Belief in the Bible

[Palefire]

I'm really starting to think the Bible could do with some translating into current English.  Mainly because I have no clue what most of the passages are saying.

Have no fear. There are plenty of people out there that will be happy to tell you exactly what it means - from what ever perspective best suits the ends they are pursuing. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

[Shira]

I'm really starting to think the Bible could do with some translating into current English.  Mainly because I have no clue what most of the passages are saying.

In the above two examples the second verse is pretty clear: an accurate description of the Religious Right.

The first one advices not to argue too much with a stupid or an ignorant person, because if you do, you are going to be like this person.

[Emsworth]

I'm really starting to think the Bible could do with some translating into current English.  Mainly because I have no clue what most of the passages are saying.

But it sounds much nicer in the older form. Compare:

And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,
Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies. (KJV)

The Lord spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. He said:
Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one.
You and Aaron are to number by their divisions all the men in Israel twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army. (NIV)

Doesn't the King James translation sound a lot more "Biblical"?

[A18]

Any decent modern translation is based on the original manuscripts, and not the KJV.

[Emsworth]

But it sounds much nicer in the older form. Compare:

And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,
Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies. (KJV)

The Lord spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. He said:
Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one.
You and Aaron are to number by their divisions all the men in Israel twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army. (NIV)

Doesn't the King James translation sound a lot more "Biblical"?

Yeah, I agree. The problem with some more modern translations is that it doesn't always transform the KJV accurately (some things might be missing or misinterpreted).

And some even challenge the KJV's translation! The only solution is to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, so that one may read the original.

[A18]

NIV is pretty reliable. If you're really interested in all the word meanings, use the amplified Bible:

Genesis 1
    IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.(A)

    The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.

[Joe Republic]

I don't really care if it sounds 'nicer' the older way.  Call me uncultured, but whenever I even try and read just a few Bible passages, I'm faced with stuff like, "Thou hast forsaken thy noble blood, and it is betwixt thine loins that the olive tree becometh the fruit of thy son for which it is begat," or similar drivel.  It's a total turn-off.

[Emsworth]

In my estimation, the language of the KJV is somewhat like the language of Shakespeare: the "original" has its own literary value.

[Frodo]

I'm really starting to think the Bible could do with some translating into current English.  Mainly because I have no clue what most of the passages are saying.

But it sounds much nicer in the older form. Compare:

And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,
Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies. (KJV)

The Lord spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. He said:
Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one.
You and Aaron are to number by their divisions all the men in Israel twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army. (NIV)

Doesn't the King James translation sound a lot more "Biblical"?

i have always liked the King James' Version in that it has always been rather poetic in its style of writing -remember that at around the time this edition of the Bible was being written, John Dunn was writing his poems.  this was a period when English was coming into its own as a respectable language, beginning with William Shakespeare. 

the King James' version is harder to read and understand, but if left with the choice of an easier-to-understand but bland modern Bible of the sort that Palpatine (aka, Joe Republic) prefers, and the KJV, i would prefer the latter.   

[Ebowed]

Shira just likes to pick random verses and post them to suit her odd needs.  I'm surprised someone so obsessed with doing that doesn't even believe in Jesus.  Anyway, using the KJV is silly and can even be deceptive because nobody understands what it means now.  Just use the NIV.  Philip's right on this one.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No. For one thing, it is full of contradictions.

Well don't leave us hanging....since you are soo wise and have soo much knowledge of scripture, can you name one contradiction?

[J. J.]

I had a priest who translated the Gospel directly from Greek.  I've got to say, I miss that.  Yes, there are translation problem, and social ones.  It was written to a much more agricultural culture.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Anyway, using the KJV is silly and can even be deceptive because nobody understands what it means now. 

I am sorry to hear your vocabulary is strained.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I have found the NKJV (new king james version) to be the most accurately translated.  While I very much like the NIV's paragraph and subtitle form, it is full of obvious errors.

[Ebowed]

Anyway, using the KJV is silly and can even be deceptive because nobody understands what it means now. 

I am sorry to hear your vocabulary is strained.

Don't be arrogant.  I'm not only speaking for myself; I'm speaking for millions of other people who get confused every time someone pulls a KJV verse on them.  If you want to sound like a snobby elitist whose message is for English scholars, go right ahead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I have found the NKJV (new king james version) to be the most accurately translated.  While I very much like the NIV's paragraph and subtitle form, it is full of obvious errors.

The NKJV is a good translation but the NIV is more widely available, so that is why I generally prefer it.  What errors are your referring to?

[opebo]

No. For one thing, it is full of contradictions.

Well don't leave us hanging....since you are soo wise and have soo much knowledge of scripture, can you name one contradiction?

Being wise and being knowledgable about that nonsense are contradictory qualities.  Anyone wise would not waste time on such crapola.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I am sorry to hear your vocabulary is strained.

Don't be arrogant.  I'm not only speaking for myself; I'm speaking for millions of other people who get confused every time someone pulls a KJV verse on them.  If you want to sound like a snobby elitist whose message is for English scholars, go right ahead.

I'm sorry, I forgot Shakespare is no longer a requirement for today's high school students.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I have found the NKJV (new king james version) to be the most accurately translated.  While I very much like the NIV's paragraph and subtitle form, it is full of obvious errors.

The NKJV is a good translation but the NIV is more widely available, so that is why I generally prefer it.  What errors are your referring to?

I don't keep a list handy, but one major one I can think of is Mark 1:2:

KJV "As it is written in the prophets...(quotes Isa 40:3 and Mal 3:1)"

NKJV "As it is written in the Prophets...(quotes Isa 40:3 and Mal 3:1)"

NIV "It is written in Isaiah the prophet...(quotes Isa 40:3 and Mal 3:1)"

The NIV is factually incorrect, but the KJV and NKJV are correct.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Makes sense to have lots of different Bibles IMO. KJV is "great literature" in it's own right, but it's probably not suited to everyday use. Most people don't speak that dialect anymore

[Emsworth]

No. For one thing, it is full of contradictions.

Well don't leave us hanging....since you are soo wise and have soo much knowledge of scripture, can you name one contradiction?

I certainly do not make the claim that you suggest. If you insist, however:

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Genesis 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

[Ebowed]

Tempt didn't mean the same thing in those two passages.  In the first "tempt" meant God was testing him (to see if he was fully devoted to him); in the second, "tempt" meant the more common meaning, to be tempted by evil.

[Shira]

Shira just likes to pick random verses and post them to suit her odd needs.  I'm surprised someone so obsessed with doing that doesn't even believe in Jesus.  Anyway, using the KJV is silly and can even be deceptive because nobody understands what it means now.  Just use the NIV.  Philip's right on this one.

I am secular. But even if I were religious, I probably would have the Jewish faith, since I am half Jewish. Regardless of all these, I do love the bible and strongly despise the preachers of the Bible Belt.

[Joe Republic]

Anyway, using the KJV is silly and can even be deceptive because nobody understands what it means now. 

I am sorry to hear your vocabulary is strained.

Don't be arrogant.  I'm not only speaking for myself; I'm speaking for millions of other people who get confused every time someone pulls a KJV verse on them.  If you want to sound like a snobby elitist whose message is for English scholars, go right ahead.

An excellent post, which sums up how I feel about the KJV.  I also consider Shakespearean English to be verging on being almost a different language entirely.  Kind of like Latin, but marginally more understandable, and in that it too is spoken only by pretentious snobs.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Anyway, using the KJV is silly and can even be deceptive because nobody understands what it means now. 

I am sorry to hear your vocabulary is strained.

Don't be arrogant.  I'm not only speaking for myself; I'm speaking for millions of other people who get confused every time someone pulls a KJV verse on them.  If you want to sound like a snobby elitist whose message is for English scholars, go right ahead.

An excellent post, which sums up how I feel about the KJV.  I also consider Shakespearean English to be verging on being almost a different language entirely.  Kind of like Latin, but marginally more understandable, and in that it too is spoken only by pretentious snobs.

I haven't seen anyone on this board write in 16th century English.  But that doesn't mean a person with a high school education shouldn't be able to easily interpret it.

which quotes from Shakespeare are you having trouble with?  Just tell me which quotes a person with average intelligence wouldn't be able to understand?
http://www.allshakespeare.com/quotes/

[minionofmidas]

There are a handful of long and flowery sentences that you'll really have to sit down and pick apart word for word to see the grammatical sense in Shakespeare...but on the whole he's still rather more readable than his "classic" German translations...which are only half as old.

[Joe Republic]

I haven't seen anyone on this board write in 16th century English.  But that doesn't mean a person with a high school education shouldn't be able to easily interpret it.

Who said anybody had?  Even so, it's not so much a matter of being able to interpret it.  More like; why would anybody feel the need to write something in a 500 year old dialect?  Is Modern English not good enough?

which quotes from Shakespeare are you having trouble with? Just tell me which quotes a person with average intelligence wouldn't be able to understand?
http://www.allshakespeare.com/quotes/

I'll pick out Quote Nos. 8, 17, 23, 25, 29, 37 ("glisters"?), 45, 49, 58, 60, 61, 79, 80 and 84 in particular for their nonsensical use of irrelevant words.  Even if you gave me the context of each sentence, I still wouldn't know exactly what point is trying to be made, if any.  Also, I noticed a striking similarity between Nos. 18 and 43 in this expertly constructed list.

[Storebought]

About the 'archaic' language controversy: I heard one pastor on TV (not a televangelist) misuse the words 'corn' and 'cattle' when teaching the story of Joseph and his interpretation of the two dreams of Pharoah.

The pastor interpreted the KJV blasted and withered corn as being corn cobs dried to the shuck--clearly incorrect, as King James "corn" meant any kind of grain, and not good ol' US corn. And later, when the passage spoke of "cattle", the pastor meant 'lots of cows'--incorrect as well, since KJV "cattle" means "livestock."

These are minor misuses of only two small words of late medieval English. Can you imagine if the entire Bible were reinterpreted--really retranslated--from the KJV with the same sorts of misuse of language?