Changes

:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be antique, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly.

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)