Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 478:
Line 478: + + + + + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 01:03, November 11, 2009
, 01:03, November 11, 2009→Sources: reply, with apology
::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.)
::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)
:: 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)
:::JosephMac, please accept my apology. I was too flippant in my reply.
::: Luke 23:34, Mark 16:9-20 and the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] are plainly not authentic and won't be in this translation. At least two of the three are markedly [[liberal]] in their message, and the third (Mark 16:9-20) has caused harm in encouraging people to try to pick up snakes or drink bad stuff. But removing these insertions in no way denies the Resurrection or the Trinity, which are thoroughly described in the same and other books.
::: I don't know about 1 John 5:7-8 but we're not picking and choosing here. If the passage is not authentic, then that's the fact and we're not trying to manipulate anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 10 November 2009 (EST)
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==