IF liberals have deliberately corrupted the Bible in provable, public, examinable ways, why not have an ...
1) annotated
2) public
3) corrected
... Bible? I trust only the King James translators to have done a non “Spin Zone” edition. Every translation to English since I suspect has had deliberate tamperings.
I don’t agree or disagree with the “NetBible”, but check out Psalms 22:16 http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&chapter=22&verse=16. It provides many translations, AND if I am not mistaken, they even had forums where everyone could opine on verses, and I was led to http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/Handbook.pdf where I learned a lot about attempts to corrupt the Bible.
In short, maybe we could ...
1) use the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, and the best reasoning for what other sources to use for the Old Testament
2) use the best reasoning for what New Testament sources to use
3) use the best reasoning for what verses to include or leave out
4) justify every decision PUBLICLY, and what competing reasons were left out, for all the world to see
5) use modern, accurate language
Liberals have no qualms with corrupting the Word of God, because they think of it as a football by which to lead Christians. Shameful.
Why worry about ‘corrupting’ the bible when one can very easily omit things you don’t like or modify things you do.
For instance: how did a yearly feast to remember GOD’s blessing and salvation (Passover) get morphed into ‘holy communion’ that we see today?
Some churchs stuff the wine and bread in you every time the doors are open, while others that do it when the pastor thinks he needs to scare the congregation in a certain direction.