02 Feb 13
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 ??????
02 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodIt's already been done quite a few times, just as Chaucer has been translated to modern English quite a few times.
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 ??????
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 Feb 13
3 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
Originally posted by OdBodSome 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.
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 ??????
02 Feb 13
4 edits
Originally posted by OdBodYes, 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".
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 ??????
(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.)
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by Suziannelol, then I could tell people to "just RTFM already".
(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.)
Is it sad that I crack myself up like that? 🙂
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI 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?
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.)
03 Feb 13
3 edits
Originally posted by OdBodI 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.
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?
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.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow about the ( NJLV )
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.
New Johnny Longwoody Version?
It woooood contain a lot of begatting.
I would begat from chapter 1 to the revelation.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyAye 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!
How about the ( NJLV )
New Johnny Longwoody Version?
It woooood contain a lot of begatting.
I would begat from chapter 1 to the revelation.