Glad we could amuse you. The only reason I'll continue is because I think it's relevant to the thread.
I agree with the NIV being more inclusive, and is far more readable. I prefer to do my own thinking though and would prefer a more base linguist translation witha few papers missing than something that tried to merge several varying documents from @2k years (and older) ago and use modern language (which has developed considerably since). I think the latter allows a far wider margin of error in comprehension and translation (vis. the translation of homosexual). Basically, I'd rather have people not understand it than misunderstand it. I'm also a Shakespeare and Burns fan so I guess I'm a little anachronistic.
I agree with the NIV being more inclusive, and is far more readable. I prefer to do my own thinking though and would prefer a more base linguist translation witha few papers missing than something that tried to merge several varying documents from @2k years (and older) ago and use modern language (which has developed considerably since). I think the latter allows a far wider margin of error in comprehension and translation (vis. the translation of homosexual). Basically, I'd rather have people not understand it than misunderstand it. I'm also a Shakespeare and Burns fan so I guess I'm a little anachronistic.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
