Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bible translations

2009-10-12T02:57:00Z

D3matt: added NET bible

{{Christianity}}

The original translation of the Bible was the [[Septuagint]] (known as the "LXX"), which was Greek translation of the [[Hebrew]] [[Bible]] ([[Old Testament]]). It is the oldest version of the [[Bible]] [[extant]] today.<ref>http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/</ref> This is the version of the Old Testament was used by [[Jesus]] and His followers, and few disputed interpretations in that Bible (such as the prophesy of a virgin birth of the [[Messiah]]) were carried over into the [[New Testament]].

The Protestants rely primarily on the untranslated Masoretic Hebrew Texts, while the Greek Orthodox Church relies primarily on the Septuagint. The Roman Catholic Church relies primarily on the Latin [[Vulgate]], which is a translation of the Septuagint into Latin by [[Jerome]] around A.D. 400.

There is no fully [[conservative]] translation of the Bible as of 2009. The closest versions are listed in chronological order below, with their shortcomings noted:

*[[King James Version]] (limited by English as of 1611, before many [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|new conservative terms]] developed; lacks quotation marks)
*[[New American Standard Bible]] (includes many passages of doubtful authenticity but has notes, italics and other means to mark such cases)
*[[New International Version]] (lowered to the 7th grade level with many unpublicized, [[liberal]] word changes<ref>The NIV changed "from his mother's womb" to "from birth" (Luke 1:15), "cornerstone" to "capstone" in referencing Christ, and "Lucifer" to "morning star" in referencing Satan (Isaiah 14:12).</ref>)
*[[English Standard Version]] (scholarly literal word-for-word translation, but based on the [[liberal]] [[Revised Standard Version]])
*[[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] (some unisex, gender-inclusive language, as in "fish for people" (Mt 4:19))

In addition, all of the above translations except the King James Version downplay the existence of [[Hell]].

An entire list of the major translations of the [[Bible]] into [[English]] includes:

*[[Geneva Bible]] (the first full-length English translation of the Bible, and the one used by [[Puritans]])
*[[Douay-Rheims]]
*[[Douay-Challoner]]
*[[King James Version]] (also known as the [[Authorised Version]])
*[[Revised Standard Version]]
*[[New Revised Standard Version]]
*[[New International Version]]
*[[Today's New International Version]]
*[[New English Bible]]
*[[Amplified Bible]]
*[[Living Bible]]
*[[English Standard Version]]
*[[New American Standard Bible]]
*[[New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures]]
*[[Confraternity Bible]]
*[[New American Bible]]
*[[New Jerusalem Bible]]
*[[Jerusalem Bible]]
*[[Good News Bible]]
*[[New King James Version]]
*[[New Living Translation]]
*[[Complete Bible - An American Translation]]
*[[Bible In Living English]]
*[[American Standard Version]]
*[[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=77</ref>
*[[New Century Version]]
*[[The NET Bible]]<ref>http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm</ref>

Interlinear Translations

*[[Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament]]
*[[Emphatic Diaglott]] Greek-English New Testament

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[http://ellisonresearch.com/ERPS%20II/release%209%20versions.htm Analysis of the popularity of the major translations]
*[http://www.americanbible.org/absport/news/item.php?id=63 Listing, with book covers, of all the English translations with a brief description of each]
*[[Disputed Biblical Translations]]
*[http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/ Compare translations]
*[http://bible.cc/ Translations compared on one page, verse by verse]
*[http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html [[KJV]] searchable version]
*[[Word Analysis of Bible]]
*[[Feminist Bible]]
*[http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/subjectstart?BS Many Bibles in pdf, including English Revised Version]

[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

Talk:GNU/Linux

2009-10-12T02:54:52Z

D3matt:

Notes on the differences between Ubuntu Christian and Ubuntu Satanic versions:
The Christian version of Ubuntu actually modifies the base software that comes with the distribution, adding software such as Gnomesword and Dansguardian with the distro; i.e. it's a distribution. Ubuntu Satanic on the other hand, is just Ubuntu/Kubuntu with a "satanic" theme; i.e. colors, wallpaper and some graphics. If the user S.E. either deleted or selecting another theme, you would be back to the basic Kubuntu distribution.

I can find no references that Ubuntu Satanic Edition is either a parody or in response to the Christian edition. The author of the article on DesktopLinux.com<ref>[http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2432715660.html]</ref> makes a comment that the theme is a response to the Christian edition, but that appears to be an assumption on his part, as I can find nothing from the authors on the Satanic version site that indicates that it is. --[[User:Brewer13210|Todd]] 10:15 March 21 2007 EDT

: I agree, describing the Satanic Edition as a parody is a point of view. Clearly the people behind it intend to serve a user base they think exists.

I wasn't sure what this statement meant: "The theme is an example, such as Ubuntu Christian Edition [3], of GPL licensed software which may be modified and re-released." So I rewrote what I thought it was meant to mean. If I was wrong, feel free to fix it.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 17:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I am wondering why we even need to refer to a so-called ''Satanic'' version of any operating system in an encyclopedia. I have not removed or edited anything to do with that (so far) but as far as I am concerned it is fluff information that is not germane to someone seeking information about Linux kernels or GNU/Linux distributions to use. Unless of course we want to tell folks it exists so they can go get a copy? --[[User:Eracc|Gene]] 15:20, 20 December 2007 (EST)

==Who did what==

The article, like most in the trade press, gives far too much credit to Linus Torvalds and downplays the work of Richard Stallman inexcusably.

I took out this sentence, because it is incorrect:
*"It was started in 1991 as a university project by Finnish student [[Linus Torvalds]] as a replacement for the [[Minix]] operating system."

In fact, "Linux" (i.e., the GNU/Linux operating system, began ''nearly a decade'' before Torvalds got started:

*'''The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system.''' [http://www.gnu.org/]

We should give credit where credit is due. Our web site runs on free software like Apache and GNU, thanks to RMS!! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:56, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: Actually, Linux is just the kernel of an operating system. Linus Torvalds ''is'' the one that started the Linux kernel. Richard Stallman (RMS) had nothing to do with that. What is incorrect, but unavoidable these days due to marketing types and ''the press'', is to call Linux an operating system. What makes an operating system is the kernel (boot code), drivers (may be in the kernel or modules) and additional software (the GNU project tools). Technically correct folks will call the blend of these parts GNU/Linux but the marketing and press types will continue to just use Linux. I believe we are not going to be able to change that trend here but we should be technically correct '''and''' give the correct people their due consideration. For Linux, the kernel, that would be Torvalds. --[[User:Eracc|Gene]] 15:04, 20 December 2007 (EST)

:: You can't have an operation system without the kernel. I can come very close to building a distro that uses next to no code developed by the FSF. Don't get me wrong, I love the FSF, but the whole GNU/Linux nomenclature rubs me the wrong way. --[[User:D3matt|D3matt]] 22:51, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==Changes==

I made some small changes as I thought that the article was a little confusing to somebody with no experience of Linux. I'll continue to edit the remainder of the article if nobody has any objections. --[[User:davidklein|davidklein]] 14:45, 8 November 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks for your additions, David! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:08, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I made several changes and added some clarification back in late November (2007) but did not notice this talk page at the time. I am rectifying that oversight today. --[[User:Eracc|Gene]] 15:10, 20 December 2007 (EST)

On another point, several of the edits I made refer to external sites. Some of these could be brought inside Conservapedia when we create information filled pages for them. So far several of the internal page links I see on Conservapedia are very sparse. The one for [[Ubuntu]] is an example of what I mean. I am not knowledgeable about Ubuntu so I am not going to attempt to edit that page to add more content at this point. But if we are going to have internal referrals like these then the resulting pages should be more than a ''one liner''. --[[User:Eracc|Gene]] 15:36, 20 December 2007 (EST)

==Communism==
Yes, the free software movement is highly communistic, but only in the (anti)license model they use. If the license bothers you that much, you can always use a BSD clone. We really need to remove the quote by Steve Balmer as he has a very strong motive to be against free software since it directly competes with M$ --[[User:D3matt|D3matt]] 22:54, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:GNU/Linux

2009-10-12T02:51:19Z

D3matt: /* Who did what */

User:D3matt

2009-10-12T02:47:46Z

D3matt: Created page with '= Me = I'm a native Texan. I'm a former Baptist (I still have strong connections to the Baptist church through friends and family); I'm now a member of the Weslyan church. I'm ...'

= Me =
I'm a native Texan.

I'm a former Baptist (I still have strong connections to the Baptist church through friends and family); I'm now a member of the Weslyan church.

I'm open to debates about everything conservatives care about (and a few most don't). I'll admit that I have certain libertarian leanings, but I try to balance that with my Christian beliefs.

I'm a very strong advocate for free/open source software.

Talk:Bible translations

2009-10-12T02:43:51Z

D3matt: Created page with '= NASB = If anyone wants, I have a NASB from which I can pull their translation notes where they come out and tell you that there are certain passages that may not have been in t...'

= NASB =
If anyone wants, I have a NASB from which I can pull their translation notes where they come out and tell you that there are certain passages that may not have been in the original text. They use italics anywhere that a word is not literally word for word from the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic. There's also always notes letting you know what the literal meaning of the passage is. For passages that don't appear in certain earlier passages, they also make mention of that. --[[User:D3matt|D3matt]] 22:43, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

= KJV =
If we're going to be intellectually honest, there needs to be a much harsher criticism of the KJV. The original intentions of the translation were not entirely honorable. The original manuscript had terrible errors (thou shalt commit adultery?). There are countless passages that are rendered from very poorly to being downright heretical. We Conservatives should not be afraid of truth, especially as far as The Good News is concerned. --[[User:D3matt|D3matt]] 22:43, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

= NIV =
Wow... Just wow...
* Lucifer means "morning star" [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lucifer]
* capstones are even more important than cornerstones
* I'll leave Luke 1:15 alone... there's a note in my NIV stating that it literally is "Or from his mother's womb"
--[[User:D3matt|D3matt]] 22:43, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Bible translations

2009-10-12T02:31:15Z

D3matt: edit note about NASB

{{Christianity}}

The original translation of the Bible was the [[Septuagint]] (known as the "LXX"), which was Greek translation of the [[Hebrew]] [[Bible]] ([[Old Testament]]). It is the oldest version of the [[Bible]] [[extant]] today.<ref>http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/</ref> This is the version of the Old Testament was used by [[Jesus]] and His followers, and few disputed interpretations in that Bible (such as the prophesy of a virgin birth of the [[Messiah]]) were carried over into the [[New Testament]].

The Protestants rely primarily on the untranslated Masoretic Hebrew Texts, while the Greek Orthodox Church relies primarily on the Septuagint. The Roman Catholic Church relies primarily on the Latin [[Vulgate]], which is a translation of the Septuagint into Latin by [[Jerome]] around A.D. 400.

There is no fully [[conservative]] translation of the Bible as of 2009. The closest versions are listed in chronological order below, with their shortcomings noted:

*[[King James Version]] (limited by English as of 1611, before many [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|new conservative terms]] developed; lacks quotation marks)
*[[New American Standard Bible]] (includes many passages of doubtful authenticity but has notes, italics and other means to mark such cases)
*[[New International Version]] (lowered to the 7th grade level with many unpublicized, [[liberal]] word changes<ref>The NIV changed "from his mother's womb" to "from birth" (Luke 1:15), "cornerstone" to "capstone" in referencing Christ, and "Lucifer" to "morning star" in referencing Satan (Isaiah 14:12).</ref>)
*[[English Standard Version]] (scholarly literal word-for-word translation, but based on the [[liberal]] [[Revised Standard Version]])
*[[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] (some unisex, gender-inclusive language, as in "fish for people" (Mt 4:19))

In addition, all of the above translations except the King James Version downplay the existence of [[Hell]].

An entire list of the major translations of the [[Bible]] into [[English]] includes:

*[[Geneva Bible]] (the first full-length English translation of the Bible, and the one used by [[Puritans]])
*[[Douay-Rheims]]
*[[Douay-Challoner]]
*[[King James Version]] (also known as the [[Authorised Version]])
*[[Revised Standard Version]]
*[[New Revised Standard Version]]
*[[New International Version]]
*[[Today's New International Version]]
*[[New English Bible]]
*[[Amplified Bible]]
*[[Living Bible]]
*[[English Standard Version]]
*[[New American Standard Bible]]
*[[New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures]]
*[[Confraternity Bible]]
*[[New American Bible]]
*[[New Jerusalem Bible]]
*[[Jerusalem Bible]]
*[[Good News Bible]]
*[[New King James Version]]
*[[New Living Translation]]
*[[Complete Bible - An American Translation]]
*[[Bible In Living English]]
*[[American Standard Version]]
*[[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=77</ref>
*[[New Century Version]]

Interlinear Translations

*[[Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament]]
*[[Emphatic Diaglott]] Greek-English New Testament

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[http://ellisonresearch.com/ERPS%20II/release%209%20versions.htm Analysis of the popularity of the major translations]
*[http://www.americanbible.org/absport/news/item.php?id=63 Listing, with book covers, of all the English translations with a brief description of each]
*[[Disputed Biblical Translations]]
*[http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/ Compare translations]
*[http://bible.cc/ Translations compared on one page, verse by verse]
*[http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html [[KJV]] searchable version]
*[[Word Analysis of Bible]]
*[[Feminist Bible]]
*[http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/subjectstart?BS Many Bibles in pdf, including English Revised Version]

[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]