The bible: my summary (continued)
My favorite is a link from a very stubby entry:
Zondervan: does comparison of a number of translations, with a graphic showing where each fits on the spectrum of word-for-word (literal) or thought-for-thought (paraphrase). However, it may be skewed in favor of the New International Version (which the graphic shows located in the middle of the spectrum) which Zondervan publishes.Anyone know if the graphic on the Zondervan page is approximately accurate? I would find it helpful to have a quick place to reference when I read when someone points out their preferred bible.
After deciding which books to put in the canon (and deciding which version of these books to use), now I see one has to pick the translation based on how much of the literal words versus the gleaned intended meaning is desired. When I hear someone stating what they think is a fact about their god, I tend to ask how they know. Now that I have a feeble grasp of the canonization and translation process that went into each passage, I wonder, how could anyone assert something as a "fact" when its source is the bible? Any insight here, Steven (my favorite biblical scholar)?
Thanks to my grounding in the scientific method, I generally hear the assertions many make about their invisible god while simultaneously wondering at their apparent innocence of how this world works.
Thanks to Kevin Parry who was recently writing about the Latin Vulgate Bible.