Bible versions (was Re: Subcreation and image [was: RE: Betreft:Re: Steg'swonderful .sig (and a)

Nik Taylor wrote:

> > The KJV has not been the preferred choice of Bible readers in this
> > country since the release of the Good News Version.
>
> It hasn't?  I certainly meet people who believe that any other version
> is somehow evil, that ONLY the KJV is correct, as if the Bible had been
> written in that Early Modern English, and all other versions were
> translations of it (which I suspect many of those KJV-supporters
> believe).
Sure there are people like this, but I for one haven't ever
met any.  You just hear about these people, just like you
just hear about Buchananites.  (At least, *I* haven't met
any like this)

My personal favorite depends on the context.  When you're
going for everyday reading, for me it's the New International
Version (preferably with a lot of footnotes).  When you're really
into intense study, literalistic Bibles can be handy when used
in tandem with freer translations.  The KJB is something I'd
only use when researching the history of Bible translations itself --
it's not incredibly useful for modern speakers of Standard World
English when they really want to know what's implied by the
original languages.


======================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

Non cuicumque datum est habere nasum.
It is not given to just anyone to have a nose.
        -- Martial
======================================