> 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. I trust scholars (from diverse religious beliefs) to do the "heavy lifting" for me. Of course, they don't all agree. Just like any ideological struggle, there are "scholars" who decide what the bible "means" and retrofit their translations to accommodate their predisposition. I prefer those who examine the texts first, figure out which are the closest to the original (which is a science unto itself) then decide what they mean. Ken _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] 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.
