|
Front Door Vistors | by JedaiBesk | 2003-02-27 05:42:17 |
|
Which is why you should always speak properly. | by pecosdave | 2003-02-27 05:44:53 |
|
slight correction | by plblark | 2003-02-27 06:43:12 |
|
Calling NOLAWitch... | by Naruki | 2003-02-27 06:59:20 |
|
It just bugs me a little is all... | by plblark | 2003-02-27 07:05:14 |
|
At a guess, I'd say the "Jesus Christ" part. ;-P | by Naruki | 2003-02-27 07:13:20 |
|
heh! | by plblark | 2003-02-27 07:34:23 |
|
I'd have to disagree on that first sentence | by Egaeus | 2003-02-27 08:08:38 |
|
well, yes, if it WERE the word of god directly | by plblark | 2003-02-27 08:22:06 |
|
So then | by Egaeus | 2003-02-27 08:34:34 |
|
I think His rules are plain enough | by slacktime | 2003-02-27 08:57:53 |
|
Following the second one usually gets the police | by Naruki | 2003-02-27 09:23:16 |
|
Hmmm | by slacktime | 2003-02-27 09:34:49 |
|
Question | by Egaeus | 2003-02-27 09:53:11 |
| The KJV is as good a translation |
by slacktime |
2003-02-27 10:11:39 |
| as any of the modern versions, and in fact from what I've read in the modern versions differing translations have each had additional "improvements" to make to "enhance" the readability. No thank you, the KJV is flawed, but why add more flaws by trading off to a newer translation. Sure I suppose we could put LDS scholors to work and produce an "LDS" bible that we think is more accurate, in fact Joseph Smith started to do that but was unable to complete his work before he was killed, and we use excerpts from his work to enhance the meaning of difficult or obscure passages. But we already have enough problems with other Christian creeds, at least the KJV is an accepted translation by most protestant religions. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Wow, talk about missing the point. | by Naruki | 2003-02-27 10:13:55 |
|
perhaps, no axe to grind... | by slacktime | 2003-02-27 10:19:29 |
|
Whoosh! | by Naruki | 2003-02-27 10:22:30 |
