There is a new wiki style site at http://www.Textus-Receptus.Com that anyone can edit. Just sign up and edit.
Nick.
- Bible Versions and History
- Textual Criticism and Manuscripts
- Scripture and Technology
- KJV-Only
- References and Tools
- Westcott and Hort
- General Theology
- Anything Goes
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5
- Archive 6
- Archive 7
- Archive 8
- Archive 9
- Bible Versions Archive
- Anything Goes Archive
- Anything Goes Archive 2
- General Theology Archive
- Definitions Archive
Textus-Receptus.Com Wiki Style Site
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 GoYe |
Textus-Receptus.Com Wiki Style Site |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 1 (05/23/2009 01:12:44) |
|
||
|
77 |
|||
|
Posts: 465 (05/23/2009 05:54:45) |
GoYe wrote: 77: Thanks for the link, but, if I wanted to read Slick Willy Kinny's "articles," I'd just go straight to the source...
"Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good
one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that
our mark."
|
||
|
BrianT |
|||
|
Posts: 1773 (05/23/2009 07:22:16) ezOP |
Hi Nick, and welcome!
Your site looks like it has great potential. I love wiki sites, but I wonder if, given the debatable nature of this issue, there's going to be a problem of people editing each others' articles, etc. I see the first three articles posted have nothing to do with the sites stated purpose, but are KJV-only promotion articles. I.e. the three articles from Kinney don't "promote the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Massoretic Text of the bible", but rather are simply KJV-onlyist support of how Kinney believes the TR and MT should be translated in specific passages. Is this the type of article you were hoping for, or has Kinney taken the site in his own direction already?
Brian
|
||
|
GoYe |
Wiki Site | ||
|
Posts: 2 (05/24/2009 03:13:04) |
Will is the only person so far to edit and add his own articles, but I do intend to add any articles refering to bible translation whatsoever, that way people
can make up their own minds - although by looking at other articles in the site, you can see I prefer the KJV and TR, and desire to promote both. I don't
agree 100% with everyone, but if they promote the KJV and/or TR position, I will put their articles up. I hope to also have articles and pages dedicated to
show differences within the KJVO camp, and links to articles explaining this.
I may also put up articles which are in opposition, but these would be subject to warnings, links and comments. 77, The only difference is that Will's article on the TR site now has links through it that can lead to further study, and as the site grows, all scripture references will also be linkable. Articles like will's, will not be changable, and will be kept in its purist form, but there is room in the discussion section to talk about the article, so that eveyone can have their say. Also links refuting or solidifying the artilces can be placed at the bottom of the article. Nick. |
||
|
77 |
|||
|
Posts: 469 (05/24/2009 05:48:06) |
goye: "I do intend to add any articles refering to bible translation whatsoever, that way people can make up
their own mind"
goye: "I may also put up articles which are in opposition, but these would be subject to warnings, links and comments." 77: Which one is it?
"Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good
one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that
our mark."
|
||
|
Scott McClare |
|||
|
Posts: 3066 (05/24/2009 12:59:32) |
Articles like will's, will not be changable, and will be kept in its purist form
So it's not really a site that "anyone can edit," is it? I'll bet your editorial policy, written or not, turns out to be KJV-only in tone.
Take care,
Scott Gutless and Spineless Person #3 Whiny Crybaby Moderator, Bible Versions Discussion Board -- Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada mcclare@ncf.ca * ICQ #24034503 * AIM RansomOttawa  Stepping Right Up to the KJV-only Sideshow since 2001 |
||
|
BrianT |
|||
|
Posts: 1780 (05/24/2009 14:58:36) ezOP |
Hi GoYe,
I noticed you now moved Kinney's three articles into the main area where they can be edited as well. Thanks for that. So if there's wrong information or faulty logic in an article, what's the policy on edits? Should I "fix" the statements, or should I instead add a second statement below each faulty statement, explaining the problem with it?
Brian
|
||
|
GoYe |
Wiki Site Guidelines | ||
|
Posts: 3 (05/28/2009 00:06:50) |
Basically, Will's article
is Will's alone, just as if you added an article, for someone chop and change it would make it not your own. Articles by authors are generally not
changeable, except to enhance the appearance or add internal links etc. There is so much more to the site though, but articles straight from peoples sites,
should be kept pure. The best place to talk about the article is in the discussion, where you can say or add whatever you like (within reason of course).
|
||
|
kiwiray |
|||
|
Posts: 71 (05/28/2009 01:48:09) |
There is a LOT of KJV-onlyism in some of the articles. If you want the site to be considered scholarly they will need to go, I'm afraid. I note also that
you are missing some major translations such as the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem, Moffatt's and one or two others.
"And, behold, I tell you these things that you may learn wisdom; that you may learn that when you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only
in the service of your God". (Mosiah ch1.49 - RLDS version)
Last Edited By: kiwiray
05/28/2009 02:00:25.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Armchair Scholar |
|||
|
Posts: 1004 (06/10/2009 18:21:53) |
Kiwi: "There is a LOT of KJV-onlyism in some of the articles. If you want the site to be considered scholarly they will need to go..."
I second this. PS: Isn't Masoretic spelled incorrectly at the site (e.g. "Massoretic")? In the French and Latin roots of the word there are two S's but not in the Hebrew and English spellings.
Last Edited By: Armchair Scholar
06/10/2009 18:26:51.
Edited 3 times.
|
||
 Euthymius |
|||
|
Posts: 1877 (06/10/2009 19:27:12) |
Arm: Isn't Masoretic spelled incorrectly at the site (e.g. "Massoretic")? In the French and Latin roots of the word there are two S's but not
in the Hebrew and English spellings.
Either spelling is acceptable and can be found in current literature relating to the Hebrew Bible. Even the Hebrew term MaSoRaH could have a doubled "S" by the mere inclusion of a dagesh within.... |
||
|
Armchair Scholar |
|||
|
Posts: 1007 (06/13/2009 10:17:33) |
Euthymius wrote: Thanks, I learned something new. 
|
||
- Bible Versions and History
- Textual Criticism and Manuscripts
- Scripture and Technology
- KJV-Only
- References and Tools
- Westcott and Hort
- General Theology
- Anything Goes
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5
- Archive 6
- Archive 7
- Archive 8
- Archive 9
- Bible Versions Archive
- Anything Goes Archive
- Anything Goes Archive 2
- General Theology Archive
- Definitions Archive
Quick Reply
|
|
