|
|
Post by shadrack on Jan 1, 2022 21:10:25 GMT
Seems like a mixture of good and bad. I've always favored translations of the Bible that primarily attempt to preserve and convey the original author's meaning.
So changing "sin" to "purification" because "purification offering” more closely reflects the ancient Hebrew word is a good change.
Conversely, changing "paralytics" to people "afflicted with paralysis" because it brings a modern sensibility to bear, because we now believe that an illness or symptom is something a person has, not who they are is bad.
Whether WE believe a person's illness defines who they are is irrelevant. The question is whether the ancient Hebrews believed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 3, 2022 4:38:58 GMT
Seems like a mixture of good and bad. I've always favored translations of the Bible that primarily attempt to preserve and convey the original author's meaning.
So changing "sin" to "purification" because "purification offering” more closely reflects the ancient Hebrew word is a good change.
Conversely, changing "paralytics" to people "afflicted with paralysis" because it brings a modern sensibility to bear, because we now believe that an illness or symptom is something a person has, not who they are is bad.
Whether WE believe a person's illness defines who they are is irrelevant. The question is whether the ancient Hebrews believed it.
I, too, have always called for "original meaning" to be taught and preached in our churches. Fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches who emphasize End Days Prophecies would not like this because their interpretations depend on believing that the ancient world Bible writers where "writing history in advance" - something that cannot be supported. These texts had to have had meaning and relevance to the first audience who received them. Yet changing "paralytics" to "people afflicted with paralysis" does not really change anything. There is a thin line between a "translation" and a "paraphrase." When I was still going to church and studying the Bible in an academic setting, I used the NRSV as the closest to come to a literal translation and still be in readable English that can be had. The only thing better would be to learn Hebrew and Greek. I'll have to take a look at the new edition but if they stand by the principles of the NRSV, it will be even better.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 3, 2022 5:20:46 GMT
paulslaugh I once read in the catalog of a fundie Bible college (I loved it when college catalogs came in print and you had to send off for them) that at their school they believed that "the King James Version of the Bible was God's Word for the English speaking world." An accurate Bible for an accurate message didn't seem to be of any concern for them. Besides, the KJV was designed to be poetic. Although roughly contemporary with Shakespeare, the English of the KJV was kind of retro for the time. The language was changing rapidly and the kind of "thee" and "thou" usage was falling out already as were several other words like my favorite "spake" as in "The Lord spake to Moses."
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Jan 4, 2022 1:49:46 GMT
I, too, have always called for "original meaning" to be taught and preached in our churches. Fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches who emphasize End Days Prophecies would not like this because their interpretations depend on believing that the ancient world Bible writers where "writing history in advance" - something that cannot be supported. These texts had to have had meaning and relevance to the first audience who received them. Yet changing "paralytics" to "people afflicted with paralysis" does not really change anything. There is a thin line between a "translation" and a "paraphrase." When I was still going to church and studying the Bible in an academic setting, I used the NRSV as the closest to come to a literal translation and still be in readable English that can be had. The only thing better would be to learn Hebrew and Greek. I'll have to take a look at the new edition but if they stand by the principles of the NRSV, it will be even better. A lot of these churches actually believe the King James Version is literally divinely inspirited. I like to ask fundies (mostly right wing Southern Baptists) what version they use, and when they respond "King James version" I like to add, "Oh, you mean the gay king's version... You do know that King James I of England was a homosexual, don't you? There's the name of the gay king, embossed right there on the cover of your bible..."Am I a terrible person?
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 4, 2022 5:54:13 GMT
A lot of these churches actually believe the King James Version is literally divinely inspirited. Am I a terrible person? You're just AWFUL! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 5, 2022 7:15:16 GMT
Seems like a mixture of good and bad. I've always favored translations of the Bible that primarily attempt to preserve and convey the original author's meaning.
No one knows the original author's meaning because there are no originals. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies ... x1000, there aren't even any surviving copies in Aramaic, the original language. It's known that some stories in the New Testament aren't original because they wouldn't make sense in Aramaic. Stories in the Old Testament have been revised to suit culture at the time. Some early Christians believed the father of Jesus was a different god than Abraham's god.
|
|
