:::To me there is something fundamentally wrong with a translation if you make no attempt to claim that it is the "right" version. I would much rather read a version of the Bible that claimed it was the correct version than one which made no such claim. If no modern Bible makes that claim, then that is probably why I stick to the KJV. Another thing: the Bible was written by the public? If by public you mean well-to-do individuals, then I agree. Matthew was a tax collector, Mark was related to the wealthy Barnabas (Acts 4:36) and was the son of the wealthy Mary, Luke was a doctor, Paul was a government official. Only John, a fisherman, could rightfully be counted as a "common man" in his occupation. (Did I miss any of the authors?) | :::To me there is something fundamentally wrong with a translation if you make no attempt to claim that it is the "right" version. I would much rather read a version of the Bible that claimed it was the correct version than one which made no such claim. If no modern Bible makes that claim, then that is probably why I stick to the KJV. Another thing: the Bible was written by the public? If by public you mean well-to-do individuals, then I agree. Matthew was a tax collector, Mark was related to the wealthy Barnabas (Acts 4:36) and was the son of the wealthy Mary, Luke was a doctor, Paul was a government official. Only John, a fisherman, could rightfully be counted as a "common man" in his occupation. (Did I miss any of the authors?) |