KJV

Post Reply New Topic

"Bugger theology. I am talking about an incorrect translation. There is no excuse for it"

Hokey fine. Dis him me bailiwick.

1. No doubt yu sabi him Italienisch fine so comprehend "Traduttore, Traditore"

Ain't no such thing as a "correct" translation, nohow - just different aproximations to fidelity to base message, grace-notesimplications and so wider.

2. Even if you join me in rejecting the deconstructionist stance, and deplore Big Brother semantics, you might acknowledge that at this distance in time space culture Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all the prezact sense inserted to tuseme Job wherewhenever is NOT available even to a today 1st lingo Hebrew speaker anymore that I'm gonna get the whole of Beowulf which is pretty much to Anglish as Job is to contemp Hebfrew including culture leaps.

3. You are free to claim, I will join hands with you, that Isaiah 7:14 "a virgin" does not say accurately to a mod Anglophone what the Hebrew [I am NOT going to shift keyboards hdere, forgive it] properly implied to a Hebrew speaker then. But as I say, the Vulgate pushed a lot odf things into the translation traditions; virgo and perhaps Septuagint parthenos are not so far off the mark.

4. I will NOT throw fireballs at you for using one shibboleth to reject heaps of translations - I cannot legitimately, because I have done the same, By Me Revelation 10:6

5. But face it - takes molre than one place to make a translation of [say] War and Peace good or bad.

But you don't seem to get it through your very dense skull that I don't give a flying fart at the Moon for accuracy. Since you yourself keep declaiming the Bible and the material it came from is a collection of folktales the accuracy of the translation is meaningless. That is, if you truly believe it is a collection of interesting baloney. I strongly suspect that somewhere deep down you are a weird version of an orthodox Jew totally convinced you are a member of the master race endowed with inherent superiority by ancient travelers out of a flying saucer. No doubt that makes you something of a Velikovskian and a nut but what the hell.

I'm partial to the Holman CSB myself. They do a pretty good job with the text and manuscript comparisons. It's also easier to read than the King Jimmy.

If you want a "truly horrible" translation, check out "The Message." Great for teenagers and college kids, reads more like a novel than a "holy scripture." NOT good for in-depth Biblical study, and even the authors will tell you not to substitute it for a "real" Bible, a fact I think is too often overlooked by devotees of it. My copy is a read-it-in-a-year edition, but every time I try to read it I just come back to my trusty Holman--which I HAVE read all the way through, and it took me 15 or 16 months to finish it! I may come back to "The Message" and give it an honest chance, but I just can't seem to put my HSCB down. Just bought another copy last weak, actually, this time a compact HCSB that I can keep with me without toting around my heavy study Bible. It's nice having something a little more convenient, but at the same time I miss reading all the notes and commentary.

The King Jimmy just makes my eyes cross and gives me a headache. I'm just being honest here, but it's certainly not what I enjoy reading. If you like the old-sko0l King Jimmy, check out the NKJV. The wording is nearly identical without the thee's and thou's and -eth's. I'm not sure what else, if anything has been changed, but I'd seriously considered buying one until I came across the compact Holman. If I'd found a NKJV in the same size, I'd probably have bought it. But on the other hand, since the Holman is what I've gotten used to, I'm satisfied with sticking with it.

My grandfather had two King Jimmy's, one he constantly read and the other he took to church. The one he always read is bound with duct tape (no kidding). I've thought about once I'm familiar enough with reading the HSCB maybe trying to read through my grandfather's King Jimmy. My study Bible gives a lot of cultural and literary context which helps understand the meaning a lot better. The King Jimmy, from what I understand, was an attempt at such a translation during the reign of King James. The trouble, though, is language is constantly growing and changing. There's no shame at all at going back to earliest available and most trusted ancient sources (MT, LXX, other Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts) and writing a new translation worded in such away that we can better understand it.

"If you want a "truly horrible" translation, check out "The Message."

Arguably worst 0of the worst is the Jeovah's Witness version that was going in about the 80s. I forget its name, and I think they have since done a fix. Claiming to be superaccurate but flawed, and absolutely impossible to read as text. I have rad more legible econ textbooks.

[quote="Philologos"
But the KJV has the distinct advantage, as compared to other Anglo versions, of being the last translation of which I am aware assembled by serious scholars who were also believrers who had no significant collective theological axe to grind.

[/quote]

Actually, parts of it were translated in ways to make King James look good--pro monarchy, etc. It is rather silly to think that the translators had no particular axe to grind. Anyone who translates the Bible has an axe to grind.

About the virgin stuff--most reputable Bibles will at least carry a footnote, as a disclaimer, that in the Greek translation, the Greeks used the same word for "virgin" as they did for "young girl." Theories concerning the virginity of Jesus' mother are probably due to the innocent misinterpretation of the translation with which New Testament writers were working.

Everyone has an axe to grind except for me and my monkey.

clearly, the best interpretation is The LCB.

as it is among the most current translations and sets a more appropriate tone for such a tome.

Actually, parts of it were translated in ways to make King James look good--pro monarchy, etc. It is rather silly to think that the translators had no particular axe to grind. Anyone who translates the Bible has an axe to grind.

About the virgin stuff--most reputable Bibles will at least carry a footnote, as a disclaimer, that in the Greek translation, the Greeks used the same word for "virgin" as they did for "young girl." Theories concerning the virginity of Jesus' mother are probably due to the innocent misinterpretation of the translation with which New Testament writers were working.[/quote]

You may be correct about the translation of the word "virgin" but nevertheless the birth of Christ as a magical event is much enhanced in that the mystery of a virgin giving birth is somehow proof that God was the father. There is a long tradition in various religions of a virgin giving birth.

I think that the absolute best translation is the Good News Bible. It is written in a very simple, elementary, modern prose style, and you can actually read it and follow the action, as you would a well-written novel, without being put to sleep.

The Good News Translation at least doesn't have any blatant bias to it that would turn you off.

People who are seeking a spiritual buzz that results from wading through seventeenth century English will of course prefer the King James translation.

Not being in the least religious the only delight I find in the king James version is the quality o language. It may be archaic in general tenor but there is some talk that even Shakespeare had a hand in it. I find much of the language simply beautiful.

i'm turned off by the pro-magic bias.

Coffee nearly came out my nose at that one. No collective theological axe to grind?!?! The rivalry between the Church of England and the Papacy was still in its fullest flowering.

Here is the Good News translation of Isaiah 7:14

The relevant footnote:


So, we may keep the Good News translation from the flames.

Actually, the King James Version in its earlier editions did have a theological axe to grind in that, wanting people to believe that the Trinity was a Biblical teaching, rather than a carry over from pagan sun worship, inserted the line, "and these three are one" after the verse that mentions getting baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

They did remove it from later versions, perhaps that got worried over the scripture that says, 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.

Yes, my goombah friend, translation is treason. Which is why I read TNKH in Hebrew and Aramaic, not in translation.

ruveyn

I respect you to catch relevance:

Mein Vater who sore carefully spoke, introduced the family to Pogo. Reading it he always heard proper talk.

Big problem communication, not least for Wrong Planeteers - ALL dialogue involves translation.