Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 49:
Line 49: + + +
Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 01:56, October 27, 2009
, 01:56, October 27, 2009→==
4. And as noted before, the misappropriation of Scripture text by enemies is not odd, but logical, and cannot itself warrant their exclusion, lest we remove the 75% percent (i think) of the KJV which the BOM is said to plagiarize! Good day. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:42, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
4. And as noted before, the misappropriation of Scripture text by enemies is not odd, but logical, and cannot itself warrant their exclusion, lest we remove the 75% percent (i think) of the KJV which the BOM is said to plagiarize! Good day. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:42, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
:I think there's definitely a precedent for eliminating passages with questionable textual support (e.g. the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8). However, even in the cases where the text is almost certainly much later, such as the longer ending of Mark, it could be a good idea to at least provide a note, along the lines of "Some manuscripts add..." just to avoid charges of manipulating the text. Even very liberal translations often do that type of thing. (Of course, they are still criticized for "tampering with the Word of God," but a little footnote can go a long way toward eliminating that kind of charge.) Just a thought.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 14:59, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
:I think there's definitely a precedent for eliminating passages with questionable textual support (e.g. the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8). However, even in the cases where the text is almost certainly much later, such as the longer ending of Mark, it could be a good idea to at least provide a note, along the lines of "Some manuscripts add..." just to avoid charges of manipulating the text. Even very liberal translations often do that type of thing. (Of course, they are still criticized for "tampering with the Word of God," but a little footnote can go a long way toward eliminating that kind of charge.) Just a thought.--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 14:59, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
::I do not think Mark left an abrupt ending, and better to include such, and then put a note. In fact, I still hold to my assertion that outside updating words, no real revision is necessary. The KJV does not produce liberals, though cults use it for its power, and providing sound conservative commentary is far far better than a "thought for thought" translation which does a substantial amount of revision, largely driven by attempts by liberals to hijacking the text.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:56, 26 October 2009 (EDT)