[boatbums]

As an executive with over 35 years of experience I am an expert on human work output. Being able to scope the work and the resources available is a significant part of what I do for a living. Anyone who believes that 200+ verses were properly researched and translated everyday for over a year with out any modern tools is simply being foolish.

Apparently, your modern experience gives you no basis to judge what, in fact, WAS done over five hundred years ago. I find it interesting in all the foofaraw over Luther's "quickie" translation of the New Testament, Catholics have found only ONE fault by which to complain - that Luther added the word "alone" to a verse in Romans - and that one which numerous others also included. Why, in all these years, do we not hear of any other verses that Luther supposedly slanted by his haste? Go ahead, name your favorite five. Jerome made a hurried translation of the Apocryphal books when he translated them for inclusion in the Latin Vulgate - books he did not accept as canonical - and he was NOT a scholar of Hebrew. Why no disdain for Jerome? Could it be because he was doing what the Catholic Pope commanded he do, whether he agreed with it or not?

I will again assert that Luther threw out 7 books.

An assertion with NO proof other than wishful thinking? Here's a thought...get ahold of a Martin Luther Bible and check if ANY of those books are not found within the covers. Until you have done that, you have not "properly researched" your opinion and it will remain a faulty one.

[RobbyS]

Well, Luther had a couple of advantages over German. In his day both Latin and Greek were living languages, with many works extant back to previous times, to help him in trying to “fix” the language of the New Testament. As to Hebrew, the early Church used the Septuagint, which was in Greek.