On Sunday 20 April 2008 13:55, Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh wrote: > > There are whole churches who maintain that the KJV is the only > > "correct" translation. > > People like what is familiar. THE KJV is a pretty lousy version of > the bible, if your main criterion is to come as close as possible to > the original texts. KJV was based mostly on the Latin Vulgate. This > happened before several key discoveries. One, that the Greek bible > translations were more original than the Vulgate. The other > discoveries were scripture texts discovered mostly in the 19th > century which obviously predated the Vulgate and many of the texts on > which the Greek translations are based. > > Nevertheless, simpletons insist that it is *the* Bible, just as they > embrace certain passages and reject others only to reinforce what > they wish the bible to say. > > > The original languages were things like Greek, Hebrew and > > Aramaic, why not just learn those languages and have no translation > > at all? > > I'm not sure I get your point.
Hi Ken! Why, to satisfy the skeptics and/or purists, of course. -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
