Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 578:
Line 578: + + + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 06:01, September 4, 2012
, 06:01, September 4, 2012→Textus Receptus vs. Westcott & Hort: new section
I changed the sentence ''We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'' to ''We completed '''a first draft of''' our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'': still there are parts of verses missing (see e.g., [[Luke_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter 1|Luke 1:45]]) and the whole translation isn't proofread. So it seems downright dangerous to call it a ''complete translation'' (see [[Revelation 16-22 (Translated)#Chapter 22|Rev 22:19]]). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
I changed the sentence ''We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'' to ''We completed '''a first draft of''' our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'': still there are parts of verses missing (see e.g., [[Luke_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter 1|Luke 1:45]]) and the whole translation isn't proofread. So it seems downright dangerous to call it a ''complete translation'' (see [[Revelation 16-22 (Translated)#Chapter 22|Rev 22:19]]). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
== Textus Receptus vs. Westcott & Hort ==
As far as I can see most of the translations follow the [[Textus Receptus]] (any paraphrasing of the KJB would seem to do so), while there are a few verses obviously translated from [[Westcott & Hort]]. Is there any guideline which telling us which version is preferable? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)