"Ed Hulett -> Ross Sauer"  wrote in
news:19049$MATZDOBRE{at}JamNNTPd:

 RS>> * Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the
 EH>   later-inserted RS> liberal passages that are not authentic, such as
 EH>   the adulteress story...

 RS>> http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-
 RS>> bible.html

 EH> So, what's your point? There are hundreds of translations out there
 EH> that promote the "translators'" agenda. Ever hear of the Ebonics
 EH> translation? How about the Klingon translation? How about "The
Word"
 EH> or other attempts at making it sound more modern?

 EH> I'll stick with the KJV, thanks.

Your choice, no one faults you for that.

Just look at the first line, above.

Schlafy is implying that "the liberals" put that story in.

It's painfully obvious these clowns want to revamp the Bible to fit their
*EXTREMELY* narrow right-wing viewpoint, even though they have as much
theological experience as my old shoes.

--- Xnews/5.04.25