tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post5014736941018022239..comments2024-03-12T11:58:24.510+13:00Comments on Otagosh: Living Fossils of the Herbozoic (1)Gavin Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17965552923012880262noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post-87279628319210957512011-07-21T08:53:37.633+12:002011-07-21T08:53:37.633+12:00Sorry I wasn't clearer about the reference in ...Sorry I wasn't clearer about the reference in Mark 7, which was actually a second verse I was referring to, I was not conflating <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%207:19&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">Mark 7:19</a> with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma" rel="nofollow">the Johaninne Comma</a>, I was digressing about a 2nd problem verse, to wit, the parenthetical that is added in almost every translation, even though it is not to be found in the earliest manuscripts.<br /><br />Sorry, again, for any confusion, I hope that clears it up. (Or at least makes things as clear as mud.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post-4689074905465361072011-07-19T17:21:21.191+12:002011-07-19T17:21:21.191+12:00Velvet, you mean the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7, ...Velvet, you mean the <i>Johannine</i> Comma (1 John 5:7, <b>not</b> Mark 7 which has the same 37 verses in Coulter as everywhere else). You haven't been looking very hard if you think the dippy Fred Coulter version and Young's Literal are the only ones to expunge the additional words. So does:<br /><br />NRSV<br />REB<br />NAB<br />NJB<br />NIV<br />NLT<br />NASB<br />RSV<br />NEB<br />GNB<br />Moffatt<br />ESV<br />Phillips<br /><br />And that's just for starters. In fact I can't think of a single contemporary NT translation that keeps the comma!<br /><br />Sometimes your apologetic enthusiasm runs way, w-a-y ahead of the facts.Gavin Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17965552923012880262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post-2357405815092199942011-07-19T13:09:27.364+12:002011-07-19T13:09:27.364+12:00In all honesty? The book is not bad, as a daily Bi...In all honesty? The book is not bad, as a daily Bible reading tool; but for actual comparative study, obviously not, and there are a few <a href="http://singsongsofpraisetohim.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/peeling-the-onion-the-coulter-bible/" rel="nofollow">whoppers</a> that gave me pause.<br /><br />As for "the original order" -- that definitely smacks of bibliolatry, and does not reflect the teaching of the Church that I remember, to wit, that the Bible was a collection of many books, authored by different, fallible men, over the space of thousands of years, inspired by God. Mentions can be found, in copies of <em>Good News</em>, of both the <em>Didache</em>, and the <em>Gospel of Barnabas</em>, so we were definitely never canonical, KJV-only, inerrantists, not by a long shot.<br /><br />Still, the Coulter Bible is good for one's blood pressure, as one does not have to wade through mis-translations, additions of the false Johaninne Comma (don't get me started on the professing Christian addition to the 7th chapter of Mark; Young's Literal Translation, and the Coulter Bible, are the only two I've found that have managed to avoid that error), blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, etcetera.<br /><br />I firmly believe that it is good to read a Bible translation that offends you, however; I find that, running up against "difficult" (mistranslated or proof-texted) scriptures, keeps one sharp, and clearly in sight of the truth, at all times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52912413020249030.post-84129435895713496502011-07-17T07:16:33.163+12:002011-07-17T07:16:33.163+12:00As I have always said, if the authors of the bible...As I have always said, if the authors of the bible had wanted to preserve the original, they would have chiseled it in stone.<br /><br />It was the Catholic Church that decided which writings went into the NT and in which order they should appear.<br /><br />Scholars know that the seven (yes, only 7) authentic letters of Paul should be first in order, starting with 1 Thessalonians. Next should be Mark. All the rest should be trashed.Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.com