> In sci.archaeology message news:1166552314.716922.172020
> @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by "Carl" <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :
> > prd wrote:
> >> In sci.archaeology message news:1166485656.557221.195770@
> >> 48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com by "Carl" <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :
> >> > If you read it honestly, does she sound scientific or religious?
> >> Religious.
> > Why? I ask the question sincerely.
> Because of the numerous dangling references to the bible. If you
> are going to use biblical material the NIV suggests you reference
> not only the passage but the version, since versions are simply
> different translations/interpretations of the bible. From that
> I would have provide quotations and reference to germaness
> and other interpretations.
> Extremely devote people never question there version or reference
> to the bible, its interpretation is a matter of faith, not reflection.
Let's not get carried away.
There is 1 ref to Bible in the Queen's House reference (1 Kgs 1:38-39).
Why are you jumping on this petty point? Please don't without first
BT's high regard for NRSV for ordinary purposes for laypeople.
Then again, there is the interlinear... BTW, BT does her own
But again, it was off to the races, a rush to print for you.
Yet, you gave a straight answer and are now on record. Thank-you