18
edits
Changes
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 17:32, October 9, 2009
, 17:32, October 9, 2009no edit summary
:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, and instead replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comforts ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, and instead replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comforts ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)