1. Joined
    22 Sep '07
    Moves
    44172
    02 Feb '13 16:50
    Language as we all know is constantly evolving,the English used in Shakespeare is different to the English of today in both composition and meaning.There comes a point when it can no longer be understood by many,take Chaucer for example! The biblical texts are moving in that direction,who then will perform the task of updating it ??????
  2. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    02 Feb '13 16:581 edit
    Originally posted by OdBod
    Language as we all know is constantly evolving,the English used in Shakespeare is different to the English of today in both composition and meaning.There comes a point when it can no longer be understood by many,take Chaucer for example! The biblical texts are moving in that direction,who then will perform the task of updating it ??????
    It's already been done quite a few times, just as Chaucer has been translated to modern English quite a few times.
  3. Joined
    22 Sep '07
    Moves
    44172
    02 Feb '13 17:06
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    It's already been done quite a few times.
    Sorry I'm fairly new , how do I get rid of it?
  4. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8559
    02 Feb '13 17:253 edits
    List of English Bible translations:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations (and some "Paraphrased" ) or what I would call Loose translations, ie. Good News For Modern Man, Cotton Patch New Testament, Living Bible, J B Phillips Translation
  5. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    02 Feb '13 17:28
    Originally posted by OdBod
    Sorry I'm fairly new , how do I get rid of it?
    Not sure what you're asking. How do you get rid of what?
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    02 Feb '13 17:301 edit
    Originally posted by OdBod
    Language as we all know is constantly evolving,the English used in Shakespeare is different to the English of today in both composition and meaning.There comes a point when it can no longer be understood by many,take Chaucer for example! The biblical texts are moving in that direction,who then will perform the task of updating it ??????
    Some of our updates to the Holy Bible today don't seem accurate to me. For example, we have names of animals that we don't know what they were, probably because the names in English has changed and it was not updated or not updated correctly. The unicorn was once defined as a one-horned Rhinoceros and now it is a mythical horse with a horn growing out of it's head. Some translators were not aware of this and in the New American Standard Bible they replaced unicorn with wild ox, which they believed it most likely meant. So who knows what some translator will replace it with in the future.
  7. Joined
    22 Sep '07
    Moves
    44172
    02 Feb '13 17:36
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Not sure what you're asking. How do you get rid of what?
    I thought you meant the thread had been done quite a few times! but what great way to illustrate how misunderstandings can arise!
  8. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    02 Feb '13 17:38
    Originally posted by OdBod
    I thought you meant the thread had been done quite a few times! but what great way to illustrate how misunderstandings can arise!
    I see. So far as I know, there isn't a way for a user to delete a thread.
  9. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35519
    02 Feb '13 21:184 edits
    Originally posted by OdBod
    Language as we all know is constantly evolving,the English used in Shakespeare is different to the English of today in both composition and meaning.There comes a point when it can no longer be understood by many,take Chaucer for example! The biblical texts are moving in that direction,who then will perform the task of updating it ??????
    Yes, well, most revisions and modern translations lose much of the original meaning. It is what is known as the "dumbing-down" of the Bible. If you cannot understand the King James Version, then maybe you need to take more English classes, and not subject the rest of us to a "Translation for Morons".












    (Hmmmmmmm, on second thought, maybe *I* should come out with the "Translation for Morons" (TFM). It would for sure be a mega-bestseller, and make me filthy rich.)
  10. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35519
    02 Feb '13 22:47
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    (Hmmmmmmm, on second thought, maybe *I* should come out with the "Translation for Morons" (TFM). It would for sure be a mega-bestseller, and make me filthy rich.)
    lol, then I could tell people to "just RTFM already".

    Is it sad that I crack myself up like that? 🙂
  11. Joined
    22 Sep '07
    Moves
    44172
    02 Feb '13 23:08
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Yes, well, most revisions and modern translations lose much of the original meaning. It is what is known as the "dumbing-down" of the Bible. If you cannot understand the King James Version, then maybe you need to take more English classes, and not subject the rest of us to a "Translation for Morons".












    (Hmmmmmmm, on second thought, ...[text shortened]... tion for Morons" (TFM). It would for sure be a mega-bestseller, and make me filthy rich.)
    I think you have missed the point,the Bible is held by many to be the truth, I was suggesting that every time the book was updated it might be subtly changed.This could have important ramifications for those who use it as the main source of their information.Your own post refers to"dumbing-down"which requires a change in the original text, let alone the changes arising from say Latin to old English.With reference to your post, yes I can understand the King James "Version", but whose words are they?
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    03 Feb '13 01:223 edits
    Originally posted by OdBod
    I think you have missed the point,the Bible is held by many to be the truth, I was suggesting that every time the book was updated it might be subtly changed.This could have important ramifications for those who use it as the main source of their information.Your own post refers to"dumbing-down"which requires a change in the original text, let alone the change ...[text shortened]... ence to your post, yes I can understand the King James "Version", but whose words are they?
    I have honestly not heard so much nonsense , not from you, but from those professing to be knowledgeable about what constitutes a good translation. The fact of the matter is, there are various types of translation, lexical translation, which is not really a translation at all, but seeks to make a word for word comparison, these are termed interlinears. Then there are what are termed a literal (formal equivalence) translation which seeks to translate the words as accurately as possible, although the danger is that you may lapse into hyper-literalsim. The goal of formal equivalence is to reveal as much of the original form as possible while making room for the idioms and constructs of language. Then there is what is termed a dynamic equivalence translation, which works with larger blocks of language and seeks to render the original text and make it easier to understand than the original rhetorical forms. Then there is what is termed a paraphrase, which like the dynamic equivalence seeks to utilise ideas rather than a strict observance of the original text.

    The King James version itself is not really a translation, its a translation of a translation, but shhhhh, those who advocate it don't like you knowing that. The fact of the matter is modern translations are much better for we now have a much greater degree of extant manuscripts available to form a base text than they did in the middle ages. There are essentially two base text on which Bibles are translated, the Westcott and Hort and the Nestle- Aland.

    As to your question of textual integrity, the Bible is in better shape that it ever was as new manuscripts come to light and can be cross examined and spurious texts identified.
  13. Dublin Ireland
    Joined
    31 Oct '12
    Moves
    14235
    03 Feb '13 01:30
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I have honestly not heard so much nonsense , not from you, but from those professing to be knowledgeable about what constitutes a good translation. The fact of the matter is, there are various types of translation, lexical translation, which is not really a translation at all, but seeks to make a word for word comparison, these are termed interlinea ...[text shortened]... r was as new manuscripts come to light and can be cross examined and spurious texts identified.
    How about the ( NJLV )


    New Johnny Longwoody Version?

    It woooood contain a lot of begatting.

    I would begat from chapter 1 to the revelation.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    03 Feb '13 01:34
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    How about the ( NJLV )


    New Johnny Longwoody Version?

    It woooood contain a lot of begatting.

    I would begat from chapter 1 to the revelation.
    Aye Johnny me ol son, if you could find and keep a woman I am sure it would! Them Irish chicks are not easy to please, ive seen Waking Ned!
  15. Dublin Ireland
    Joined
    31 Oct '12
    Moves
    14235
    03 Feb '13 01:43
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Aye Johnny me ol son, if you could find and keep a woman I am sure it would! Them Irish chicks are not easy to please, ive seen Waking Ned!
    Irish comedians who have made it in Britain are always
    saying that British women will sleep with anything.
Back to Top