| | At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | | At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | :I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. So, two things: |
| | + | *If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT) |