Grieve the Holy Spirit?

Bluefalcon,

Regarding the use of "corrupt" or "corruption":

I have put this forth to C4K who is far more senior than me; so that we can determine once and for all how the board wishes to consider this.

For right now, let's not use "corrupt" when referring to manuscripts or legitimate translations.

I will probably not delete it if you use a "corruption" in the manuscript regarding a mistake, addition or subtraction, etc. But, common sense will also rule my editing decision.

C4K or I will post the board's thoughts on this. For now, I am going to follow existing precedence.

 

Okay, Let's try to handle "corrupt" or "corruption" this way.

I will let "corruption" and "corrupt" slide as long as it is used in a valid and non-attacking manner.

We do know there are corrupt translations, but try not to generalize widely accepted translations. For example: "All MV's are corrupt." will NOT be acceptable."

In the case of Bluefalcon, he was using the term to point out "errors" causing the manuscripts to vary from the originals. I will probably let this slide in the future.

We will handle each on a case-by-case basis.

I will say that editing will be primarily be performed based on the obvious "intention" of the writer: If anbody uses it as an attack to irritate the other posters, then it will be edited.

Otherwise, if used in proper context to show a corruption to a manuscript, then it will probably be allowed.

Since we know that all manuscripts vary, then there are obviously corruptions (as in variations from the originals) of varying degrees in most, if not all of these manuscripts.

Please feel free to PM me if you have a problem with an edit or post, but please realize that this is very subjective and not everybody will always agree with the decision.

Our intent is to be as fair to EVERYBODY as possible.

Thanks,
Phillip