| Line 62: |
Line 62: |
| | :::I guess this goes to my biggest concern about this project, so I'll get it out of my system here. I like the KJV, and find the prose beautiful even if it can be archaic at times. When I first heard of this project, I was surprised at the degree to which people were willing to change Biblical text and still call it "The Bible", but that is the nature of the Bible, after all. The Old Testament found in a synagogue would not be the same as the one in the Bible of my church, so we have to decide for ourselves what version(s) to use as a guide in our lives. | | :::I guess this goes to my biggest concern about this project, so I'll get it out of my system here. I like the KJV, and find the prose beautiful even if it can be archaic at times. When I first heard of this project, I was surprised at the degree to which people were willing to change Biblical text and still call it "The Bible", but that is the nature of the Bible, after all. The Old Testament found in a synagogue would not be the same as the one in the Bible of my church, so we have to decide for ourselves what version(s) to use as a guide in our lives. |
| | :::I would liked to have seen this project be more of a "Conservative's Annotated Bible", which would be a great counterpoint to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, rather than a re-translation of the Word of God itself. That's why I won't make any edits to the content pages itself other than the cleanup of obvious spelling and/or grammar errors. If these actions or my input above is unwelcome then tell me and I'll move on, but I want to try and represent the views of someone who sees himself as a conservative even if they don't line up with the mainstream here. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:33, 23 December 2009 (EST) | | :::I would liked to have seen this project be more of a "Conservative's Annotated Bible", which would be a great counterpoint to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, rather than a re-translation of the Word of God itself. That's why I won't make any edits to the content pages itself other than the cleanup of obvious spelling and/or grammar errors. If these actions or my input above is unwelcome then tell me and I'll move on, but I want to try and represent the views of someone who sees himself as a conservative even if they don't line up with the mainstream here. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:33, 23 December 2009 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::Chris, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'm glad you like the [[KJV]]; so do I. But fewer and fewer people, even Christians, are reading it. It's becoming as archaic as the Latin Vulgate. Adhering to the KJV doesn't address the problem of how most people are given increasingly liberal distortions of the Bible; adhering to the KJV does not evangelize. With each passing year, the KJV's share of the market decreases, and that's not likely to change. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::The NIV, which overtook the KJV in sales two decades ago, erases many references to the unborn child and thereby falsely leads readers to support, or acquiesce, in abortion. Should we silently stand by and allow such deception? Of course not. A conservative approach to translation can catch and correct such distortions more efficiently than any other approach. A conservative translation can also most effectively communicate the message of the Bible in our modern, CNN-saturated culture. Of course our project will encounter issues like the Luke verse you mention above, and in good faith we'll sort those out with full respect for the original intent. I hope you can be part of this important work, even more than you have been. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::Translating the Bible has always sparked controversy. But liberals have already been doing it, and silently permitting their distortions to spread is not an acceptable option.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 23 December 2009 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | == Earthly == | | == Earthly == |