----- Original Message ----- From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Bible translations Re: Tragedy in Israel
> > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Well, he certainly is not unbiased. :-) I've heard the Oxford > Annotated > > (with apocrapha) quoted as the best from most sources. Jerusalem/New > > Jerusalem is generally considered to be the more scholarly Catholic > bible. > > Its interesting that most non-Catholic bibles are starting to sneak the > > books taken out by the Westminster confession. Also, its worth noting > that > > the first King James bible had them in. > > Which goes back to King-James-Onlyism. > Well, the reason I thought it was interesting is that most King-James-Onlyists believe that the Catholics stuck "those extra books" in. I find it interesting in a very ironic sort of way. King James is, of course, a bad translation, with extra bits stuck in for theological reasons. Dan M.
