BOSTON--Mitt Romney insists he has hardly thought about running for president: "That's a decision you make way down the road." With the 2008 election 1,039 days away, that's fair enough. But I'm guessing he'll run. Posted on 12/31/2005 8:23:19 AM PST by monkapotamus
Latter-day President?
A Mitt Romney candidacy would test the religious right.
BY JAMES TARANTO
Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
BOSTON--Mitt Romney insists he has hardly thought about running for president: "That's a decision you make way down the road." With the 2008 election 1,039 days away, that's fair enough. But I'm guessing he'll run.
I first met Mr. Romney in September at New York's Monday Meeting, a conclave of right-leaning movers and shakers who gather to hear politicians from around the country make pitches for support. This month, after it emerged that the backing Mr. Romney sought was not for re-election as governor of Massachusetts, I visited him at the Statehouse here. "I will accomplish in my term the objectives that I set out to accomplish, or some will be rejected and I wouldn't get them done in the second term anyway," he tells me. "There's no reason to hang around and warm the chair, taking advantage of the perks and fun of office, if the agenda is complete." What he doesn't say is that there's also no reason for a governor to risk defeat if he has his eye on the White House.
The governor's office is equipped with a fireplace, making it a rarity in 21st-century politics: a smoke-filled room. Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon, abjures not only tobacco but also alcohol and coffee. A 58-year-old Detroit native, he is a businessman-turned-politician like his late father, George, who was chairman of American Motors Corp. before serving six years as governor of Michigan. George Romney ran for president in 1968 but famously withdrew after attributing his support for the Vietnam War to "brainwashing" at the hands of U.S. generals.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Concerning "adding to the Bible". This person packed down when confronted.
boxers or briefs? or?
we know the slander here.
?...Latter-day President, Pope,.Shah,...or False-PROPHET?
If he's LDS then how many 1st ladies will we have?
We know the Lie here. It's easy to lie without lying.
The Great Bible, 1539-41
In September, 1538, Henry VIII commanded that every parish church should have “one book of the whole Bible of the largest volume in English.” Two complete Bibles were now circulating, Coverdale’s and Matthew’s; while scholars found Coverdale’s unsatisfactory because it was not based on original-language texts, conservatives found the explanatory notes in Matthew’s Bible (and its connection with Tyndale) to be offensive. A new, official Bible was therefore planned, and Coverdale was chosen to be the editor, but it was Matthew’s Bible that was chosen as the basis for the revised text. This was a very influential work; it was the model for the principal later translations, including the King James Bible.
The new Bible was to be printed in Paris, for technical reasons, but when this proved impossible printers, machinery, type and paper were sent to England and the project was completed there. Henry VIII issued a proclamation that this Bible should be read in the churches, and copies were chained to stands in various parts of the larger churches, although later only licensed persons were allowed to read or expound the Bible in church or in any open gathering.
After Henry’s death in 1547, his successor, Edward VI, again commanded that there be a copy of the Bible in every parish church, and even under Queen Mary the English Bible was not forbiden, although many copies were destroyed.
The Geneva Bible, 1560
During the reign of Queen Mary, a number of strongly-Protestant scholars and clerics found it necessary to leave England. Many of them, including John Knox, went to Geneva, where they began working on a new translation of the Bible into English. The New Testament and the Psalms were produced in 1557, followed by a revised Psalter in 1559 and a complete Bible in 1560. This Geneva translation benefited from the fact that Geneva was a significant centre of (Protestant) Biblical study. Furthermore, French and Italian vernacular translations were being prepared there at the same time, and each group of translators benefited from the presence and activity of the others.
Although the last edition of the Geneva Bible was printed in 1644, its influence can be seen both in the language of later translations and in the physical structure of the volume. The Geneva Bible provided not only a meticulously-translated text but also variant translations where they might be useful. Where English idiom requires additional words to make sense of a Greek or Hebrew phrase, the additional words were printed in italics. Chapters were divided into verses to make it easier to give references and so to use concordances, and the text is annotated to some degree. Maps and tables were provided, and the volume was printed in quarto size rather than folio, for greater ease of handling. This was also the first time that an English Bible was printed in Roman, rather than Gothic, script.
The Geneva Bible became for many years the favoured family Bible among the English, and was the first Bible to be printed in Scotland.
View Matthew 6.9-13 (Lord's Prayer) in the Geneva version.
The Rhemes-Douay Bible, 1582-1609
These earlier translations were all Protestant in outlook. Some of the scholars of the English College at Reims, who had left England when Elizabeth I ascended the throne, began working on a vernacular Bible that would be suitable for Catholics to use. Begun in 1578, the New Testament was completed in 1582 (and had some influence on the language of the King James Version), but the translation of the Old Testament was not published until 1609/10. It was based on the Latin Vulgate, although in the New Testament some reference was also made to the Greek.
By the time the translation was complete, the College had moved to Douai, so this translation came to be known as the Rhemes-Douay Bible, after the two cities in which the work was done. The style of English in the text was often clumsy or difficult to understand, and its annotations were strongly critical of Protestant teachings.
The Authorised Version of King James, 1611
King James I came to the throne in 1603 after the death of Elizabeth. In an attempt to resolve some of the significant religious controversies of the day, the new king summoned the Hampton Court Conference in January of the following year.
During the conference Dr John Reynolds of Oxford, speaking for the Puritan faction, proposed that a new translation or revision of the Bible be made that would have the approval of all religious groups. James decided to take a personal interest in the work, supporting the idea with enthusiasm and vigour, and fifty-four scholars were appointed to undertake it. Groups of committee members were assigned to work on certain sections of the text.
Careful rules were laid down, and editing and supervision were meticulous. Also, knowledge of Hebrew and also of related languages such as Aramaic and Syriac had advanced considerably in the years since Tyndale and his immediate successors had been at work. As a result, the King James Version was not only reasonably harmonious in style, but it was also more accurate than any previous English translation. Even so, a lack of access to good editions of original-language texts and a still-imperfect knowledge of the original-language idioms, and even, in some cases, of their grammar, meant that it had significant limitations.
The enormous work of translation and revision took almost three years, and the final editors, Bishop Bilson of Winchester and Miles Smith (later Dean of Gloucester), checked it over for a further nine months before completion. Although it was then published without formal authorisation by King James or the hierarchy of the church, it immediately replaced other translations for use in churches, and within fifty years had even largely replaced the Geneva Bible as the favoured Bible for private use.
It is important to remember that this was a full Bible, including the books of the Deuterocanon/ Apocrypha, unlike many of the KJV Bibles printed today; however, the books (or chapters of books) which had only Greek original were not given the same status as the rest of the text. These additional sections were regarded as suitable for public reading and for reflection; no teaching based principally on them could be regarded as "necessary for salvation", but reading from books such as Sirach were included in the Anglican lectionary, and the stories contained in the Apocrypha were so much "common currency" that George Frederic Handel (1685-1759) based some of his oratorios on them.
V Revised English Versions
After the King James Version, no other lasting revisions of the English Bible appeared for almost two hundred and fifty years. However, during the nineteenth century, more ancient manuscripts were discovered, and the increased knowledge gained through the continuing work of scholars and through archaeological discoveries in the Middle East began to throw light on some of the difficult or obscure passages in the text. Over the centuries, the English language itself had also changed considerably. Although the great authority which the 17th-century text had gained by this time made any change difficult, there was a growing need to incorporate this new knowledge in the text, and to adjust the style of its language so that it could again be readily understood.
In 1870, at a convention of the Church of England, the Bishop of Winchester proposed that a new revision be made, and a committee representing various denominations was appointed. Shortly afterwards, American scholars were invited to take part in the work, and documents were frequently exchanged between New York and London. In 1881, a revision of the New Testament was published, and in 1885 the complete Bible appeared. Where the preferences of the American Revision Committee differed from those of the English scholars, they were printed in an appendix. In 1901 the American Standard Revised Version was published, with these and other changes in the text.
Twentieth Century Translations of the Bible
The beginning of this century saw a renewal of interest in Biblical studies, stimulated in part by the missionary movements of the 19th century and in part by a continued growth in critical scholarship and the development of archaeology as an academic discipline rather than merely a curio-hunt for the wealthy. Greater knowledge of the original languages of the Bible, and of the history and the cultural patterns of the various peoples of ancient times, began to lead to a better understanding of the text than had been possible for translators in earlier centuries. The discovery of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” in 1947, in caves at Qumran near the Dead Sea, gave us copies of texts 1000 years older than the earliest Hebrew manuscripts previously known, and archaeologists have continued to find fragments and even extended sections of text going back to the very early centuries of the common era. Yet ordinary Christians were not getting any direct benefit from this greater understanding of the meaning of Scripture.
The preparation of new translations was also stimulated by a growing need for churches and for ordinary people to have access to God’s word in language that they could more easily understand. Indeed, some now argue that, because all languages are continuously changing and developing, no major translation should go for more than fifty years without a thorough revision. We should remember that one of the objectives of the translators of the King James Version in 1611 was to express the word of God in the language of common use. In fact, the King James Version was the seventh revision of the Bible in English since Wycliffe’s Bible of 1383. Revision of the translated text is not, therefore, just a 20th century phenomenon; indeed, since 1611, there have been nearly 40 different English versions of the whole Bible, almost 100 additional translations of the New Testament, and over 150 published English translations of at least one book of the New Testament.
The translations by James Moffatt (1926) and by Ronald Knox in the middle of this century gained considerable acceptance, and the most significant English versions since 1950 include the following versions
Revised Standard Version, 1952
New Revised Standard Version, 1990
With publication authorised by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, this was intended to be a revision of the King James, the English Revised, and the American Standard versions, rather than a fresh translation. Like most traditional translations, it is rather literal. The New RSV is an up-to-date and very readable revision of the 1952 text, and is the work of an interdenominational team of scholars headed by Bruce M. Metzger, a leading scholar of the text of the New Testament.
J. B. Phillips New Testament, 1958
New Testament in Modern English, 1970
Many people regard Phillips’ “Letters to Young Churches” (1947) as the first translation to use the principles of “functional equivalence”, that is, translation based on meaning (sometimes called “thought-for-thought”), rather than literal (“word-for-word”) rendering. The 1970 edition is a full revision of his earlier work, based on the latest and best Greek text, and Phillips in fact refers to it as a new translation.
New American Standard Bible, 1963
Although the name given to this version would suggestion that it is a revision of the American Standard version, it is actually a conservative and scholarly new translation. It makes use of the latest available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and aims “to follow the principles used in the ASV.”
Jerusalem Bible, 1966
New Jerusalem Bible, 1985
An entirely new Catholic translation, the first Jerusalem Bible was largely based on the French Bible de Jérusalem, and preserves in English many of the readings and interpretations of that version. The New Jerusalem Bible is a very thorough revision of the 1966 edition. In this newer version, translation directly into English from the original language texts has largely replaced the earlier French-based text.
The order of the books of the Old Testament is different from that in other English versions, largely reflecting the order of the Vulgate Bible, and the books often grouped together as the “Apocrypha” or (more properly) the Deuterocanon are here included in the main part of the text.
New English Bible, 1970
Revised English Bible, 1989
Sponsored by the leading Protestant churches of Great Britain, this new translation was intended “to present to English readers a faithful rendering of the Greek and Hebrew texts into the current speech of our time”. The result was a completely new text in English of a high literary level, although archaisms such as the use of “thee” and “thou” (referring to God) were retained.
The Revised English Bible is a substantial revision of the 1970 translation, and aims to be not only fluent and intelligible, but also of appropriate dignity for use in worship. It was sponsored by a broader group of British churches than was the original version.
Living Bible, 1971
Translated by Kenneth Taylor, this version is a free rendering of the text in everyday English, designed primarily for young people and for family reading. The translator himself describes it as a “paraphrase”. This means that where the text seems unclear the translator has added or changed material in an effort to make it clear or to explain textual difficulties.
Good News Bible, 1976 – today
This version is also known as Today’s English Version (TEV). It was first published by the American Bible Society, and has been widely distributed by many Bible Societies throughout the English-speaking world. It does not conform to a traditional style of language, but seeks to express the meaning of the original texts in words and forms easily recognised by people everywhere who use English as a means of communication. The translation was produced by a panel under the leadership of Robert G. Bratcher.
Unlike other versions, the Good News Bible has been subject to a policy of continual revision, with changes being made in each new addition as the need has arisen. In 1988, the Bible Society in Australia released an Australian edition which incorporates certain changes to reflect Australian usage and idiom.
:: shrug ::
So?
I still don't get what your issue is.
Dan
I do have some questions that are answered. who has been making changes or adding to what Bible? Witch of the 300+plus version of the bible do you consider to be unaltered.
OK, you have never yet answered a direct question that I can recall, but that's close. It suggests that you know little or nothing of Mormonism; may or may not know anything about Christianity.
The Bible has 66 books. Mormonism adds other, contradictory books, wrongly attributing to them equal status as sacred Scripture.
Nothing whatever to do with translations or versions.
Dan
s to style, some feel a Bible should be translated word for word, as is attempted in the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Others believe no accuracy is lost in a less rigid, more idiomatic translation such as the New International Version (NIV). (The King James Version [KJV] and New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] stand somewhere between the NASB and NIV.) Still others think translation remains faithful in a free and idiomatic rendering such as Today's English Version (TEV) or J. B. Phillips's New Testament in Modern English. The Message definitely falls in this latter category, but is freer and more expansive than either Phillips or the TEV.
There are 60 versions of the BIBLE in existence. Each having a different message, With the readers claiming their version to be the correct one. Now the question is witch version is correct. BTW any day now a new version of the BIBLE will be printed to suit the need of a particular version of Christianity.
Am I to suppose that your version of the BIBLE and Christianity is the correct one ?
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (KJV)
I will us the King James Version. This passage has been changed so many time to me whoever's need.
Fine, but, again, totally unrelated to anything I said about Romney.
You use the King James, and it will have 66 books in it. The first will be called "Genesis." The last will be called "Revelation."
Mitt Romney's cult -- Mormonism -- adds books AFTER Revelation, and regards them as also Scripture. He adds books to the Bible.
Did that possibly register?
Dan
Ok got it. wasn't written between Genesis and Revelations it can't be in the BIBLE. I have often tried to understand how the books in the BIBLE were selected and by whom.
Did that possibly register? .
ZING! LMAO!
I could never vote for anyone that lived in Mass. on purpose. I'm ashamed that I was in the airport there once.
We most be very careful of the religious beliefs of our president. We may elect one that will not respect our beliefs.
Read the essay, be honest and feel silly, then get back to me.
Dan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.