104
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 472:
Line 472: + + + + + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 00:28, November 11, 2009
, 00:28, November 11, 2009→Sources: Choice of sources
:Echoing Bert's remarks, there are numerous independent accounts of the Resurrection and the Trinity. But obviously not every liberal description of them is authentic. Logic is powerful, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)
:Echoing Bert's remarks, there are numerous independent accounts of the Resurrection and the Trinity. But obviously not every liberal description of them is authentic. Logic is powerful, isn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 November 2009 (EST)
:: Andy, Bert: I'm not being facetious. Bert, this isn't about the reality of the Resurrection or the Trinity, it's about which text the Conservative Bible should be based on. Andy, you said you want to omit the Pericope Adulterae and "Father forgive them" (Luke 23:34). I take this to mean you want to use an early (=authentic?) version of the Bible. The very early texts that omit P.A. and Luke 23:34 also omit Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7-8. I'd say you have two main choices for the text to use in your translation project:
::1. The canonical text, agreed by scholars from the 9th century to the present, which includes all four of these passages. This would be the least controversial and most widely-accepted choice.
::2. A very early text, based on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which are similar but not identical), implying that you're striving for authenticity and closeness to the original text. These omit all four passages.
::I suppose you could also go for a compromise such as using St Jerome's Vulgate; this includes P.A., Luke 23:34 and Mark 16:9-20 but omits 1 John 5:7-8. I think a serious attempt to use any text other than these three would mean getting involved in some intensive scholarship to compare ''tens of thousands'' of textual variations. How well prepared are you for this? (The four passages I've mentioned are very, very far from being the only ones which are controversial from the point of view of textual criticism but they're probably those with the greatest theological implications.)
:: What I think would be unacceptable would be basing your text on one source (e.g. the canonical text) but picking and choosing particular verses you do or don't happen to agree with personally. The Bible is the Word of God, after all, not the Word of American Conservatives! [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:28, 10 November 2009 (EST)
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==