"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ah53hg$aks$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <3d35ea3f.214975 at news.freeserve.net>
angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk (Angilion) writes:
> <
> <On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:26:19 GMT, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org>
> <wrote:
> <
> {...}
> <
> <Ah, I see. That makes perfect sense if you believe the Bible to be
> <the Word Of God.
> <
> <Perfect anti-science - ignore any evidence that contradicts a hypothesis.
> <Ignore all evidence, really.
> <
> <Which translation of the Bible do you take as the Word Of God, that's
> <the question.
> <
>> I'm always gobsmacked by the (rather sizeable) subset of Christians
> who believe that the King James is the one, true, and only correct
> translation into English. Apparently they feel that God wasn't
> terribly interested in pre-Elizabethan anglophones.
>>>> -- cary
The fact is that the more translations of the Holy Bible there are, the
better an understanding of it you can gain.
Looking at it from the perspectives of two or three or ten different
translators is an excellent way to clarify an important point that might
otherwise be obscured if you relied *only* on the KJV.
Also, there are some very whacked out translators who've gotten caught
trying to pull stunts like pretending that they believe that jews were
Isrealites, or that Israelites were jews.
Now, cary, what kind of translators do you think would want to pull a stunt
like that?
John Knight
