Another bible version

did you read the article? If so you'd know that they're "translating" the Bible because they feel the "liberal bias" has corrupted the true scripture, which goes pretty much directly against what I quoted from you.

 

Sorry, I cant have a discussion with someone who doesnt know the difference between rewrite and translate. I guess you win.

 

i think they're misusing the word translate. it looked like they are rewriting it -- they're using the KJV and just swapping out words.

 

from the website:

6.Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7.Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8.Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story
9.Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

none of that is mere translation.

 

It's all about making God in our own image.

 

The Apostles spoke Greek?

 

Maybe not all of them but certainly most of them spoke Greek. An extremely high percentage of Jews spoke Greek as a second language and almost all of the priest, scholar, and merchant classes did.

Greek was the universal language of the day.

A small bit of quick research could have saved you the embarrassment you hoped to bestow on me.

 

WOW I really do think you hit the nail right on the head.

 

which bible are you talking about exactly? i doubt very much that the hebrew bible was written originally in greek.

which part of the new testament can be found in the dead sea scrolls exactly?

in fact, speaking of the dead sea scrolls, of the different texts found, only like 40% of them are in the hebrew bible. isn't editing the content equivalent to rewriting?

the new testament was molded over many years by different subgroups. while pretty much all christians agree on the books included in the new testament, there's a lot of variation about what books are in the old testament.

also, what about the whole Q source thing? you think that's bogus? the idea that matthew and luke were rewrites of mark and some other common source, with some extra stuff thrown in.

what about the stuff that wasn't included? should a new bible translation include it too?

 

The Q source is an idiotic attempt to explain why the Gospels tell the same story. Could there be some mysterious "Q" source that no one can produce or even show existed?

Or could it be different retellings of the same events witnessed? The Q source theory is stupid.