To: SJackson
That's an incorrect translation, not corruption, easily solved by reading an accurate translation from the Hebrew, or the Hebrew itself.And you are blind, yet you have eyes.
I agree. It is INTENTIONALLY an incorrect translation, hence, man has corrupted the Bible.
353 posted on
12/11/2008 11:31:30 AM PST by
Erik Latranyi
(Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
To: Erik Latranyi; SJackson
It is INTENTIONALLY an incorrect translation, hence, man has corrupted the Bible.The King James version also says "Thou shalt not kill." Is it your intention that King James I was a pacifist or wanted his people to be pacifists?
355 posted on
12/11/2008 11:47:57 AM PST by
Mr. Silverback
("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
To: Erik Latranyi; Mr. Silverback
And you are blind, yet you have eyes....I agree. It is INTENTIONALLY an incorrect translation, hence, man has corrupted the Bible. I don't know that it was intentional, it may be. There certainly are many offbeat translations of both the New and Old Testaments, many made with specific audiences in mind. However that's not an indication of corruption of the source, rather the readers choice. The original is out there for anyone who chooses to read it, as are translations from the Hebrew which don't have meaningful differences between them.
359 posted on
12/11/2008 12:13:45 PM PST by
SJackson
(The American people are wise in wanting change, 2 terms is plenty, Condi Rice)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson