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
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 497:
Line 497: + + + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 20:34, November 11, 2009
, 20:34, November 11, 2009→Sources: It's interesting how some critics of our public-based Bible translation overlook that the Bible itself was written by the public.
:I'm getting cold feet about taking part in this project. I'm sorry, but "patching fragments from here and there on the internet" doesn't sound like a rigorous approach to compiling the source document for translation. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 14:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:I'm getting cold feet about taking part in this project. I'm sorry, but "patching fragments from here and there on the internet" doesn't sound like a rigorous approach to compiling the source document for translation. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 14:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)
::What "sounds like a rigorous approach" is not always one in fact, and vice-versa. In fact, there is nothing wrong with using the earliest manuscript fragments. All modern translations (except perhaps the [[NKJV]]) take this approach. The CS and CV versions that you seem to prefer were themselves copied from partial works. Indeed, the Bible itself was originally written that way.
::It's interesting how some critics of our public-based Bible translation overlook that the Bible itself was written by the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==