past in the Old Testament, which I doubt anyone considers secular. There are also references in Mark 10 to Jesus discussing the past in terms of time of Moses, and the nature of marriage since creation: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". What I'm failing to understand, then, is what the lack of references to "the past" in the New Testament is supposed to represent. If this can be clarified it will help improve the article. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 22:07, 5 January 2009 (EST)

The lack of reference is striking. I'm reluctant to expressly draw conclusions but it casts doubt on whether one's personal past exists in any meaningful way. The atheistic reliance on a personal past seems incorrect in light of this information.--Andy Schlafly 22:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Okay, that sheds some light, but it would help if you could point me to an essay or article that expands on what you mean by "the atheistic reliance on a personal past". Is that another way of saying that atheists rely too much on on their individual education and experience? If so, it doesn't make much sense because each of us, including conservatives like yourself, developed our worldview through a lifetime of learning and experience. The difference would be in where each of us draws our education from over time - school, family, ongoing readying and self-study, Church, etc., and the different experiences of our lives. If I'm missing your point please correct me. --DinsdaleP 22:26, 5 January 2009 (EST)
I would like to mention that the KJV and NKJV both have "past" in at least one Gospel. Note also that whoever wrote this passage used the wrong translations. They only used the ASV from Biblelogos but he attributes them to NASB, RSV, and lastly the HCSB.--Lynus 15:42, 8 January 2009 (EST)
The translations are correct and there is no mistake about the KJV and NKJV. Both use the term "past" in a trivial way and for a different meaning from its common substantive usage today.--Andy Schlafly 21:24, 8 January 2009 (EST)
You misunderstand what I said. All I stated was that the Biblelogos passages are all from the ASV. Hover over the boxes and you will see right next to the chapter and verse, ASV. I believe those were your edits, Andy. You simply need to recode them because they are from the wrong versions.
I don't get where you are saying that the usages are different from modern ones. "and the time is now past", "And when the sabbath was past", "Now when the Sabbath was past". You could certainly argue, and I would agree that they do not represent the past as in someone's history but modern usages
do take into account these particular meanings of "before the present". So to say that they use a "trivial" version is grossly incorrect in that you would be hard pressed to find a person who wouldn't come up with "before the present" in reference to the past.--Lynus 22:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Lynus, you're referring to the use of Biblelogos in some browsers. I don't see it in my browser; the entry here does not reference it once; and no one is saying that the NASB (is that what you mean by "ASV"?) is all wrong.
Your point about the "past" is equally confused. "One's past" does not merely refer to time before the present. We're being substantive here and you're relying on a trivial usage that you found.--Andy Schlafly 23:16, 8 January 2009 (EST)
I went and loaded this page in Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer and all 3 showed popup boxes when the mouse hovered over Luke 1:3 and right next to that text, still within the box are the letters ASV which stands for American Standard Version which you can see for yourself if you click "more" at the bottom of the box which takes you to Biblelogos. On the righthand side is the bible version that is being used which is the ASV but in the page boxes it says they refer to different versions.
My point in the past is actually coming from your prior comments concerning the usage of "past". You came up with a possible hypothesis that states, "I'm reluctant to expressly draw conclusions but it casts doubt on whether one's personal past exists in any meaningful way. The atheistic reliance on a personal past seems incorrect in light of this information." This implies that you mean "past" as in someones history which is what I referred to. The passages I brought up referred to "before the present" and these meanings are still in use today and I would argue are the primary meaning of the term today. Therefore they are not trivial and you are incorrect to say that the Bible uses versions of "past" that are no longer used today. I gave you dictionary links from websites you personally have cited and both show the "before the present" meaning of "past"--Lynus 23:44, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Original Greek

I think it would be of immense use and interest to many readers if the passages used as examples included the original Greek above them. In that way translations can be compared to the original text. Perhaps this site will be of help. GillianP 13:34, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I agree completely. This page seems woefully incomplete without any information that might help a reader determine which competing translation is more accurate. henscratch
You're replying to a comment that is 9 months old, and you haven't contributed anything else. May I say that your sincerity is in doubt?--Andy Schlafly 21:01, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
I think adding the Greek would improve the article. Do you disagree? I'm surprised that in nine months, no action has been taken on a very good suggestion, and it wasn't even discussed.henscratch
Please contribute here first, and only afterward honor us with your suggestions. For example, don't you think you might be able to work on one verse, just one? It's not that difficult and I'm sure you can do it. (In response to your question, no, I don't think adding all the Greek would be an improvement on this concise resource; other sites do that well for those who are interested, and we use those sites often.)--Andy Schlafly 19:25, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
I absolutely could work on one verse, but I don't want to add the Greek if the consensus is that doing so would be counterproductive. Or do you mean that I should work on a different page before making suggestions here?
I always thought the polite thing to do on a wiki was make suggestions on a comment page before making any changes to that page. I'm trying not to step on any toes here. --Henscratch 20:09, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
If you think the Greek adds something special, then please feel free to include in the comment portion. But we're about thinking and learning here. Simply wholesale copying of many verses of Greek, without even translating it, would be counterproductive.--Andy Schlafly 20:14, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
"Simply wholesale copying of many verses of Greek, without even translating it, would be counterproductive." I agree with that. I guess I was thinking more about cases like the "with child" / "pregnant" distinction, where discussion of maybe one or two words of the original text would be helpful. Definitely there are longer sections where just pasting in a huge chunk of the original would be pointless cluttering of the article. --Henscrath 20:19, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
Fine, but what are you waiting for? All you've been doing is talking. This is a wiki. Substantive edits are the name of this game. I look forward to seeing you do some.--Andy Schlafly 21:07, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
Which greek texts are you going to rely on then? Even Nestle is a conglomerate. Any why not include while we are at it the Coptic? --StephenDeloney 02:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Perhaps we could use Strong's. I actually did so before coming across this discussion. --Nouniquenames 01:42, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

With Child vs Pregnant

It seems an incredible leap to suggest that using "pregnant" in the translation as an alternative to "with child" is down to perjorative language. To me "With Child" is simply a more archaic expression for terms more likely to be used today such as expecting or pregnant unless one happened to be having a decidely poetic day. The view of pregnancy that may be expoused by those who support aborion differs from my own view of a child existing, but that to me is their error of their view of what being pregnant means. The word itself is not a problem in the context of the translation. DavidMilton 21:14, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools