Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay: Where is the truth?

2009-12-25T04:39:51Z

StevenM:

Terrific essay! But how we do handle the increasingly liberal translations of the Bible? The [[NIV]], which is the best-selling version today, erases references to the unborn child. See the [[Feminist Bible]]. And the people in charge of the NIV are replacing it with a ver--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 23:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)sion that might be even worse.

"Conservative" means to respect and adhere to original intent. It works for interpreting the Constitution. Don't we need it for new translations of the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:26, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:Yes, absolutely. But I would rather not re-translate the Bible at all. There is too much that could go wrong. Already I see the different meaning between the Conservative translation and the original 1611. (Just wait till I study greek at college!) It seems redundant to me to create another Bible. It may better defend the truth in some ways, but it is undermining the foundation of the scripture. To write a new Bible for the purpose of upholding the truth doesn't make sense. Isn't that the idea of Conservative Bible Project? To defend against liberals and strengthen the politically conservative stance of the Bible? [[User:StevenM|Steve]] 23:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Where is the truth?

2009-12-25T04:38:43Z

StevenM:

Terrific essay! But how we do handle the increasingly liberal translations of the Bible? The [[NIV]], which is the best-selling version today, erases references to the unborn child. See the [[Feminist Bible]]. And the people in charge of the NIV are replacing it with a ver--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 23:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)sion that might be even worse.

"Conservative" means to respect and adhere to original intent. It works for interpreting the Constitution. Don't we need it for new translations of the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:26, 24 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, absolutely. But I would rather not re-translate the Bible at all. There is too much that could go wrong. Already I see the different meaning between the Conservative translation and the original 1611. (Just wait till I study greek at college!) It seems redundant to me to create another Bible. It may defend the truth better in some ways, but it is undermining the foundation of the scripture. To write a new Bible for the purpose of upholding the truth doesn't make sense. Isn't that the idea of Conservative Bible Project? To defend against liberals and strengthen the politically conservative stance of the Bible? [[User:StevenM|Steve]] 23:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)

Essay: Where is the truth?

2009-12-25T04:23:10Z

StevenM: A start I'll expand it tomorrow

"I am the way, the truth,…"

The title of this essay seems very philosophical. Epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we can know, is the branch of philosophy that deals with whether there is an absolute truth. But if there is not an absolute truth, then God is not absolute. This is the presupposition of atheists and agnostics. Whether they realize it or not, atheists deny the existence of absolutes. What is God if not the infinite, the ultimate?

To believe in God is to believe that there is one truth, and that it is knowable. But many people think that the truth is unknowable. God would not hide the truth from us, in fact he sent the truth to earth, “and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The Word is truth. The Word is Jesus. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jesus is the Lord, the Truth, the Word.

We know these things already. One truth and his name is Jesus Christ. But the “Word” is also the Bible. The Word of God is the only truth on this earth that we can depend on no matter what. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

But the question remains. Where is truth? There are so many English versions of the Bible, how can one be the inspired Word of God? God would not hide the truth from us. He would not give us one English translation and then dispense another with a different meaning. Truth does not change.

Do we merely pick the version that suits us best? Should we continue to translate the Bible until it meets our standards? Must men interpret the Bible according to their own interests? Perhaps if the world changes, and the nation needs a more specific Bible, we should change it. Perhaps the Bible we have is too soft on liberals, too weak in its language. Perhaps God didn’t know about the United States when he wrote the Bible.

I’ve picked the King James Bible, the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. But this is not an essay about why the KJV is the one and only Bible, this is about where the truth is. More precisely, that the truth is not found when we all get together and come to a consensus on what will foil the liberals.

Truth does not change. We must decide on one answer, one version without exceptions. Truth does not come through trial and error, or through a refining process, or through the opinions of people. It comes through dispensation of God alone: we ought not to tamper with it.

Essay: Where is the truth?

2009-12-25T04:10:54Z

StevenM:

Essay: Where is the truth?

2009-12-25T04:09:40Z

StevenM: Created page with '"I am the way, the truth,…" The title of this essay seems very philosophical. Epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we can know, is the branch of philosophy that deals ...'

"I am the way, the truth,…"

The title of this essay seems very philosophical. Epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we can know, is the branch of philosophy that deals with whether there is an absolute truth. But if there is not an absolute truth, then God is not absolute. This is the presupposition of atheists and agnostics. Whether they realize it or not, atheists deny the existence of absolutes. What is God if not the infinite, the ultimate?

To believe in God is to believe that there is one truth, and that it is knowable. But many people think that the truth is unknowable. God would not hide the truth from us in fact he sent the truth to earth, “and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The Word is truth. The Word is Jesus. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jesus is the Lord, the Truth, the Word.

We know these things already. One truth and his name is Jesus Christ. But the “Word” is also the Bible. The Word of God is the only truth on this earth that we can depend on no matter what. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

But the question remains. Where is truth? There are so many English versions of the Bible, how can one be the inspired Word of God? God would not hide the truth from us. He would not give us one English translation and then dispense another with a different meaning. Truth does not change.

Do we merely pick the version that suits us best? Should we continue to translate the Bible until it meets our standards? Must men interpret the Bible according to their own interests? Perhaps if the world changes, and the nation needs a more specific Bible, we should change it. Perhaps the Bible we have is too soft on liberals, too weak in its language. Perhaps God didn’t know about the United States when he wrote the Bible.

I’ve picked the King James Bible, the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. But this is not an essay about why the KJV is the one and only Bible, this is about where the truth is. More precisely, that the truth is not found when we all get together and come to a consensus on what foil the liberals.

Igor Stravinsky

2009-06-21T20:34:51Z

StevenM:

'''Igor Stravinsky''' (1882-1971) was a Russian composer of [[classical music]] in the [[Twentieth Century period (music)|twentieth century]].

- In his piece, ''The Rite of Spring'', which he wrote in 1913, he broke away from traditional views of music by having the instruments play in different [[Key (music)|key]]s simultaneously. ''The Firebird'' is a popular Stravinsky [[ballet]].
-
- == See also ==
-
- *[[Dance]]
- *[[Sergei Prokofiev]]
- *[[Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov]]
-
-
-
-
- [[Category:Composers|Stravinsky, Igor]]

Talk:Saddam Hussein

2009-06-08T20:27:35Z

StevenM:

== Several Problems Here ==

Aside from the Saddam-friendly flavor of this article, which makes it seem a virtual paradise, and him an "enlightened" elected official instead of the despotic dictator he was, I find it disturbing Saddam isn't shown to be the master genocide practitioner of the region. Like feeding political opponents into industrial shredders carted into the dining room for his guests amusement.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Given the nostaligia of reactionaries in the US Congress and elsewhere for the good old days under Saddam, I suggest we let them paint the picture of the fascist paradise they want to return to after timetables for US withdrawl are met. Alternatively, these reactionaries and supporters of fascism among the American left may assist a more theocratic style regime ''ala'' Iran or Saudi Arabia once funding gets cut off for any further US invovlement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Classic Conservapedia==

This is a gem of an article. So wonderfully simplistic. [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== So, is the truth a problem? ==

"Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the Nasser model. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims."

All of this is true, would the more ideological among us prefer it to be hidden in a deeper article? Maybe they could write one. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==American Support of the regime during its worst atrocities==
Despite Saddam's brutal crimes, the United States supported him until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. They even supplied him with chemical agents which may have been used to gas his own people. Human rights are only an issue if they further our own interests --[[User:DemocraticRevolution|DemocraticRevolution]] 22:25, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==Hussein/Osama Link==

The second sentence in this section needs to go. If you intend to throw in that the Administration attempted to prove a connection between Osama and Hussein, you need to explicitly state it in that sentence; something can't be 'alleged' without someone alleging it, and it's bad journalism and bad scholarism to leave that antecedent undefined. Second, the external reference for that sentence needs to go as well, because it does not reflect upon the actual statement. That reference inconclusively tries to prove that there was a link between Hussein and Osama.

I suggest the following rewrite - change the sentence to "Leading up to the war, some members of the Bush Administration cited a link between Hussein and Osama as a rationale for the war, although critics adamantly insisted that such a link was non-existent. [reference to a quote from both administration and critics] A credible link was never proven." [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 08:24, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Please see [[http://regimeofterror.com]] for more on Saddam Hussein and terrorism. {{unsigned|Ikez78}}

== First names ==

I don't think it is quite as simple as changing Saddam to Hussein. Take a look at [http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/saddam_hussein.html this] --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 23:00, 5 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll give you that the controversy exist, but if there is a choice we should simply treat this article as we do any other article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)
::I am not trying to make your editing task any more difficult. However, I am not sure what you mean by saying that we should treat the article as we do any other. Surely we would normally use what we generally refer to as the surname. Neither Saddam nor Hussein appear to be a surname as we understand it.

::Anyway, I just thought I would mention it when I saw your edit. I leave it in your capable hands. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 23:26, 5 February 2008 (EST)

==Add category==
Please add this to category, [[:Category:Iraq]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 07:55, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

== Execution Controversy ==
Well, this article needs expanded pretty significantly (it only really covers his actions in war), but I think we should really add the controversy surrounding the supposed "abuse" he suffered prior to his hanging. It illustrates the left's desire to victimize criminals in order to criticize the death penalty.--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 16:16, 13 January 2009 (EST)

==-==
The heading "Iran Iraq War" should be hyphenated Iran-Iraq War. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 16:27, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Good Friday

2009-04-10T22:16:41Z

StevenM:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

==Wednesday?==
Has no one else realized the glaring contradiction in that Jesus said he would be in the grave for three days when he actually rose within two?

I don't believe there are any contradictions in the Bible, so we should try to make sense of this. Matthew 12:40 says, "As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." So we know he was dead 72 hours. He rose from the grave on Sunday morning, John 20:1: "The first ''day'' of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken awyay from the sepulchre." 72 hours before sunday morning is thursday morning.

Also, Jewish days are measured differently than days today. As I'm sure many people are aware, Jews measured days from one sundown to the next sundown. So rather than 12:00 to 12:00 we must count the third day from the night before. If he died Wednesday afternoon, and was buried that evening, than to be "in the heart of the earth" for three days AND THREE NIGHTS, he would then rise Sunday morning.

Now people argue this because there is a verse saying that he had to be taken off the cross before the sabbath. There are no contradictions in the Bible. Only in man's traditions which they set up. John 19:31, "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for '''that sabbath day''' was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." (emphasis mine) Remember that there is more than one sabbath day. Leviticus 23:4-8 says,

: "These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein."

So this was a special sabbath. Not the regular saturday sabbath but a Sabbath '''during''' the passover week. It fell on a thursday, so they had to take the bodies down off the crosses before Wednesday evening.

See how the Bible makes sense when you read it all together? In its own context, with the combined old and new testaments, there is eternal truth in the Scripture.--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 17:46, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Good Friday

2009-04-10T22:15:56Z

StevenM: ok done

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

==Wednesday?==
Has no one else realized the glaring contradiction in that Jesus said he would be in the grave for three days when he actually rose within two?

I don't believe there are any contradictions in the Bible, so we should try to make sense of this. Matthew 12:40 says, "As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." So we know he was dead 72 hours. He rose from the grave on Sunday morning, John 20:1: "The first ''day'' of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken awyay from the sepulchre." 72 hours before sunday morning is thursday morning.

Also, Jewish days are measured differently than days today. As I'm sure many people are aware, Jews measured days from one sundown to the next sundown. So rather than 12:00 to 12:00 we must count the third day from the night before. If he died Wednesday afternoon, and was buried that evening, than to be "in the heart of the earth" for three days AND THREE NIGHTS, he would then rise Sunday morning.

Now people argue this because there is a verse saying that he had to be taken off the cross before the sabbath. There are no contradictions in the Bible. Only in man's traditions which they set up. John 19:31, "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for '''that sabbath day''' was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." Remember that there is more than one sabbath day. Leviticus 23:4-8 says,

: "These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein."

So this was a special sabbath. Not the regular saturday sabbath but a Sabbath '''during''' the passover week. It fell on a thursday, so they had to take the bodies down off the crosses before Wednesday evening.

See how the Bible makes sense when you read it all together? In its own context, with the combined old and new testaments, there is eternal truth in the Scripture.--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 17:46, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Good Friday

2009-04-10T22:11:02Z

StevenM:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

==Wednesday?==
Has no one else realized the glaring contradiction in that Jesus said he would be in the grave for three days when he actually rose within two?

I don't believe there are any contradictions in the Bible, so we should try to make sense of this. Matthew 12:40 says, "As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." So we know he was dead 72 hours. He rose from the grave on Sunday morning, John 20:1: "The first ''day'' of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken awyay from the sepulchre." 72 hours before sunday morning is thursday morning.

Also, Jewish days are measured differently than days today. As I'm sure many people are aware, Jews measured days from one sundown to the next sundown. So rather than 12:00 to 12:00 we must count the third day from the night before. If he died Wednesday afternoon, and was buried that evening, than to be "in the heart of the earth" for three days AND THREE NIGHTS, he would then rise Sunday morning.

Now people argue this because there is a verse saying that he had to be taken off the cross before the sabbath. There are no contradictions in the Bible. Only in man's traditions which they set up. John 19:31, "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for '''that sabbath day''' was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." Remember that there is more than one sabbath day. Leviticus 23:4-8 says,

"These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein."

--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 17:46, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Good Friday

2009-04-10T22:03:55Z

StevenM:

Talk:Good Friday

2009-04-10T21:52:51Z

StevenM:

Talk:Good Friday

2009-04-10T21:51:08Z

StevenM: one sec

Talk:Good Friday

2009-04-10T21:46:39Z

StevenM:

Talk:Good Friday

2009-04-10T21:44:04Z

StevenM: not done yet

Talk:Good Friday

2009-04-10T21:42:58Z

StevenM:

Talk:World History Lecture Eight

2009-03-26T12:55:17Z

StevenM: asked for sources and references

Just thought I would point out that the slave trade is not considered part of the Columbian Exchange. The Columbian exchange, also known as the great biological exchange, dealt with plants, animals, and pathogens. See for example, Alfred Crosby, ''The Columbian Exchange'' (1972)

== Hume ==

There are a number of errors in the "Enlightenment" section, but I'd like to focus on the errors relating to Hume. First of all, presenting Hume as a sceptic towards religion, while absolutely true, is an understatement. Hume was sceptical of ''everything'' beyond experience, even those things (such as continuity and causation) which previous philosophers had taken for granted. Secondly, it is entirely untrue to claim that there were so few great English philosophers, whether that means English speaking or born in England (hopefully it doesn't mean the latter, because Hume was of course Scottish). Hume is considered one of the greatest not because he has so few peers, but because, surprisingly enough, he was a brilliant philosopher. Thirdly the claim that Hume's chief claim to fame is that he influenced Darwin is utterly absurd. His claim to fame is that he gave the finest statement of empiricism and made important criticisms of philosophy's attempts to understand metaphysics. The fact that he influenced Darwin may be important, but is not even well known. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== Corrections ==

The caravel wasn't notable so much for its cargo ability (in the spice trade it was replaced by other, heavier ships) but its speed and manueverability in shallow water.

"Known as the 'reconquista', this was accomplished first through the reconquest of Granada" - the Reconquista had been going on for hundreds of years, it didn't begin with the capture of Granada.

Magellan's voyage didn't lead to ownership of Mexico and Peru. Cortes claimed Mexico for Spain in March 1519. Magellan sailed from Spain in August 1519.

"Giving them a bunch of blankets exposed to the deadly germ" almost certainly is not true for the time period discussed - it implies a knowledge of disease far beyond the 16th century. The few semi-documented cases come from the mid-late 18th century. Disease was the major killer of natives, but not through conscious infection through smallpox.

Philip II reigned from 1556-1598, not 1638-1715. The Dutch Revolt began in 1568. 1579 was the creation of the Union of Utrecht.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 21:51, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:Andy, on the role of the caravel, read CP's [[Caravel]], also [[Nao]] and [[Carrack]] as the vessels used by the Iberian nations in the early Age of Exploration. The caravel did much of the early work, especially down Africa, but its role diminished rapidly as soon as things really got under way.
* Magellan did not round the Horn...he went through the Strait of Magellan. As did Drake later. The Horn (which is actually an island) was to be rounded in early 1616 by an expedition co-led by [[Willem Cornelisz Schouten]] and named after his home town of Hoorn in Holland.
*Ivan the Terrible was tsar, or czar, of Russia (the first to be so) from 1547 until his death in 1584. Until 1547 he was Prince of Muscovy (Moscow) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:21, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Thoughts and comments==

Already I have mentioned [[Magellan]]’s non-rounding of the Horn, and intimated that the [[caravel]] was not as you described, suggesting you check Conservapedia entries for other vessels of the time. I also changed your date of [[Henry the Navigator]]’s founding of his school of navigation. – he was born in that year.
:Also....
*(1) Of the 321 words in “Portuguese Exploration”, 127 are actually on that subject. The other 184 are on Columbus.
*(2) [[Bartholomew Dias|Dias]] didn’t “fail”. His purpose was to find the way to India. That he did. He chose to return. His expedition was not set up to actually “go” to India.
*(3) There’s a complete lack of anything about discovery/trade/colonisation anywhere in the world except the Americas; apart from one mention of the Philippines, and Dias and Da Gama’s first voyage. Where are the Dutch? – for most of the 17th century they were the most successful traders on earth and controlled most of the spice trade – which, remember, was the main reason for the voyages of discovery to start off with. What mention of the discovery of Australia? The founding of Cape Colony? Those two great examples of capitalism, the Dutch and English East India Companies?
*(4) Where’s the English Civil War? Cromwell et al.
*(5) ''”Commercial competition between European nations in North America culminated in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)”'' is just a tad parochial. Actually the Seven Years War was a teeny bit bigger than that. In Europe, it was fought over possession of Silesia by Prussia and Austria. France, Russia, Sweden, Poland sided with Austria; Britain with Prussia. The conflict in Europe contained about 20 major battles in each of which at least 40,000 troops took part with total battle losses of well over 200,000 men. That does not include smaller engagements, sieges, the sacking of towns and villages and pillaging of the countryside, major sea battles ( Lagos, Quiberon Bay) and so on. (It is estimated over a million people died as a result of the conflict in Europe). Because Britain and France were already at each others’ throats unofficially in various parts of the world (including the aptly named French and Indian Wars) there were also major engagements between Britain and France in India, and the West Indies. Late in the war Spain and Portugal set to it in South America. It reached every inhabited continent except Australia (the discovery of which in the early 1600s doesn’t seem to matter, I notice.)
:I am not at all minimising the importance of the F and I War – it had an enormous impact – it gave Canada to Britain and in a way opened the door for the American Revolution a few years later. But the Seven Years War also gave Britain control of India, which is not exactly trifling; and the [[Battle of Quiberon Bay]] off Brittany in 1759 equals [[Trafalgar]] in importance.
:To say that the Seven Years’ War was about “commercial competition between European nations in North America” is a bit like saying World War II started with Pearl Harbor. (And I have met Americans who thought it did.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:39, 12 March 2009 (EDT)00:38, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
::One other thing....English. Phonetic? How does that gell with the infamous "''ough''" words. You know, "cough", "through" "burough", 'rough", etc? Not to mention "veer"' "mere", "pier" "ear" and so on. I love English. I wallow in it. I carry volumes of Shakespeare around in my back pocket. But I would never call it phonetically easy. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:14, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
::: Yes, I'd agree on that. There are some languages (such as Italian) where you can teach someone the pronunciation rules and then they can correctly read aloud anything written in that language without understanding it. In English, if you see the word "moped", you don't even know how many syllables it has until you know (by understanding and by context) if it's a noun or a verb. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 05:04, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: English has some bothersome exceptions to phonetic pronunciation, but there's no denying that the language is largely phonetic. Indeed, phonics is proven to be the best way to learn it.

:::: I'll review the other comments above and incorporate in to the lecture as appropriate. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: You're welcome. English (as I think I said in my revised version) does have a large phonetic element, but less so than many (most?) other languages that use sound-based written elements. Italian or Hebrew or Arabic or Russian is pretty close to perfectly phonetic, which I think is what is meant by describing a language as phonetic. Personally I'm a great lover of puns and wordplay, so I'm quite happy by all the irregularity. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 13:31, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: The larger language (in terms of usage) of Chinese is not phonetic. Also, I'm surprised to hear you claim that Hebrew is phonetic. It traditionally lacked vowels!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:47, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

(outdent) Denise, "sound-based written elements" = phonetic, rather than characters representing ideas (as they do in Chinese). In this sense English is phonetic - although I think there is a specific linguistic word for this; phonograms as opposed to ideograms ? :) . Even though a character (or sequence) may represent ultiple sounds depending on context (and which language it was adapted from), it still stands for sounds. A phonetic written language is not the same as a phonetically consistent lexicon. In this sense any language not written in ideograms is phonetic. If I read it correctly, Andy was simply saying that as a phonetic (characters = sounds) language, English has advantages over ideogrammatic languages. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:58, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to comments ==

The above comments, corrections and suggestions on this lecture have been particularly superb. I have incorporated nearly all of them, and the lecture is now complete except for a final proofread. The class of about 46 or so students is grateful for your insights.

I welcome further suggestions.

The only suggestions that I recall not incorporating are the bit about the English civil wars (e.g., Cromwell) and the Dutch exploration and settlement in Africa, which are covered in a future lectures, and the defense of Hume at the top above, which I feel is too sympathetic to him. Except as otherwise noted above, I think I included everything else. On behalf of the students, I thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The confinement analogy is insightful. The luxuriousness of the quarters is beside the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

== Another Reversion explained ==

Some of the reverted edits were good, but several of them introduced a bias and withheld key information from students. There have been relatively few good English philosophers; Burke was remarkable in predicting outcomes based on his conservative political philosophy. Feel free to reinsert the additions without deleting information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

==Copernicus==
It was my understanding that Protestants recevied Copernicus' work well, but the Catholic Church condemned it because it conflicted with their interpretation of the Bible. This, of course, is the opposite of what you state and I would like some more information concerning it. I would also like to know where you learned that "Wars were being fought and soldiers were dying . . ."? Which wars specifically led to the Catholic Church's banning of Copernicus's theory as fact? I had no idea that the Church had prohibited it because they wanted to avoid further controversy with Protestants. I thought there ''was'' a Catholic objection to learning it as a mathematical theory. Information, please. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 08:55, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Francis Schaeffer

2009-02-28T03:51:02Z

StevenM: New page: '''Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer''', 1912-1984, was a theologian and lecturer who spoke boldly in defense of the Bible as God's absolute truth. His books give a christian worldview of [[phi...

'''Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer''', 1912-1984, was a theologian and lecturer who spoke boldly in defense of the [[Bible]] as God's absolute truth. His books give a christian worldview of [[philosophy]], [[culture]], the [[church]], and society as a whole. He made an impact in his time intellectually, one that still has lingering effects on people today.

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-19T19:03:04Z

StevenM:

{{Controversial}}
Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]
[[/archive6|6]]
[[/archive7|7]]

== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== I Know it's Obvious, But... ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)
==References (please leave at bottom of page)==
{{Reflist}}

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-19T14:41:13Z

StevenM:

American History Homework Thirteen Answers - Student Nineteen

2008-12-19T18:47:07Z

StevenM:

Steven M. :)

1. My favorite period is the "Era of Good Feelings" during the Monroe Administration. America was young and growing fast, most of the conflicts with the British were behind her, and her economy continued to expand.

Other times similar to this contained more problems. The Gilded Age was corrupted, and ecumbered by capitalism. An exciting time, no doubt: free trade flourished. But monopolies and low wages kept many trapped in poverty. The roaring Twenties, also an exciting, good-feeling era, had it's own share of problems. Organixed crime sky-rocketed with the initiation of Prohibition. Much of the less-holy cultural trends of today can be traced back to this period. A standard of indecency and immodesty became mainstream for fashion, music, and dancing. Modern times began, for the most part, here in the 20's. The 50's, bosting the advent of rock n' roll, also hosted technological innovation and an ecomomic boom, like the 1820's.

The difference between these times of good feelings and the original "Era of Good Feelings," is that people where more conservative during the Monroe Administration. I love the early days of America when people read the Bible, grandpa remembered the Great Awakening, everyone knew what was right and wrong, none of this "what you want to believe is fine, tolerate other faiths, truth is relative" talk. Purer, more innocent, far from perfect, but this period of history seems the best to me.

2. President Reagan equals improvement. The economy improved, the Cold War warmed up, the public warmed up to him, Reagan himself improved and became more conservative.

Clinton did not seem to improve anything. Being caught in a sex scandle is not improvement. Although, the Violence Agains Women Act did improve the income of lawyers. After 1994 he changed his ways to win reelection. Reagan rarely changed his mind: "Stay the Course." Clinton signed the Brady Bill, but later wished he hadn't.

That's the main differnce. Not necessarily improvement, but regreting what had been done. Reagan regreted some actions. I wonder how many actions Clinton regrets.

3. The judicial activism in the Supreme Court has been afecting our society for too long. This trend is certainly the most damaging, if not one of the most important, trends harming America. Until Supreme Court Justices become accountable for their decisions, our freedom will continue to be limited.

4. Islam has a rich history of conquest. They hate America, the "Great Satan," and even liberal muslims dislike our methods

5.

6.

American History Homework Thirteen Answers - Student Nineteen

2008-12-19T18:39:19Z

StevenM:

American History Homework Thirteen Answers - Student Nineteen

2008-12-19T18:36:41Z

StevenM:

American History Homework Thirteen Answers - Student Nineteen

2008-12-19T18:34:22Z

StevenM:

American History Homework Thirteen Answers - Student Nineteen

2008-12-19T18:29:22Z

StevenM:

American History Homework Thirteen Answers - Student Nineteen

2008-12-19T18:27:52Z

StevenM:

American History Homework Thirteen Answers - Student Nineteen

2008-12-19T18:19:42Z

StevenM:

American History Homework Thirteen Answers - Student Nineteen

2008-12-19T18:07:45Z

StevenM: New page: Steven M. :) 1. My favorite period is the "Era of Good Feelings" during the Monroe Administration. America was young and growing fast, most of the conflicts with the British were behind h...

User talk:BenjaminS/Poll Question

2008-12-13T01:41:07Z

StevenM:

This is a roundabout way of bringing up the [[ethical]] question, "Are people more important than animals?" My answer is yes, of course. Over 100 million people died last century due to war and [[genocide]] (political reasons), and even malnutrition and epidemic disease (economic reasons). Until liberals start talking about these things, I can't really get exercised about some obscure species of [[snail darter]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:In the constrained dilemma set up by BenjaminS, there's no question that the life of an individual child is more important than that of an animal, even if the animal is the last of its kind. However, that's not a justification to ignore the value of preserving species when their population is threatened by the actions of man instead of the course of nature. If we let bees die off because of something that otherwise benefits man, say as the side-effect of them being harmed by contact with crops treated for pest-control, then we suffer in the end when there's no pollination of our plants. We have an obligation to study nature and learn to live in balance with it, not to ride roughshod over it because we consider ourselves superior and somehow immune to the consequences of abusing it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::"If we let bees die off". ''If we?'' Typical of liberal thought, Dinsdale, is the notion that somehow man can "do in" anything without God allowing it. He created all, and nothing man can try to do will undo what He has created. [[God]] granted man dominion over all animals, and instructed us to subdue them. Surely you have to agree, unless it is The Lord's wish, nothing will perish that isn't supposed to. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 11:30, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:::This is a biased, and slanted question. NO hypothetical situation ''like this'' would ever happen. I love how it manipulates the way people think! --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 20:39, 12 December 2008 (EST)

User talk:BenjaminS/Poll Question

2008-12-13T01:39:13Z

StevenM:

This is a roundabout way of bringing up the [[ethical]] question, "Are people more important than animals?" My answer is yes, of course. Over 100 million people died last century due to war and [[genocide]] (political reasons), and even malnutrition and epidemic disease (economic reasons). Until liberals start talking about these things, I can't really get exercised about some obscure species of [[snail darter]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:In the constrained dilemma set up by BenjaminS, there's no question that the life of an individual child is more important than that of an animal, even if the animal is the last of its kind. However, that's not a justification to ignore the value of preserving species when their population is threatened by the actions of man instead of the course of nature. If we let bees die off because of something that otherwise benefits man, say as the side-effect of them being harmed by contact with crops treated for pest-control, then we suffer in the end when there's no pollination of our plants. We have an obligation to study nature and learn to live in balance with it, not to ride roughshod over it because we consider ourselves superior and somehow immune to the consequences of abusing it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::"If we let bees die off". ''If we?'' Typical of liberal thought, Dinsdale, is the notion that somehow man can "do in" anything without God allowing it. He created all, and nothing man can try to do will undo what He has created. [[God]] granted man dominion over all animals, and instructed us to subdue them. Surely you have to agree, unless it is The Lord's wish, nothing will perish that isn't supposed to. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 11:30, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:::This is a biased, and slanted question. NO hypothetical situation ''like this'' would ever happen. --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 20:39, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal Bible Translations

2008-12-13T01:26:57Z

StevenM:

== NASB ==

I don't think it belongs on this list. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:20, 12 December 2008 (EST)

: It's the least liberal on the list. But it does mandate gender inclusive language, and it does add content, which are two of the criteria.

: More generally, the unchecked and growing liberal incursions into Christianity, including Bible translations, needs some long overdue scrutiny and disclosure.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:23, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Yea I'd prolly prefer if every english version ever published, except the KJV and the NASB were put on this list. Even the NIV is not ''really'' conservative. but then again, I have mostly anecdotal evidence. --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 20:26, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal Bible Translations

2008-12-13T01:26:10Z

StevenM:

== NASB ==

I don't think it belongs on this list. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:20, 12 December 2008 (EST)

: It's the least liberal on the list. But it does mandate gender inclusive language, and it does add content, which are two of the criteria.

: More generally, the unchecked and growing liberal incursions into Christianity, including Bible translations, needs some long overdue scrutiny and disclosure.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:23, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Yea I'd prolly prefer if every english version ever published, except the KJV and the NASB were put on this list. Even the NIV is not ''really'' conservative. but then again, I have only anecdotal evidence. --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 20:26, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-13T01:08:47Z

StevenM:

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== Disappearing Hell ==

Modern translations have been eliminating references to Hell, as illustrated by these translations of Mt 11:23 in chronological order:

{| class="wikitable"
|KJB<ref>King James Bible</ref>||And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NRSV<ref>New Revised Standard Version</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NAB<ref>New American Bible</ref>||And for your , Capernaum: 'Will you be exalted to heaven" You will go down to the netherworld.' For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
|}

== Downplaying the Deity of Jesus ==

Modern versions tend to downplay the deity of Jesus, and use phrases like "Lord Jesus Christ" and "Jesus Christ" less frequently than older translations. Here is a comparison:<ref>These are taken from the keyword search tool on http://www.biblegateway.com/</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|KJV<ref>King James Version</ref>||81 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|ESV<ref>English Standard Version</ref>||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||60 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|}

See also the section on "Jesus as God" below. One commentator argues that modern translations are not downplaying Jesus's deity, but the tables provided in the analysis indicate otherwise.<ref>http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/kjodeityofchrist.php</ref>

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term means "virgin".

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB<ref>New American Bible</ref>||... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
|-
|NRSV<ref>New Revised Standard Version</ref>||Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
|-
|Holman||For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
|-
|NIV||For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
|-
|NRSV||For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
|}

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
|-
|Holman||... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.
|-
|NIV||... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|NRSV||... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|Msg<ref>The Message</ref>||... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.
|}

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
|-
|Holman||When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me.
|-
|NIV||When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
|-
|NRSV||When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
|}

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The authenticity of the story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11 is rejected by most modern biblical translations and many if not nearly all modern biblical scholars, and it does not exist in any of the early biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against [[capital punishment]]: "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref>

The different translations of the Bible comment on this passage as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.
|-
|Holman||Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].
|-
|NIV||The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.
|-
|NRSV||The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.
|-
|Amp<ref>Amplified Bible</ref>||John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts, and those that have it sometimes place it elsewhere. The story may well be authentic. Indeed, Christ's response of compassion and mercy is so much in keeping with His character that we accept it as authentic, and feel that to omit it would be most unfortunate.
|}

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father'' (at Mt 6:12-13):

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|Holman||Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.
|}

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics.<ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref> There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

Note that there are significant differences between modern translations and translation of several hundreds of years ago.

== Jesus as God - Romans 9:5 ==

A point of contention is the description of Jesus as God in Romans 9:5. Here are several translations of it:

{| class="wikitable"
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
|-
|NIV||Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
|-
|NAB||theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|RSV||The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.
|}

==Acts 8:37==
{| class="wikitable"
|KJB||And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37&version=9;]
|-
|NIV||........[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37;&version=31;]
|-
|ESV||.........[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37;&version=47;]
|}

===Context===
Right before Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunch, the eunuch asked "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (KJV Acts 8:36) In other versions, nothing. The chariot stands still, and he is baptized (v. 38)

===Meaning===
This omission shows an emphasis being placed on works rather than faith in Jesus Christ. Baptisim alone will not take you to Heaven.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-13T01:06:37Z

StevenM:

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== Disappearing Hell ==

Modern translations have been eliminating references to Hell, as illustrated by these translations of Mt 11:23 in chronological order:

{| class="wikitable"
|KJB<ref>King James Bible</ref>||And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NRSV<ref>New Revised Standard Version</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NAB<ref>New American Bible</ref>||And for your , Capernaum: 'Will you be exalted to heaven" You will go down to the netherworld.' For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
|}

== Downplaying the Deity of Jesus ==

Modern versions tend to downplay the deity of Jesus, and use phrases like "Lord Jesus Christ" and "Jesus Christ" less frequently than older translations. Here is a comparison:<ref>These are taken from the keyword search tool on http://www.biblegateway.com/</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|KJV<ref>King James Version</ref>||81 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|ESV<ref>English Standard Version</ref>||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||60 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|}

See also the section on "Jesus as God" below. One commentator argues that modern translations are not downplaying Jesus's deity, but the tables provided in the analysis indicate otherwise.<ref>http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/kjodeityofchrist.php</ref>

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term means "virgin".

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB<ref>New American Bible</ref>||... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
|-
|NRSV<ref>New Revised Standard Version</ref>||Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
|-
|Holman||For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
|-
|NIV||For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
|-
|NRSV||For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
|}

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
|-
|Holman||... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.
|-
|NIV||... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|NRSV||... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|Msg<ref>The Message</ref>||... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.
|}

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
|-
|Holman||When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me.
|-
|NIV||When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
|-
|NRSV||When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
|}

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The authenticity of the story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11 is rejected by most modern biblical translations and many if not nearly all modern biblical scholars, and it does not exist in any of the early biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against [[capital punishment]]: "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref>

The different translations of the Bible comment on this passage as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.
|-
|Holman||Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].
|-
|NIV||The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.
|-
|NRSV||The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.
|-
|Amp<ref>Amplified Bible</ref>||John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts, and those that have it sometimes place it elsewhere. The story may well be authentic. Indeed, Christ's response of compassion and mercy is so much in keeping with His character that we accept it as authentic, and feel that to omit it would be most unfortunate.
|}

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father'' (at Mt 6:12-13):

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|Holman||Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.
|}

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics.<ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref> There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

Note that there are significant differences between modern translations and translation of several hundreds of years ago.

== Jesus as God - Romans 9:5 ==

A point of contention is the description of Jesus as God in Romans 9:5. Here are several translations of it:

{| class="wikitable"
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
|-
|NIV||Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
|-
|NAB||theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|RSV||The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.
|}

==Acts 8:37==
{| class="wikitable"
|KJB||And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37&version=9;]
|-
|NIV||........
|-
|ESV||.........
|}

===Context===
Right before Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunch, the eunuch asked "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (KJV Acts 8:36) In other versions, nothing. The chariot stands still, and he is baptized (v. 38)

===Meaning===
This omission shows an emphasis being placed on works rather than faith in Jesus Christ. Baptisim alone will not take you to Heaven.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-13T01:02:22Z

StevenM:

==Different Translations in General==

Sorry to bump this to the top, but I believe this is a central issue. In showing different translations of the Bible, I'm afraid we may giving a false impression of what that means. Most translations use the same early Greek manuscipts. The only difference is in intentional style. For instance the NIV attempts to translate idioms into their perceived meaning of the day whereas the NASB goes with a straight literal translation. It's not that the two, or any other versions of the Bible that translate from the Greek, are at odds. They are different styles.

Paraphrased Bibles are different as their goal is not a literal translation but a simplistic one that speaks to the audience of today. They are not meant for specific accuracy, but for people to be able to read the Bible more easily and still understand the meaning. I had a Living Bible in the 1970s, which is paraphrased. I remember one of the sayings of Jesus to the Pharisees was 'Talk is cheap'. I can tell you that was not literally in the original Greek, but was put in that form for the audience reading it to better relate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:22, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==Conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on Hell==

Right now this claim is very unsubstantiated. I think the readers of this article will get more out of it if we tell them ''how'' the passage about the adulterous woman conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on hell-- not merely say that it does. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: Good point. Will try to improve it now per your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:Many Christians don't believe in Hell or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. See [http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm Jesus' Teaching on Hell, Samuel G. Dawson] [[User:BernardH|BernardH]] 13:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::''or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved.'' That is not believing in Hell; that is believing in [[Purgatory]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:31, 10 December 2008 (EST)

''"Many Christians believe etc."''
What kind of argument is that? Truth is independent of belief. What "many christians believe" has no impact on the reality of Hell.

Still, no one has yet attempted to explain how the passae conflicts with Jesus' emphasis on Hell.
We've sufficiently demonstrated that the passage is '''used''' (or misused) to arue against hell, but the page still doesn't explain how or why it is actually in conflict with the reality of Hell (or Jesus' emphasis thereon). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

: Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven in the authentic passages, with Jesus as judge. In this phony passage, however, Jesus refuses to judge and the woman never asks for forgiveness. Based on the authentic passages, she's headed for Hell. Based on the phony passage, she's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::As for emphasis on Hell or Heaven, this passage mentions neither. The passage emphasizes A) The general sinfulness of man John 8:7, The fact that there is no condemnation through Jesus Christ, (John 8:11, {see Romans 8:1}) as long as there is repentance "Go. From now on Sin no more." As for the woman not asking for forgiveness, another example of Jesus forgiving without being asked can be found in Luke 5:17-26. Biblically speaking, she is no more headed to Hell than you or I, or ''any other person born'' except for Jesus. (Romans 3:22-23) Everyone deserves Hell. Jesus offers forgiveness as a free gift to anyone who will repent. (Romans 6:23) To sum everything up, the passage does not have a bearing on the existence of Heaven or Hell, and does not contradict other passages. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 01:55, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:::Well put Tim, and well researched. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::::Thanks. I believe that the best source for interpreting the Bible, is the Bible itself. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:22, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::::: OK, so why does the entry now promote a version of the Bible that "amplifies" it with liberal ideology? I'm referring, of course, to the discredited "Amplified Bible," which violates John's prohibition against adding anything to the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Actually, I think that the Amplified version simply tries to give more of the meaning of the Greek words, because it is impossible to pack all of the meaning of a Greek word into an english word. Could you give an example of where it is "amplified with liberal ideology"? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: See [http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/q7.pdf].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 00:34, 12 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: That doesn't answer Tim's question of an example of 'where it is "amplified with liberal ideology" '. I've found nowhere else on the Internet where that translator (if indeed he was, although he was involved with the translation) rejected the Amplified Bible; he did reject the NASV, but no other source says that he rejected the Amplified. Further, the argument about adding to the Bible in that reference is nonsense; Tim had it right about simply giving more of the meaning of the Greek words. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:46, 12 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Also, I checked out your reference to Luke 5:17-26, and Jesus forgave sins of those who had faith. There is no indication of faith by the adulteress. Luke 5:17-26 is nothing like the adulteress story.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:34, 11 December 2008 (EST)
::::::I was simply pointing out another example of Jesus forgiving someone who did not ask. That was a minor point. Could you respond to my main points?--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:46, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Human Ghosts? ==

"''It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts''"

I have never heard anyone claim that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts. On the contrary, it is against the idea. Could you please point out the basis for the claim that these versions have introduced the idea of human ghosts. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 14:28, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: You're right that the Bible does not support the idea of human ghosts. But I've given examples now of how modern translations (erroneously) do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:: The examples do not show that modern translations support the idea of human ghosts. All the examples support is that modern translators believe that ''the people the Bible was talking about'' believed in human ghosts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:: The "commentator" mentioned in this section is a KJV-only person, who provides a poor argument overall. The quote of him is wrong (as mentioned above the examples do not show what is claimed) and should be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
: I would imagine that when people say that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts they are referring to 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul has a witch summon the deceased Samuel for counsel. I have always been personally surprised by the depiction of this story in the bible and I wonder if its translation has changed from the older manuscripts. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 13:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's a curious case! The connections between human ghosts and the Holy Ghost are patently absurd, however. I think it has to do with the German (perhaps Old-English?) rootword Geist, which means both Ghost and Spirit. Translation is often a problem. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== Adulteress story ==

I've removed some bits for the following reasons:
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against capital punishment.
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against hell. The reference supposedly supporting this claim was actually using the passage to argue against ''condemnation'' of any sort, as part of a larger argument against the existence of hell, but this passage itself wasn't being used to argue against hell itself.
* I can't see how the passage conflicts with other teaching about hell.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:Quite the contrary, it's used ''extensively'' by liberal denominations who try to push the "no condemnation" "everyone is saved" view. I've personally had numerous conversations with "liberal Christians" who brought up the passage to deny Hell itself. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: Right. There's no denying how this passage is used to deny the existence of [[Hell]] (which, by the way, should be capitalized), oppose capital punishment, and even bully anyone who condemns sin in an effective way. There is already one reference to an example and more could be easily found.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm going to half-agree with Andy here: I have heard people (ministers included) reference this story as an argument against capital punishment, and/or to downplay the notion of harsh punishments from God. However, I must take issue with the idea that the story's "authenticity is rejected by modern biblical scholars". While some reject it entirely, and most dispute its placement, my understanding is that it is considered to be an actual Jesus story, and the implication that all scholars reject it out of hand is preposterous. At the ''very'' least, there should be a "some" inserted between "by" and "modern".--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Given that there's now further testimony of the passage being used to oppose hell and capital punishment, I'll accept that. However, not all the objections have been addressed.
:::: Further, Andy's edit comment and reply here are offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated. As I have repeatedly pointed out before, it is NOT censorship to remove inaccurate information (which is what I believed this to be). Further, it is NOT a valid argument to simply declare yourself correct ("There's no denying...").
:::: Finally, there was no explanation for the reversion of a wording change that was made at the same time.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, your edits again distort the entry without justification. For example, you say that the passage is "misused" to deny the existence of Hell (which you notably spell with a small "h"). There is evidence that the passage is fake, but no justification for saying it is "misused". The passage, if taken at face value, does support an argument denying the existence of Hell.
::::::The passage taken at face value does ''not'' deny the existence of Hell. It is an example of Christ's forgiveness, which he offers to everyone, regardless of the severity of their sin. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::::: Another change is you insist on putting a website in the text rather than in a footnote, perhaps to try to downplay the (undeniable) point being made. Websites belong in the footnotes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your "reversion explained" does not explain the wholesale reversion of my edits including formatting changes nor much of my rewording, such as the sentence introducing the different translation comments.
:::::: The passage does not directly nor indirectly mention hell, so does ''not'' deny the existence of hell, at face value or otherwise.
:::::: The "misused" word was yours. I didn't add that.
:::::: I did not spell Hell with a lower-case "h". The only use of that in the section is in a quote that you inserted.
:::::: I did not "insist" on putting a web-site in the text. I did put it in the text, but only because it's normal practice when quoting someone to say ''in the text'' who is being quoted. As there was not an author's name to attribute it to, I attributed it to the web-site.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: ''offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated'' You are skating on very thin ice with abusive comments like that. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You have a problem with the truth? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: You are both out of order. When comments get above six colons, the indent should be reset to the edge of the page.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Did you just make that up, Mr. nine-colons? :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I thought it was a rule, but maybe I'm wrong. The amount of time I spend on here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd dreamt it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't know the six colon rule, CP, but I do now! As for Philip: I don't have any problem with the truth; what I do have a problem with is your increasingly aggressive and intemperate attitude towards Andy, who, as the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia is entitled to courtesty and respect, not insult. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)
: If I'm increasingly aggressive and intemperate toward Andy, then I'm merely following the example set by our Founder and Leader. Is there any better way to show courtesy and respect other than to try and be like him? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, your angry and insulting comments are increasingly inappropriate. We're going to keep a high level of discourse here consistent with our purpose. Also, website references belong in footnotes, not the text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::: If we are going to keep a high level of discourse here, why do you insult me by ignoring my questions and comments, by calling my attempts to make the article more accurate "censorship", and calling me "liberal"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, we're building an encyclopedia here. I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk. Your edits have far too high a percentage of talk and edits that are reverted. Deleting information is censorship, and I don't think I ever called you a liberal. Supporting gun control is a liberal position; claiming that "beauty is on the eye of the beholder" is an atheistic view; and spelling Hell with a small "h" does suggest a denial of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: You did call me a liberal, and refused to apologise for it. Deleting false information is not censorship.
:::::: I previously pointed out that I did not spell "Hell" with a lower case "h", although I now realise that although that's true in the article, I did spell it that way in at least one comment on this page. However, I would also point out that the Bible translators also spell it with a lower-case "h"![http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=hell&searchtype=all&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&startnumber=26].
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I don't know if using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell is a very common thing. The provided source links to a forum post, where the Adulteress Story seems like a very minor point in the guy's argument. Anyone who is trying to use that verse to deny Hell is really just grasping at straws. Could we find a better source for this? I searched briefly but found no other instance of using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 10:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Since Mr. Aschlafly has refused to participate in discussion any further ("I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk.") and has shown no further evidence to his side other than offering ad hominum and other fallacious statements like "undeniable", why not just go with Mr. Philip Rayment's edits? It boggles the mind as to how one can push their side of the discussion without giving any sort of reason. Seems pretty simple which side to pick... [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 11:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Regardless of whether you agree with other users or not, we do ''not'' tolerate personal insults on this encyclopedia, Jalast Jeweler. Please keep it civil and objective. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:11, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we make a reference to anyone using this passage to say there is no Hell. Jesus himself says there is a Hell, more than once. Because it is not mentioned here -- at all, does not suddenly remove Jesus' direct references. It would be like my talking with Andy and his mentioning that he has two children. I would then talk with him again and he mentions he has two children. I talk with him a third time and we discuss the Republican Party. Could anyone seriously state Andy doesn't have any children because he didn't mention it when we talked again? Anyone making such a ridiculous statement should be pitied, not quoted, and the same is true with this article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:32, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==a new kettle o' fish==
I'm starting a new subsection here to explain the changes I just made to the article, and also to bypass the fussiness above, and perhaps have an actual discussion on the merits, as it were.
*I changed "authenticity has been rejected by modern biblical scholars" to "authenticity and placement have been disputed by many modern biblical scholars" because a bit of research on the issue showed me that a few scholars think the story is totally bogus, many think it the story is accurate but misplaced, and a fair number think the story is accurate and correctly placed. Therefore, to say or imply that all agree that the story is bogus is just plain wrong.
*I indicated somewhere above that I have indeed heard (as Andy wrote) various folks use this passage as an argument against capital punishment, and a few use it to argue against Hell in general. However, the most recent assertion that some use it to "argue against opposition to sinful behavior...(including) permissiveness to alternative lifestyles, desecration and belittlement of Christianity and Christians by the unfaithful" is just ludicrous--I've never heard anyone ever argue anything like that, ever. If that's going to be in the article, you're going to need some serious cites. Therefore, I changed it back to something like Andy first wrote (which still includes his supporting cite).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:25, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Your second point is fine, but your first point is simply not accurate. The overwhelming consensus is that the passage is not authentic, and all modern versions of the Bible confirm this as well as all or nearly all biblical scholars across the political spectrum. Our description will reflect that, and I'm changing it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::To avoid any contention this may cause, could either of you provide citings? That way we could be sure and add them to the article, rather than just asserting either way. --[[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 21:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, can I ask how you're defining "authentic"? I know that the Catholic Church views this passage as canonical. And Liam, I'll try to find and post some of what I've been reading, but I'll do that tomorrow, as it is past my bedtime....--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:02, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::::Liam, numerous citations are in this entry and in the Essay in the footnote demonstrating the passage is not authentic, and by "authentic" I mean the obvious: it was not part of the Gospel as written by John and was inserted 100 years or more after that Gospel was completed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Disappearing Hell ==

Andy, the word in the Greek is Hades. [http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=11&v=23&t=KJV#conc/23] [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

: Wow, that's a great source you have there! The KJB translates "Hades" as Hell. That's what I thought it meant. Do you feel otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:: It is a good source. ;-) I just wish they'd also give translations for the Old Testament Septuagint.

:: The modern translations are just being literal when they translate is as Hades. I believe it's fair to translate it as Hell. Gehenna is usually translated as Hell more often because it has the direct reference to a burning fire. Gehenna would be referenced to appeal to the Jewish perspective and Hades for the Greek. Both cultures were prominent in Palestine at that time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:17, 12 December 2008 (EST)

==HELP!==
I'm trying to put this link in from Biblelogos and the spam filter keeps stopping me! --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 20:02, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-13T00:55:05Z

StevenM:

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== Disappearing Hell ==

Modern translations have been eliminating references to Hell, as illustrated by these translations of Mt 11:23 in chronological order:

{| class="wikitable"
|KJB<ref>King James Bible</ref>||And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NRSV<ref>New Revised Standard Version</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NAB<ref>New American Bible</ref>||And for your , Capernaum: 'Will you be exalted to heaven" You will go down to the netherworld.' For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
|}

== Downplaying the Deity of Jesus ==

Modern versions tend to downplay the deity of Jesus, and use phrases like "Lord Jesus Christ" and "Jesus Christ" less frequently than older translations. Here is a comparison:<ref>These are taken from the keyword search tool on http://www.biblegateway.com/</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|KJV<ref>King James Version</ref>||81 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|ESV<ref>English Standard Version</ref>||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||60 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|}

See also the section on "Jesus as God" below. One commentator argues that modern translations are not downplaying Jesus's deity, but the tables provided in the analysis indicate otherwise.<ref>http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/kjodeityofchrist.php</ref>

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term means "virgin".

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB<ref>New American Bible</ref>||... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
|-
|NRSV<ref>New Revised Standard Version</ref>||Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
|-
|Holman||For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
|-
|NIV||For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
|-
|NRSV||For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
|}

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
|-
|Holman||... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.
|-
|NIV||... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|NRSV||... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|Msg<ref>The Message</ref>||... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.
|}

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
|-
|Holman||When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me.
|-
|NIV||When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
|-
|NRSV||When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
|}

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The authenticity of the story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11 is rejected by most modern biblical translations and many if not nearly all modern biblical scholars, and it does not exist in any of the early biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against [[capital punishment]]: "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref>

The different translations of the Bible comment on this passage as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.
|-
|Holman||Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].
|-
|NIV||The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.
|-
|NRSV||The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.
|-
|Amp<ref>Amplified Bible</ref>||John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts, and those that have it sometimes place it elsewhere. The story may well be authentic. Indeed, Christ's response of compassion and mercy is so much in keeping with His character that we accept it as authentic, and feel that to omit it would be most unfortunate.
|}

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father'' (at Mt 6:12-13):

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|Holman||Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.
|}

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics.<ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref> There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

Note that there are significant differences between modern translations and translation of several hundreds of years ago.

== Jesus as God - Romans 9:5 ==

A point of contention is the description of Jesus as God in Romans 9:5. Here are several translations of it:

{| class="wikitable"
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
|-
|NIV||Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
|-
|NAB||theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|RSV||The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.
|}

==Acts 8:37==
{| class="wikitable"
|KJB||And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
|-
|NIV||........
|-
|}

===Context===
Right before Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunch, the eunuch asked "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (KJV Acts 8:36) In other versions, nothing. The chariot stands still, and he is baptized (v. 38)

===Meaning===
This omission shows an emphasis being placed on works rather than faith in Jesus Christ. Baptisim alone will not take you to Heaven.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-13T00:48:33Z

StevenM: I'll add the references in a sec

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== Disappearing Hell ==

Modern translations have been eliminating references to Hell, as illustrated by these translations of Mt 11:23 in chronological order:

{| class="wikitable"
|KJB<ref>King James Bible</ref>||And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NRSV<ref>New Revised Standard Version</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NAB<ref>New American Bible</ref>||And for your , Capernaum: 'Will you be exalted to heaven" You will go down to the netherworld.' For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
|}

== Downplaying the Deity of Jesus ==

Modern versions tend to downplay the deity of Jesus, and use phrases like "Lord Jesus Christ" and "Jesus Christ" less frequently than older translations. Here is a comparison:<ref>These are taken from the keyword search tool on http://www.biblegateway.com/</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|KJV<ref>King James Version</ref>||81 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|ESV<ref>English Standard Version</ref>||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||60 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|}

See also the section on "Jesus as God" below. One commentator argues that modern translations are not downplaying Jesus's deity, but the tables provided in the analysis indicate otherwise.<ref>http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/kjodeityofchrist.php</ref>

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term means "virgin".

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB<ref>New American Bible</ref>||... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
|-
|NRSV<ref>New Revised Standard Version</ref>||Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
|-
|Holman||For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
|-
|NIV||For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
|-
|NRSV||For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
|}

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
|-
|Holman||... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.
|-
|NIV||... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|NRSV||... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|Msg<ref>The Message</ref>||... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.
|}

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
|-
|Holman||When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me.
|-
|NIV||When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
|-
|NRSV||When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
|}

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The authenticity of the story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11 is rejected by most modern biblical translations and many if not nearly all modern biblical scholars, and it does not exist in any of the early biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against [[capital punishment]]: "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref>

The different translations of the Bible comment on this passage as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.
|-
|Holman||Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].
|-
|NIV||The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.
|-
|NRSV||The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.
|-
|Amp<ref>Amplified Bible</ref>||John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts, and those that have it sometimes place it elsewhere. The story may well be authentic. Indeed, Christ's response of compassion and mercy is so much in keeping with His character that we accept it as authentic, and feel that to omit it would be most unfortunate.
|}

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father'' (at Mt 6:12-13):

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|Holman||Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.
|}

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics.<ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref> There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

Note that there are significant differences between modern translations and translation of several hundreds of years ago.

== Jesus as God - Romans 9:5 ==

A point of contention is the description of Jesus as God in Romans 9:5. Here are several translations of it:

{| class="wikitable"
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
|-
|NIV||Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
|-
|NAB||theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|RSV||The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.
|}

==Acts 8:37==
{| class="wikitable"
|KJB||And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
|-
|NIV||........
|-
|}

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

American History Homework Twelve Answers

2008-12-13T00:36:07Z

StevenM:

{{HS_American_History}}{{DEFAULTSORT:American History Homework Answers 12}}
[[American History Lecture Twelve|Lecture]] - [[American_History_Homework_Twelve|Questions]] - [[American History Homework Twelve Answers|Student Answers]]

== Model Answers ==
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Model]]

== Student Answers ==

This homework is due Dec. 11th. The plan is to grade it all by Saturday evening, Dec. 13th.

*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One]] EVERYONE LOOK AT MY PAGE! I HAVE THE BEST ANSWERS!!!
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Two]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Three]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Four]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Five]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Six]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Seven]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Eight]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Nine]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Ten]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Eleven]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Twelve]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Thirteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Fourteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Fifteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Sixteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Seventeen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Eighteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Nineteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Twenty]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 21]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 22]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 23]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 24]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 25]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 26]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 27]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 28]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 29]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 30]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 31]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 32]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 33]]

(add more)

American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One

2008-12-13T00:35:07Z

StevenM:

Steven M. :-)

1. The Cold War between the USSR and the United States lasted from 1945 to 1990.

2. The Vietnam War and the Korean War. The United States obviously fought hard in both of these, but it was not a concerted effort like World War II. These wars, people thought, were less important. Our country was not in immediate danger, so these wars were much less popular. Vietnam was especially unpopular, not only because of the cultural changes favoring rebellion and independence, but because of the position the U.S. took in Vietnam. Much like Britain fighting in the colonies. To the British the colonies was a large unknown wilderness with an diverse population. Many of them were strongly opinionated and planned on fighting for the soil they lived on. The colonists knew the country and fought the invaders using guerilla warfare. Although many of them sided with England (touries), the patriots were aided by foriegn countries. They were convinced by radical liturature that they were fighting for freedom.

Do you see all the similarities? America loves an underdog. And in Vietnam we were definitely not the underdog. The outcome is sad, but I think it was foreseeable. I completely agree with the way we accepted defeat in Vietnam, but there were not very many options. Right before the war started there was only two choices about it: go to war or not. What else could we have done?

In Korea, however, I believe we could have won that. Korea might be a completely capitalist country today if it were not for Harry Truman's ire.

3. The sit-ins were a brave protest of blacks not being allowed to be served in diners. To come in to a segregated place, even with one or two dozen friends, where you knew you would not be welcome was dangerous. Many of them went to jail because they had been taking business away from the restaurant. I can imagine white, paying customers walking in and going right back out because the place is already full of black people who can't buy anything. And the owner behind the counter is just getting madder and madder, but he's helpless. All this was a strong statement made by peaceful civil rights activits.

4. LBJ is known for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. The Great Society was the begining of the modern welfare state, so that is very significant. It was a milestone for liberals, like the New Deal. Tax-payer money went to those less fortuitous, meaning, those without fortitude. Since that time people can afford their rent and cable TV bill while only working 25 hours a week at McDonalds. The American dream lives on...

5. The 80th Congress balanced the federal budget. This is an incredible feat for a government that spends as much as ours does. It demonstrated that lowering taxes can create an economic enviroment better suited to cultural growth.

6. Wow, what a question. I couldn't decide between Douglas MacArthur and Jackie Robinson and Elvis and Lyndon B. Johnson and Henry Kissinger. There are so many possibilities to choose from.

In the end, however, I think that I must say Earl Warren. He was the Chief Justice of the most influential Supreme Court in American History. His brazen acts of activism revolutionized the way the Constitution was viewed, and thus his actions continue to affect society today. Notably, I find his favour of criminals particularly disturbing. He held they had specific rights throughout his career. Some might say criminals have '''NO''' rights; they gave up their rights when they became criminals. I think the constitution is fair the way it's written, especially in respect to treatment of criminals. But if anything more is added, outlaws will take advantage of the errors in the system, many times getting off easy, with only a slap on the wrist.

7. The Warren Court was in charge of the building pictured. They had a very liberal ideology, espousing judicial activism. One of the boldest and most unsetteling examples of this is their interfering with States' rights. They overturned many state laws in order to allow pornography, to disrupt the democratic process in State Legislatures, and to ban official school prayer. Not only were these bad decisions in themselves, but they were bad because they took authority that belonged to the States and gave it to the Federal Government: specifically, the Supreme Court.

H1. What is your view of whether Muhammad Ali was entitled to a conscientious objection based on Islam?

First of all, this was not a great war for America. Second, people should retain the right to choose whether or not to be a soldier, especially in a conflict as controversial as Vietnam. However, even if the war was unquestionably right, and if the draft was constitutional, Ali was muslim, and had a legitimate reason not to be drafted. Some say he converted to Islam only to get out of the fighting. This may be true, but if someone claims conscientious objection, it ought to be taken very seriously.

Ali was stripped of his title as world heavyweight boxing champion when he refused to be inducted. He was also sentenced to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine for evading the draft. In this one respect I have sympathy with Muhammad Ali: he was persecuted for his religion. Though I was never a boxer, never robbed of a championship, never felt an inclination toward Islam, never opposed military service; though I would have fought in Vietnam if ''I'' had been drafted, and died for a cause that I believed was not entirely worth dying for (or was Vietnam worth the price in lives after all?), I identify with Ali because he was punished for his faith. It is serious when a country will force you to do what you say you must not on account of religion.

And even if he was a pacifist whimp, and the only reason he became muslim was to try and get off the hook, you can not judge what is within a man's heart. We will never know his motive for converting to Islam (until Judgment Day), but inditing him for draft evasion sets a precedent for the government to control men's lives, regardless of their claimed beliefs.

H2. Write about any issue or debate in the lecture, or relating to the period 1945 to 1980:
Do you think Union power should be strengthened or weakened by Congress today?

Well, Unions are still very powerful. But what do they need their power for these days? There are no robber barons, no sweat shops. There are probably a thousand laws for employees' rights. Unions served their purpose well; those laws would not have been established without the initiative of the Unions. But by the 40's they had too much power and they began to abuse it. So it was wonderful timing that the 80th Congress should pass the laws that it did. Those laws made were fair to give some power back to the employers, after all, he does own the company. Today Unions are largly superfluous. And I feel there should be less of that which is not neccessary. In some industries, however, they may still serve some good purpose: we need not eradicate them completely.

H3. THE ERA WAS BAD.

H4. "Over time, conservative principles and values tend to gain broader acceptance by the American people." Do you agree with respect to 1945 through 1980, or 1980 through today (take your pick)? Explain.

This question is difficult firstly because of the ambiguity of the word "conservative."

Looking at the presidents of the time periods, conservatism seems to be doing better now than 50 years ago. Compare Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush vs. Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon. Politically conservative principles gained! With homeschooling legal now, as well as the removal of the compulsory draft, freedom is greater and government is smaller. Taxes are lower, communism is virtually non-existent in the U.S., racism is history, drugs are not cool.

But, the 50's and 60's were more socially conservative than today. Teenage pregnancy, divorce and skirts, were all much lower. Homosexuality was totally unacceptable, abortion was unthinkable.

This question is difficult secondly because of the extreme difference between the moderate changes in the 50's and the way so many went off the deep end in the 60's and 70's.

Overall, I feel we are more conservative today, but I would be content to live during either period.

[[Category:American History lectures]]

Bible prophecy

2008-12-13T00:16:26Z

StevenM: a start. but i ended a sentence with a preposition

Biblical prophecy is the prophetic statements of the Men of God in the Bible. These prophets spoke to the children of Isreal, usually concerning some sin or false way they were in.

American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One

2008-12-13T00:11:33Z

StevenM:

American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One

2008-12-12T19:29:03Z

StevenM:

Steven M. :-)

1. The Cold War between the USSR and the United States lasted from 1945 to 1990.

2. The Vietnam War and the Korean War. The United States obviously fought hard in both of these, but it was not a concerted effort like World War II. These wars, people thought, were less important. Our country was not in immediate danger, so these wars were much less popular. Vietnam was especially unpopular, not only because of the cultural changes favoring rebellion and independence, but because of the position the U.S. took in Vietnam. Much like Britain fighting in the colonies. To the British the colonies was a large unknown wilderness with an diverse population. Many of them were strongly opinionated and planned on fighting for the soil they lived on. The colonists knew the country and fought the invaders using guerilla warfare. Although many of them sided with England (touries), the patriots were aided by foriegn countries. They were convinced by radical liturature that they were fighting for freedom.

Do you see all the similarities? America loves an underdog. And in Vietnam we were definitely not the underdog. The outcome is sad, but I think it was foreseeable. I completely agree with the way we accepted defeat in Vietnam, but there were not very many options. Right before the war started there was only two choices about it: go to war or not. What else could we have done?

In Korea, however, I believe we could have won that. Korea might be a completely capitalist country today if it were not for Harry Truman's ire.

3. The sit-ins were a brave protest of blacks not being allowed to be served in diners. To come in to a segregated place, even with one or two dozen friends, where you knew you would not be welcome was dangerous. Many of them went to jail because they had been taking business away from the restaurant. I can imagine white, paying customers walking in and going right back out because the place is already full of black people who can't buy anything. And the owner behind the counter is just getting madder and madder, but he's helpless. All this was a strong statement made by peaceful civil rights activits.

4. LBJ is known for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. The Great Society was the begining of the modern welfare state, so that is very significant. It was a milestone for liberals, like the New Deal. Tax-payer money went to those less fortuitous, meaning, those without fortitude. Since that time people can afford their rent and cable TV bill while only working 25 hours a week at McDonalds. The American dream lives on...

5. The 80th Congress balanced the federal budget. This is an incredible feat for a government that spends as much as ours does. It demonstrated that lowering taxes can create an economic enviroment better suited to cultural growth.

6. Wow, what a question. I couldn't decide between Douglas MacArthur and Jackie Robinson and Elvis and Lyndon B. Johnson and Henry Kissinger. There are so many possibilities to choose from.

In the end, however, I think that I must say Earl Warren. He was the Chief Justice of the most influential Supreme Court in American History. His brazen acts of activism revolutionized the way the Constitution was viewed, and thus his actions continue to affect society today. Notably, I find his favour of criminals particularly disturbing. He held they had specific rights throughout his career. Some might say criminals have '''NO''' rights; they gave up their rights when they became criminals. I think the constitution is fair the way it's written, especially in respect to treatment of criminals. But if anything more is added, outlaws will take advantage of the errors in the system, many times getting off easy, with only a slap on the wrist.

7. The Warren Court was in charge of the building pictured. They had a very liberal ideology, espousing judicial activism. One of the boldest and most unsetteling examples of this is their interfering with States' rights. They overturned many state laws in order to allow pornography, to disrupt the democratic process in State Legislatures, and to ban official school prayer. Not only were these bad decisions in themselves, but they were bad because they took authority that belonged to the States and gave it to the Federal Government: specifically, the Supreme Court.

H1. What is your view of whether Muhammad Ali was entitled to a conscientious objection based on Islam?

First of all, this was not a great war for America. Second, people should retain the right to choose whether or not to be a soldier, especially in a conflict as controversial as Vietnam. However, even if the war was unquestionably right, and if the draft was constitutional, Ali was muslim, and had a legitimate reason not to be drafted. Some say he converted to Islam only to get out of the fighting. This may be true, but if someone claims conscientious objection, it ought to be taken very seriously.

Ali was stripped of his title as world heavyweight boxing champion when he refused to be inducted. He was also sentenced to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine for evading the draft. In this one respect I have sympathy with Muhammad Ali: he was persecuted for his religion. Though I was never a boxer, never robbed of a championship, never felt an inclination toward Islam, never opposed military service; though I would have fought in Vietnam if ''I'' had been drafted, and died for a cause that I believed was not entirely worth dying for (or was Vietnam worth the price in lives after all?), I identify with Ali because he was punished for his faith. It is serious when a country will force you to do what you say you must not on account of religion.

And even if he was a pacifist whimp, and the only reason he became muslim was to try and get off the hook, you can not judge what is within a man's heart. We will never know his motive for converting to Islam (until Judgment Day), but inditing him for draft evasion sets a precedent for the government to control men's lives, regardless of their claimed beliefs.

H2. Write about any issue or debate in the lecture, or relating to the period 1945 to 1980:
Do you think Union power should be strengthened or weakened by Congress today?

Well, Unions are still very powerful. But what do they need their power for these days? There are no robber barons, no sweat shops. There are probably a thousand laws for employees' rights. Unions served their purpose well; those laws would not have been established without the initiative of the Unions. But by the 40's they had too much power and they began to abuse it. So it was wonderful timing that the 80th Congress should pass the laws that it did. Those laws made were fair to give some power back to the employers, after all, he does own the company. Today Unions are largly superfluous. And I feel there should be less of that which is not neccessary. In some industries, however, they may still serve some good purpose: we need not eradicate them completely.

H3. THE ERA WAS BAD.

H4. "Over time, conservative principles and values tend to gain broader acceptance by the American people." Do you agree with respect to 1945 through 1980, or 1980 through today (take your pick)? Explain.

Looking at the presidents of the time periods, conservatism seems to be doing better now than 50 years ago. Compare Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush vs. Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon. Politically conservative principles gained! With homeschooling legal now, as well as the removal of the compulsory draft, freedom is greater and government is smaller. Taxes are lower, communism is virtually non-existent in the U.S., racism is history, drugs are not cool.

But, the 50's and 60's was more socially conservative than today. Homosexuality was totally unacceptable

[[Category:American History lectures]]

American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One

2008-12-12T19:27:30Z

StevenM:

Steven M. :-)

1. The Cold War between the USSR and the United States lasted from 1945 to 1990.

2. The Vietnam War and the Korean War. The United States obviously fought hard in both of these, but it was not a concerted effort like World War II. These wars, people thought, were less important. Our country was not in immediate danger, so these wars were much less popular. Vietnam was especially unpopular, not only because of the cultural changes favoring rebellion and independence, but because of the position the U.S. took in Vietnam. Much like Britain fighting in the colonies. To the British the colonies was a large unknown wilderness with an diverse population. Many of them were strongly opinionated and planned on fighting for the soil they lived on. The colonists knew the country and fought the invaders using guerilla warfare. Although many of them sided with England (touries), the patriots were aided by foriegn countries. They were convinced by radical liturature that they were fighting for freedom.

Do you see all the similarities? America loves an underdog. And in Vietnam we were definitely not the underdog. The outcome is sad, but I think it was foreseeable. I completely agree with the way we accepted defeat in Vietnam, but there were not very many options. Right before the war started there was only two choices about it: go to war or not. What else could we have done?

In Korea, however, I believe we could have won that. Korea might be a completely capitalist country today if it were not for Harry Truman's ire.

3. The sit-ins were a brave protest of blacks not being allowed to be served in diners. To come in to a segregated place, even with one or two dozen friends, where you knew you would not be welcome was dangerous. Many of them went to jail because they had been taking business away from the restaurant. I can imagine white, paying customers walking in and going right back out because the place is already full of black people who can't buy anything. And the owner behind the counter is just getting madder and madder, but he's helpless. All this was a strong statement made by peaceful civil rights activits.

4. LBJ is known for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. The Great Society was the begining of the modern welfare state, so that is very significant. It was a milestone for liberals, like the New Deal. Tax-payer money went to those less fortuitous, meaning, those without fortitude. Since that time people can afford their rent and cable TV bill while only working 25 hours a week at McDonalds. The American dream lives on...

5. The 80th Congress balanced the federal budget. This is an incredible feat for a government that spends as much as ours does. It demonstrated that lowering taxes can create an economic enviroment better suited to cultural growth.

6. Wow, what a question. I couldn't decide between Douglas MacArthur and Jackie Robinson and Elvis and Lyndon B. Johnson and Henry Kissinger. There are so many possibilities to choose from.

In the end, however, I think that I must say Earl Warren. He was the Chief Justice of the most influential Supreme Court in American History. His brazen acts of activism revolutionized the way the Constitution was viewed, and thus his actions continue to affect society today. Notably, I find his favour of criminals particularly disturbing. He held they had specific rights throughout his career. Some might say criminals have '''NO''' rights; they gave up their rights when they became criminals. I think the constitution is fair the way it's written, especially in respect to treatment of criminals. But if anything more is added, outlaws will take advantage of the errors in the system, many times getting off easy, with only a slap on the wrist.

7. The Warren Court was in charge of the building pictured. They had a very liberal ideology, espousing judicial activism. One of the boldest and most unsetteling examples of this is their interfering with States' rights. They overturned many state laws in order to allow pornography, to disrupt the democratic process in State Legislatures, and to ban official school prayer. Not only were these bad decisions in themselves, but they were bad because they took authority that belonged to the States and gave it to the Federal Government: specifically, the Supreme Court.

H1. What is your view of whether Muhammad Ali was entitled to a conscientious objection based on Islam?

First of all, this was not a great war for America. Second, people should retain the right to choose whether or not to be a soldier, especially in a conflict as controversial as Vietnam. However, even if the war was unquestionably right, and if the draft was constitutional, Ali was muslim, and had a legitimate reason not to be drafted. Some say he converted to Islam only to get out of the fighting. This may be true, but if someone claims conscientious objection, it ought to be taken very seriously.

Ali was stripped of his title as world heavyweight boxing champion when he refused to be inducted. He was also sentenced to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine for evading the draft. In this one respect I have sympathy with Muhammad Ali: he was persecuted for his religion. Though I was never a boxer, never robbed of a championship, never felt an inclination toward Islam, never opposed military service; though I would have fought in Vietnam if ''I'' had been drafted, and died for a cause that I believed was not entirely worth dying for (or was Vietnam worth the price in lives after all?), I identify with Ali because he was punished for his faith. It is serious when a country will force you to do what you say you must not on account of religion.

And even if he was a pacifist whimp, and the only reason he became muslim was to try and get off the hook, you can not judge what is within a man's heart. We will never know his motive for converting to Islam (until Judgment Day), but inditing him for draft evasion sets a precedent for the government to control men's lives, regardless of their claimed beliefs.

H2. Write about any issue or debate in the lecture, or relating to the period 1945 to 1980:
Do you think Union power should be strengthened or weakened by Congress today?

Well, Unions are still very powerful. But what do they need their power for these days? There are no robber barons, no sweat shops. There are probably a thousand laws for employees' rights. Unions served their purpose well; those laws would not have been established without the initiative of the Unions. But by the 40's they had too much power and they began to abuse it. So it was wonderful timing that the 80th Congress should pass the laws that it did. Those laws made were fair to give some power back to the employers, after all, he does own the company. Today Unions are largly superfluous. And I feel there should be less of that which is not neccessary. In some industries, however, they may still serve some good purpose: we need not eradicate them completely.

H3. THE ERA WAS BAD.

H4. "Over time, conservative principles and values tend to gain broader acceptance by the American people." Do you agree with respect to 1945 through 1980, or 1980 through today (take your pick)? Explain.

Looking at the presidents of the time periods, conservatism seems to be doing better now than 50 years ago. Compare Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush vs. Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon. Politically conservative principles gained! With homeschooling legal now, as well as the removal of the compulsory draft, freedom is greater and government is smaller. Taxes are lower, communism is virtually non-existent in the U.S., racism is history, drugs are not cool.

But, the 50's and 60's was more socially conservative than today. Homosexuality was

[[Category:American History lectures]]

American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One

2008-12-12T13:28:26Z

StevenM:

Steven M. nearly finnish

1. The Cold War between the USSR and the United States lasted from 1945 to 1990.

2. The Vietnam War and the Korean War. The United States obviously fought hard in both of these, but it was not a concerted effort like World War II. These wars, people thought, were less important. Our country was not in immediate danger, so these wars were much less popular. Vietnam was especially unpopular, not only because of the cultural changes favoring rebellion and independence, but because of the position the U.S. took in Vietnam. Much like Britain fighting in the colonies. To the British the colonies was a large unknown wilderness with an diverse population. Many of them were strongly opinionated and planned on fighting for the soil they lived on. The colonists knew the country and fought the invaders using guerilla warfare. Although many of them sided with England (touries), the patriots were aided by foriegn countries. They were convinced by radical liturature that they were fighting for freedom.

Do you see all the similarities? America loves an underdog. And in Vietnam we were definitely not the underdog. The outcome is sad, but I think it was foreseeable. I completely agree with the way we accepted defeat in Vietnam, but there were not very many options. Right before the war started there was only two choices about it: go to war or not. What else could we have done?

In Korea, however, I believe we could have won that. Korea might be a completely capitalist country today if it were not for Harry Truman's ire.

3. The sit-ins were a brave protest of blacks not being allowed to be served in diners. To come in to a segregated place, even with one or two dozen friends, where you knew you would not be welcome was dangerous. Many of them went to jail because they had been taking business away from the restaurant. I can imagine white, paying customers walking in and going right back out because the place is already full of black people who can't buy anything. And the owner behind the counter is just getting madder and madder, but he's helpless. All this was a strong statement made by peaceful civil rights activits.

4. LBJ is known for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. The Great Society was the begining of the modern welfare state, so that is very significant. It was a milestone for liberals, like the New Deal. Tax-payer money went to those less fortuitous, meaning, those without fortitude. Since that time people can afford their rent and cable TV bill while only working 25 hours a week at McDonalds. The American dream lives on...

5. The 80th Congress balanced the federal budget. This is an incredible feat for a government that spends as much as ours does. It demonstrated that lowering taxes can create an economic enviroment better suited to cultural growth.

6. Wow, what a question. I couldn't decide between Douglas MacArthur and Jackie Robinson and Elvis and Lyndon B. Johnson and Henry Kissinger. There are so many possibilities to choose from.

In the end, however, I think that I must say Earl Warren. He was the Chief Justice of the most influential Supreme Court in American History. His brazen acts of activism revolutionized the way the Constitution was viewed, and thus his actions continue to affect society today. Notably, I find his favour of criminals particularly disturbing. He held they had specific rights throughout his career. Some might say criminals have '''NO''' rights; they gave up their rights when they became criminals. I think the constitution is fair the way it's written, especially in respect to treatment of criminals. But if anything more is added, outlaws will take advantage of the errors in the system, many times getting off easy, with only a slap on the wrist.

7. The Warren Court was in charge of the building pictured. They had a very liberal ideology, espousing judicial activism. One of the boldest and most unsetteling examples of this is their interfering with States' rights. They overturned many state laws in order to allow pornography, to disrupt the democratic process in State Legislatures, and to ban official school prayer. Not only were these bad decisions in themselves, but they were bad because they took authority that belonged to the States and gave it to the Federal Government: specifically, the Supreme Court.

H1. What is your view of whether Muhammad Ali was entitled to a conscientious objection based on Islam?

First of all, this was not a great war for America. Second, people should retain the right to choose whether or not to be a soldier, especially in a conflict as controversial as Vietnam. However, even if the war was unquestionably right, and if the draft was constitutional, Ali was muslim, and had a legitimate reason not to be drafted. Some say he converted to Islam only to get out of the fighting. This may be true, but if someone claims conscientious objection, it ought to be taken very seriously.

Ali was stripped of his title as world heavyweight boxing champion when he refused to be inducted. He was also sentenced to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine for evading the draft. In this one respect I have sympathy with Muhammad Ali: he was persecuted for his religion. Though I was never a boxer, never robbed of a championship, never felt an inclination toward Islam, never opposed military service; though I would have fought in Vietnam if ''I'' had been drafted, and died for a cause that I believed was not entirely worth dying for (or was Vietnam worth the price in lives after all?), I identify with Ali because he was punished for his faith. It is serious when a country will force you to do what you say you must not on account of religion.

And even if he was a pacifist whimp, and the only reason he became muslim was to try and get off the hook, you can not judge what is within a man's heart. We will never know his motive for converting to Islam (until Judgment Day), but inditing him for draft evasion sets a precedent for the government to control men's lives, regardless of their claimed beliefs.

H2. Write about any issue or debate in the lecture, or relating to the period 1945 to 1980:
Do you think Union power should be strengthened or weakened by Congress today?

Well, Unions are still very powerful. But what do they need their power for these days? There are no robber barons, no sweat shops. There are probably a thousand laws for employees' rights. Unions served their purpose well; those laws would not have been established without the initiative of the Unions. But by the 40's they had too much power and they began to abuse it. So it was wonderful timing that the 80th Congress should pass the laws that it did. Those laws made were fair to give some power back to the employers, after all, he does own the company. Today Unions are largly superfluous. And I feel there should be less of that which is not neccessary. In some industries, however, they may still serve some good purpose: we need not eradicate them completely.

H3. THE ERA WAS BAD.

H4. "Over time, conservative principles and values tend to gain broader acceptance by the American people." Do you agree with respect to 1945 through 1980, or 1980 through today (take your pick)? Explain.

Looking at the presidents of the time periods, conservatism seems to be doing better now than 50 years ago. Compare Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush vs. Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon. Politically conservative principles gained!

Also, the 50's and 60's was more socially liberal than today. With homeschooling legal now, as well as the removal of the compulsory draft, freedom is greater and government is smaller. Taxes are lower, communism is virtually non-existent in the U.S., racism is history, drugs are not cool.

But

[[Category:American History lectures]]

American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One

2008-12-12T12:52:01Z

StevenM:

Steven M. nearly finnish

1. The Cold War between the USSR and the United States lasted from 1945 to 1990.

2. The Vietnam War and the Korean War. The United States obviously fought hard in both of these, but it was not a concerted effort like World War II. These wars, people thought, were less important. Our country was not in immediate danger, so these wars were much less popular. Vietnam was especially unpopular, not only because of the cultural changes favoring rebellion and independence, but because of the position the U.S. took in Vietnam. Much like Britain fighting in the colonies. To the British the colonies was a large unknown wilderness with an diverse population. Many of them were strongly opinionated and planned on fighting for the soil they lived on. The colonists knew the country and fought the invaders using guerilla warfare. Although many of them sided with England (touries), the patriots were aided by foriegn countries. They were convinced by radical liturature that they were fighting for freedom.

Do you see all the similarities? America loves an underdog. And in Vietnam we were definitely not the underdog. The outcome is sad, but I think it was foreseeable. I completely agree with the way we accepted defeat in Vietnam, but there were not very many options. Right before the war started there was only two choices about it: go to war or not. What else could we have done?

In Korea, however, I believe we could have won that. Korea might be a completely capitalist country today if it were not for Harry Truman's ire.

3. The sit-ins were a brave protest of blacks not being allowed to be served in diners. To come in to a segregated place, even with one or two dozen friends, where you knew you would not be welcome was dangerous. Many of them went to jail because they had been taking business away from the restaurant. I can imagine white, paying customers walking in and going right back out because the place is already full of black people who can't buy anything. And the owner behind the counter is just getting madder and madder, but he's helpless. All this was a strong statement made by peaceful civil rights activits.

4. LBJ is known for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. The Great Society was the begining of the modern welfare state, so that is very significant. It was a milestone for liberals, like the New Deal. Tax-payer money went to those less fortuitous, meaning, those without fortitude. Since that time people can afford their rent and cable TV bill while only working 25 hours a week at McDonalds. The American dream lives on...

5. The 80th Congress balanced the federal budget. This is an incredible feat for a government that spends as much as ours does. It demonstrated that lowering taxes can create an economic enviroment better suited to cultural growth.

6. Wow, what a question. I couldn't decide between Douglas MacArthur and Jackie Robinson and Elvis and Lyndon B. Johnson and Henry Kissinger. There are so many possibilities to choose from.

In the end, however, I think that I must say Earl Warren. He was the Chief Justice of the most influential Supreme Court in American History. His brazen acts of activism revolutionized the way the Constitution was viewed, and thus his actions continue to affect society today. Notably, I find his favour of criminals particularly disturbing. He held they had specific rights throughout his career. Some might say criminals have '''NO''' rights; they gave up their rights when they became criminals. I think the constitution is fair the way it's written, especially in respect to treatment of criminals. But if anything more is added, outlaws will take advantage of the errors in the system, many times getting off easy, with only a slap on the wrist.

7. The Warren Court was in charge of the building pictured. They had a very liberal ideology, espousing judicial activism. One of the boldest and most unsetteling examples of this is their interfering with States' rights. They overturned many state laws in order to allow pornography, to disrupt the democratic process in State Legislatures, and to ban official school prayer. Not only were these bad decisions in themselves, but they were bad because they took authority that belonged to the States and gave it to the Federal Government: specifically, the Supreme Court.

H1. What is your view of whether Muhammad Ali was entitled to a conscientious objection based on Islam?

First of all, this was not a great war for America. Second, people should retain the right to choose whether or not to be a soldier, especially in a conflict as controversial as Vietnam. However, even if the war was unquestionably right, and if the draft was constitutional, Ali was muslim, and had a legitimate reason not to be drafted. Some say he converted to Islam only to get out of the fighting. This may be true, but if someone claims conscientious objection, it ought to be taken very seriously.

Ali was stripped of his title as world heavyweight boxing champion when he refused to be inducted. He was also sentenced to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine for evading the draft. In this one respect I have sympathy with Muhammad Ali: he was persecuted for his religion. Though I was never a boxer, never robbed of a championship, never felt an inclination toward Islam, never opposed military service; though I would have fought in Vietnam if ''I'' had been drafted, and died for a cause that I believed was not entirely worth dying for (or was Vietnam worth the price in lives after all?), I identify with Ali because he was punished for his faith. It is serious when a country will force you to do what you say you must not on account of religion.

And even if he was a pacifist whimp, and the only reason he became muslim was to try and get off the hook, you can not judge what is within a man's heart. We will never know his motive for converting to Islam (until Judgment Day), but inditing him for draft evasion sets a precedent for the government to control men's lives, regardless of their claimed beliefs.

H2. Write about any issue or debate in the lecture, or relating to the period 1945 to 1980:
Do you think Union power should be strengthened or weakened by Congress today?

Well, Unions are still very powerful. But what do they need their power for these days? There are no robber barons, no sweat shops. There are probably a thousand laws for employees' rights. Unions served their purpose well; those laws would not have been established without the initiative of the Unions. But by the 40's they had too much power and they began to abuse it. So it was wonderful timing that the 80th Congress should pass the laws that it did. Those laws made were fair to give some power back to the employers, after all, he does own the company. Today Unions are largly superfluous. And I feel there should be less of that which is not neccessary. In some industries, however, they may still serve some good purpose: we need not eradicate them completely.

H4. "Over time, conservative principles and values tend to gain broader acceptance by the American people." Do you agree with respect to 1945 through 1980, or 1980 through today (take your pick)? Explain.

No,

[[Category:American History lectures]]

American History Homework Twelve Answers

2008-12-12T12:46:17Z

StevenM:

{{HS_American_History}}{{DEFAULTSORT:American History Homework Answers 12}}
[[American History Lecture Twelve|Lecture]] - [[American_History_Homework_Twelve|Questions]] - [[American History Homework Twelve Answers|Student Answers]]

== Model Answers ==
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Model]]

== Student Answers ==

This homework is due Dec. 11th. The plan is to grade it all by Saturday evening, Dec. 13th.

*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One]] done
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Two]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Three]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Four]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Five]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Six]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Seven]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Eight]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Nine]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Ten]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Eleven]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Twelve]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Thirteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Fourteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Fifteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Sixteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Seventeen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Eighteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Nineteen]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Twenty]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 21]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 22]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 23]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 24]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 25]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 26]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 27]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 28]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 29]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 30]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 31]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 32]]
*[[American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student 33]]

(add more)

American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One

2008-12-12T12:45:08Z

StevenM:

Steven M. nearly finnish

1. The Cold War between the USSR and the United States lasted from 1945 to 1990.

2. The Vietnam War and the Korean War. The United States obviously fought hard in both of these, but it was not a concerted effort like World War II. These wars, people thought, were less important. Our country was not in immediate danger, so these wars were much less popular. Vietnam was especially unpopular, not only because of the cultural changes favoring rebellion and independence, but because of the position the U.S. took in Vietnam. Much like Britain fighting in the colonies. To the British the colonies was a large unknown wilderness with an diverse population. Many of them were strongly opinionated and planned on fighting for the soil they lived on. The colonists knew the country and fought the invaders using guerilla warfare. Although many of them sided with England (touries), the patriots were aided by foriegn countries. They were convinced by radical liturature that they were fighting for freedom.

Do you see all the similarities? America loves an underdog. And in Vietnam we were definitely not the underdog. The outcome is sad, but I think it was foreseeable. I completely agree with the way we accepted defeat in Vietnam, but there were not very many options. Right before the war started there was only two choices about it: go to war or not. What else could we have done?

In Korea, however, I believe we could have won that. Korea might be a completely capitalist country today if it were not for Harry Truman's ire.

3. The sit-ins were a brave protest of blacks not being allowed to be served in diners. To come in to a segregated place, even with one or two dozen friends, where you knew you would not be welcome was dangerous. Many of them went to jail because they had been taking business away from the restaurant. I can imagine white, paying customers walking in and going right back out because the place is already full of black people who can't buy anything. And the owner behind the counter is just getting madder and madder, but he's helpless. All this was a strong statement made by peaceful civil rights activits.

4. LBJ is known for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. The Great Society was the begining of the modern welfare state, so that is very significant. It was a milestone for liberals, like the New Deal. Tax-payer money went to those less fortuitous, meaning, those without fortitude. Since that time people can afford their rent and cable TV bill while only working 25 hours a week at McDonalds. The American dream lives on...

5. The 80th Congress balanced the federal budget. This is an incredible feat for a government that spends as much as ours does. It showed that even in a

6. Wow, what a question. I couldn't decide between Douglas MacArthur and Jackie Robinson and Elvis and Lyndon B. Johnson and Henry Kissinger. There are so many possibilities to choose from.

In the end, however, I think that I must say Earl Warren. He was the Chief Justice of the most influential Supreme Court in American History. His brazen acts of activism revolutionized the way the Constitution was viewed, and thus his actions continue to affect society today. Notably, I find his favour of criminals particularly disturbing. He held they had specific rights throughout his career. Some might say criminals have '''NO''' rights; they gave up their rights when they became criminals. I think the constitution is fair the way it's written, especially in respect to treatment of criminals. But if anything more is added, outlaws will take advantage of the errors in the system, many times getting off easy, with only a slap on the wrist.

7. The Warren Court was in charge of the building pictured. They had a very liberal ideology, espousing judicial activism. One of the boldest and most unsetteling examples of this is their interfering with States' rights. They overturned many state laws in order to allow pornography, to disrupt the democratic process in State Legislatures, and to ban official school prayer. Not only were these bad decisions in themselves, but they were bad because they took authority that belonged to the States and gave it to the Federal Government: specifically, the Supreme Court.

H1. What is your view of whether Muhammad Ali was entitled to a conscientious objection based on Islam?

First of all, this was not a great war for America. Second, people should retain the right to choose whether or not to be a soldier, especially in a conflict as controversial as Vietnam. However, even if the war was unquestionably right, and if the draft was constitutional, Ali was muslim, and had a legitimate reason not to be drafted. Some say he converted to Islam only to get out of the fighting. This may be true, but if someone claims conscientious objection, it ought to be taken very seriously.

Ali was stripped of his title as world heavyweight boxing champion when he refused to be inducted. He was also sentenced to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine for evading the draft. In this one respect I have sympathy with Muhammad Ali: he was persecuted for his religion. Though I was never a boxer, never robbed of a championship, never felt an inclination toward Islam, never opposed military service; though I would have fought in Vietnam if ''I'' had been drafted, and died for a cause that I believed was not entirely worth dying for (or was Vietnam worth the price in lives after all?), I identify with Ali because he was punished for his faith. It is serious when a country will force you to do what you say you must not on account of religion.

And even if he was a pacifist whimp, and the only reason he became muslim was to try and get off the hook, you can not judge what is within a man's heart. We will never know his motive for converting to Islam (until Judgment Day), but inditing him for draft evasion sets a precedent for the government to control men's lives, regardless of their claimed beliefs.

H2. Write about any issue or debate in the lecture, or relating to the period 1945 to 1980:
Do you think Union power should be strengthened or weakened by Congress today?

Well, Unions are still very powerful. But what do they need their power for these days? There are no robber barons, no sweat shops. There are probably a thousand laws for employees' rights. Unions served their purpose well; those laws would not have been established without the initiative of the Unions. But by the 40's they had too much power and they began to abuse it. So it was wonderful timing that the 80th Congress should pass the laws that it did. Those laws made were fair to give some power back to the employers, after all, he does own the company. Today Unions are largly superfluous. And I feel there should be less of that which is not neccessary. In some industries, however, they may still serve some good purpose: we need not eradicate them completely.

H4. "Over time, conservative principles and values tend to gain broader acceptance by the American people." Do you agree with respect to 1945 through 1980, or 1980 through today (take your pick)? Explain.

[[Category:American History lectures]]

American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One

2008-12-12T12:44:11Z

StevenM:

Steven M. early start but not done yet!

1. The Cold War between the USSR and the United States lasted from 1945 to 1990.

2. The Vietnam War and the Korean War. The United States obviously fought hard in both of these, but it was not a concerted effort like World War II. These wars, people thought, were less important. Our country was not in immediate danger, so these wars were much less popular. Vietnam was especially unpopular, not only because of the cultural changes favoring rebellion and independence, but because of the position the U.S. took in Vietnam. Much like Britain fighting in the colonies. To the British the colonies was a large unknown wilderness with an diverse population. Many of them were strongly opinionated and planned on fighting for the soil they lived on. The colonists knew the country and fought the invaders using guerilla warfare. Although many of them sided with England (touries), the patriots were aided by foriegn countries. They were convinced by radical liturature that they were fighting for freedom.

Do you see all the similarities? America loves an underdog. And in Vietnam we were definitely not the underdog. The outcome is sad, but I think it was foreseeable. I completely agree with the way we accepted defeat in Vietnam, but there were not very many options. Right before the war started there was only two choices about it: go to war or not. What else could we have done?

In Korea, however, I believe we could have won that. Korea might be a completely capitalist country today if it were not for Harry Truman's ire.

3. The sit-ins were a brave protest of blacks not being allowed to be served in diners. To come in to a segregated place, even with one or two dozen friends, where you knew you would not be welcome was dangerous. Many of them went to jail because they had been taking business away from the restaurant. I can imagine white, paying customers walking in and going right back out because the place is already full of black people who can't buy anything. And the owner behind the counter is just getting madder and madder, but he's helpless. All this was a strong statement made by peaceful civil rights activits.

4. LBJ is known for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. The Great Society was the begining of the modern welfare state, so that is very significant. It was a milestone for liberals, like the New Deal. Tax-payer money went to those less fortuitous, meaning, those without fortitude. Since that time people can afford their rent and cable TV bill while only working 25 hours a week at McDonalds. The American dream lives on...

5. The 80th Congress balanced the federal budget. This is an incredible feat for a government that spends as much as ours does. It showed that even in a

6. Wow, what a question. I couldn't decide between Douglas MacArthur and Jackie Robinson and Elvis and Lyndon B. Johnson and Henry Kissinger. There are so many possibilities to choose from.

In the end, however, I think that I must say Earl Warren. He was the Chief Justice of the most influential Supreme Court in American History. His brazen acts of activism revolutionized the way the Constitution was viewed, and thus his actions continue to affect society today. Notably, I find his favour of criminals particularly disturbing. He held they had specific rights throughout his career. Some might say criminals have '''NO''' rights; they gave up their rights when they became criminals. I think the constitution is fair the way it's written, especially in respect to treatment of criminals. But if anything more is added, outlaws will take advantage of the errors in the system, many times getting off easy, with only a slap on the wrist.

7. The Warren Court was in charge of the building pictured. They had a very liberal ideology, espousing judicial activism. One of the boldest and most unsetteling examples of this is their interfering with States' rights. They overturned many state laws in order to allow pornography, to disrupt the democratic process in State Legislatures, and to ban official school prayer. Not only were these bad decisions in themselves, but they were bad because they took authority that belonged to the States and gave it to the Federal Government: specifically, the Supreme Court.

H1. What is your view of whether Muhammad Ali was entitled to a conscientious objection based on Islam?

First of all, this was not a great war for America. Second, people should retain the right to choose whether or not to be a soldier, especially in a conflict as controversial as Vietnam. However, even if the war was unquestionably right, and if the draft was constitutional, Ali was muslim, and had a legitimate reason not to be drafted. Some say he converted to Islam only to get out of the fighting. This may be true, but if someone claims conscientious objection, it ought to be taken very seriously.

Ali was stripped of his title as world heavyweight boxing champion when he refused to be inducted. He was also sentenced to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine for evading the draft. In this one respect I have sympathy with Muhammad Ali: he was persecuted for his religion. Though I was never a boxer, never robbed of a championship, never felt an inclination toward Islam, never opposed military service; though I would have fought in Vietnam if ''I'' had been drafted, and died for a cause that I believed was not entirely worth dying for (or was Vietnam worth the price in lives after all?), I identify with Ali because he was punished for his faith. It is serious when a country will force you to do what you say you must not on account of religion.

And even if he was a pacifist whimp, and the only reason he became muslim was to try and get off the hook, you can not judge what is within a man's heart. We will never know his motive for converting to Islam (until Judgment Day), but inditing him for draft evasion sets a precedent for the government to control men's lives, regardless of their claimed beliefs.

H2. Write about any issue or debate in the lecture, or relating to the period 1945 to 1980:
Do you think Union power should be strengthened or weakened by Congress today?

Well, Unions are still very powerful. But what do they need their power for these days? There are no robber barons, no sweat shops. There are probably a thousand laws for employees' rights. Unions served their purpose well; those laws would not have been established without the initiative of the Unions. But by the 40's they had too much power and they began to abuse it. So it was wonderful timing that the 80th Congress should pass the laws that it did. Those laws made were fair to give some power back to the employers, after all, he does own the company. Today Unions are largly superfluous. And I feel there should be less of that which is not neccessary. In some industries, however, they may still serve some good purpose: we need not eradicate them completely.

H4. "Over time, conservative principles and values tend to gain broader acceptance by the American people." Do you agree with respect to 1945 through 1980, or 1980 through today (take your pick)? Explain.

[[Category:American History lectures]]

American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One

2008-12-12T02:41:45Z

StevenM:

Steven M. early start but not done yet!

1. The Cold War between the USSR and the United States lasted from 1945 to 1990.

2. The Vietnam War and the Korean War. The United States obviously fought hard in both of these, but it was not a concerted effort like World War II. These wars, people thought, were less important. Our country was not in immediate danger, so these wars were much less popular. Vietnam was especially unpopular, not only because of the cultural changes favoring rebellion and independence, but because of the position the U.S. took in Vietnam. Much like Britain fighting in the colonies. To the British the colonies was a large unknown wilderness with an diverse population. Many of them were strongly opinionated and planned on fighting for the soil they lived on. The colonists knew the country and fought the invaders using guerilla warfare. Although many of them sided with England (touries), the patriots were aided by foriegn countries. They were convinced by radical liturature that they were fighting for freedom.

Do you see all the similarities? America loves an underdog. And in Vietnam we were definitely not the underdog. The outcome is sad, but I think it was foreseeable. I completely agree with the way we accepted defeat in Vietnam, but there were not very many options. Right before the war started there was only two choices about it: go to war or not. What else could we have done?

In Korea, however, I believe we could have won that. Korea might be a completely capitalist country today if it were not for Harry Truman's ire.

3. The sit-ins were a brave protest of blacks not being allowed to be served in diners. To come in to a segregated place, even with one or two dozen friends, where you knew you would not be welcome was dangerous. Many of them went to jail because they had been taking business away from the restaurant. I can imagine white, paying customers walking in and going right back out because the place is already full of black people who can't buy anything. And the owner behind the counter is just getting madder and madder, but he's helpless. All this was a strong statement made by peaceful civil rights activits.

4. LBJ is known for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. The Great Society was the begining of the modern welfare state, so that is very significant. It was a milestone for liberals, like the New Deal. Tax-payer money went to those less fortuitous, meaning, those without fortitude. Since that time people can afford their rent and cable TV bill while only working 25 hours a week at McDonalds. The American dream lives on...

5. The 80th Congress balanced the federal budget. This is an incredible feat for a government that spends as much as ours does. It showed that even in a

6. Wow, what a question. I couldn't decide between Douglas MacArthur and Jackie Robinson and Elvis and Lyndon B. Johnson and Henry Kissinger. There are so many possibilities to choose from.

In the end, however, I think that I must say Earl Warren. He was the Chief Justice of the most influential Supreme Court in American History. His brazen acts of activism revolutionized the way the Constitution was viewed, and thus his actions continue to affect society today. Notably, I find his favour of criminals particularly disturbing. He held they had specific rights throughout his career. Some might say criminals have '''NO''' rights; they gave up their rights when they became criminals. I think the constitution is fair the way it's written, especially in respect to treatment of criminals. But if anything more is added, outlaws will take advantage of the errors in the system, many times getting off easy, with only a slap on the wrist.

7. The Warren Court was in charge of the building pictured. They had a very liberal ideology, espousing judicial activism. One of the boldest and most unsetteling examples of this is their interfering with States' rights. They overturned many state laws in order to allow pornography, to disrupt the democratic process in State Legislatures, and to ban official school prayer. Not only were these bad decisions in themselves, but they were bad because they took authority that belonged to the States and gave it to the Federal Government: specifically, the Supreme Court.

H1. What is your view of whether Muhammad Ali was entitled to a conscientious objection based on Islam?

First of all, this was not a great war for America. Second, people should retain the right to choose whether or not to be a soldier, especially in a conflict as controversial as Vietnam. However, even if the war was unquestionably right, and if the draft was constitutional,

H2. Write about any issue or debate in the lecture, or relating to the period 1945 to 1980:
Do you think Union power should be strengthened or weakened by Congress today?

Well, Unions are still very powerful. But what do they need their power for these days? There are no robber barons, no sweat shops. There are probably a thousand laws for employees' rights. Unions served their purpose well; those laws would not have been established without the initiative of the Unions. But by the 40's they had too much power and they began to abuse it. So it was wonderful timing that the 80th Congress should pass the laws that it did. Those laws made were fair to give some power back to the employers, after all, he does own the company. Today Unions are largly superfluous. And I feel there should be less of that which is not neccessary. In some industries, however, they may still serve some good purpose: we need not eradicate them completely.

H4. "Over time, conservative principles and values tend to gain broader acceptance by the American people." Do you agree with respect to 1945 through 1980, or 1980 through today (take your pick)? Explain.

[[Category:American History lectures]]

American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student One

2008-12-11T17:12:06Z

StevenM: hhmmmmmmm....

Steven M. early start but not done yet!

1. The Cold War between the USSR and the United States lasted from 1945 to 1990.

2. The Vietnam War and the Korean War. The United States obviously fought hard in both of these, but it was not a concerted effort like World War II. These wars, people thought, were less important. Our country was not in immediate danger, so these wars were much less popular. Vietnam was especially unpopular, not only because of the cultural changes favoring rebellion and independence, but because of the position the U.S. took in Vietnam. Much like Britain fighting in the colonies. To the British the colonies was a large unknown wilderness with an diverse population. Many of them were strongly opinionated and planned on fighting for the soil they lived on. The colonists knew the country and fought the invaders using guerilla warfare. Although many of them sided with England (touries), the patriots were aided by foriegn countries. They were convinced by radical liturature that they were fighting for freedom.

Do you see all the similarities? America loves an underdog. And in Vietnam we were definitely not the underdog. The outcome is sad, but I think it was foreseeable. I completely agree with the way we accepted defeat in Vietnam, but there were not very many options. Right before the war started there was only two choices about it: go to war or not. What else could we have done?

In Korea, however, I believe we could have won that. Korea might be a completely capitalist country today if it were not for Harry Truman's ire.

3. The sit-ins were a brave protest of blacks not being allowed to be served in diners. To come in to a segregated place, even with one or two dozen friends, where you knew you would not be welcome was dangerous. Many of them went to jail because they had been taking business away from the restaurant. I can imagine white, paying customers walking in and going right back out because the place is already full of black people who can't buy anything. And the owner behind the counter is just getting madder and madder, but he's helpless. All this was a strong statement made by peaceful civil rights activits.

4. LBJ is known for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. The Great Society was the begining of the modern welfare state, so that is very significant. It was a milestone for liberals, like the New Deal. Tax-payer money went to those less fortuitous, meaning, those without fortitude. Since that time people can afford their rent and cable TV bill while only working 25 hours a week at McDonalds. The American dream lives on...

5. The 80th congress balanced the federal budget. This is an incredible feat for a government that spends as much as ours does. It showed that even in a time of crisis (the Little Richard craze) a nation can still unite and create wealth. Prosperity is still possible today, if people can get past the cries of another black man with new ideas.

6. Wow, what a question. I couldn't decide between Douglas MacArthur and Jackie Robinson and Elvis and Lyndon B. Johnson and Henry Kissinger. There are so many possibilities to choose from.

In the end, however, I think that I must say Earl Warren. He was the Chief Justice of the most influential Supreme Court in American History. His brazen acts of activism revolutionized the way the Constitution was viewed, and thus his actions continue to affect society today. Notably, I find his favour of criminals particularly disturbing. He held they had specific rights throughout his career. Some might say criminals have '''NO''' rights; they gave up their rights when they became criminals. I think the constitution is fair the way it's written, especially in respect to treatment of criminals. But if anything more is added, outlaws will take advantage of the errors in the system, many times getting off easy, with only a slap on the wrist.

7. The Warren Court was in charge of the building pictured. They had a very liberal ideology, espousing judicial activism. One of the boldest and most unsetteling examples of this is their interfering with States' rights. They overturned many state laws in order to allow pornography, to disrupt the democratic process in State Legislatures, and to ban official school prayer. Not only were these bad decisions in themselves, but they were bad because they took authority that belonged to the States and gave it to the Federal Government: specifically, the Supreme Court.

H1. What is your view of whether Muhammad Ali was entitled to a conscientious objection based on Islam?

H2. Write about any issue or debate in the lecture, or relating to the period 1945 to 1980:
Do you think Union power should be strengthened or weakened by Congress today?

Well, Unions are still very powerful. But what do they need their power for these days? There are no robber barons, no sweat shops. There are probably a thousand laws for employees' rights. Unions served their purpose well; those laws would not have been established without the initiative of the Unions. But by the 40's they had too much power and they began to abuse it. So it was wonderful timing that the 80th Congress should pass the laws that it did. Those laws made were fair to give some power back to the employers, after all, he does own the company. Today Unions are largly superfluous. And I feel there should be less of that which is not neccessary. In some industries, however, they may still serve some good purpose: we need not eradicate them completely.

H4. "Over time, conservative principles and values tend to gain broader acceptance by the American people." Do you agree with respect to 1945 through 1980, or 1980 through today (take your pick)? Explain.

[[Category:American History lectures]]