Bible retranslated---is nothing sacred?

[treesinger]

I agree to a point. But don't you think, even from a secular non-believing POV that they went quite a bit overboard? The colloquialization of it is outrageous enough.

 

[Cindy B]

Originally posted by vernon
You presume the original translation was correct and irrefutable.

The Bible, as translated by the Romans, was adjusted to fit in with the confines of Roman society, it's customs and it's history. The King James version was one that suited the societies of that time, whether those versions are cast in stone or available for a translation that is easier to understand to todays society is a point for debate but IMHO translating any document into another language is always at best a rather subjective exercise.

Ditto what vernon said!

There has been tons of retranslations over time.. think about it this way.. we all could NOT be reading the ancient greek texts.. (I'm fresh out of ancient greek and aramaic dictionaries at my house!)

There are, and will always be, loose translations. But really, if you think about it.. whose to say that KJV is the "closest" to the original text? There will always be translation differences, no matter what version of the Bible you read/use.

Unless we all get back to the ancient texts, this will be going on for years.. its nothing new.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

Originally posted by gometros
Then you need to learn Aramaic as well, since anything written in Latin or Greek are just translataions as well.

actually, the Old Testament is Hebrew and Aramaic, but the New is all in Greek.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
actually, the Old Testament is Hebrew and Aramaic, but the New is all in Greek.

I only know about the Torah. Can't speak to what the Christian version is written in. Never read it.

 

[RachelEllen]

Originally posted by treesinger
I agree to a point. But don't you think, even from a secular non-believing POV that they went quite a bit overboard? The colloquialization of it is outrageous enough.

Just curious, though, why is the colloquialization outrageous? The King James Version is just a translation. I'm sure it sounded quite colloquial in its time, but the only reason it sounds as formalized as it does is because it's so old.

For example, the names already are changed. I can only speak about the Old Testiment, because I studied that one in the original Hebrew, but Aaron was something like 'AHRN', so it became 'Aaron' now it's 'Ron'. <shrug>

Have you ever seen those computer programs that translate a sentence into another language and back again? Even without an agenda, the finished product comes out sounding extremely silly. So, I'd be careful about drawing any conclusions about comparisions between one English translation and another in regards to which one is 'right'. It really takes a study of the original language.

Even the sentences you provided, granted, they sound a bit silly, but they seem be saying the same thing to me. I mean, if the bible were so straightforward, then rabbis would have nothing to argue about!

 

[Aimeedyan]

It's a joke, right?

I am all for new translations that are more accurate to the original than others, but that is not exactly what I had in mind... it's almost like putting the Bible all in slang.

I must admit it's quite amusing, that someone took the time to do all of that... why would someone even come up with that idea?

Interesting! Thanks for sharing =)

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
actually, the Old Testament is Hebrew and Aramaic, but the New is all in Greek.

This is true. It as also true that the King Jmes version, does take some liberties with the oldest documents we have (Changing "Thou shalt not murder" to "Thou Shalt not kill" for example). Still, the King James version attempts to leave the sentence structure and form as intact as possible. This new version appears to paraphrase, introduce slang and completely reinterpret the Bible. I'm sorry, changing "and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" to "a pigeon flew down and perched on him." is not translating, it's embellishing.

 

[mickeyfan1]

Originally posted by Aimeedyan
It's a joke, right?

I am all for new translations that are more accurate to the original than others, but that is not exactly what I had in mind... it's almost like putting the Bible all in slang.

I must admit it's quite amusing, that someone took the time to do all of that... why would someone even come up with that idea?

Interesting! Thanks for sharing =)

If the people that did this said God told them to, a lot of you would scoff. However, you don't scoff when you hear the original writers did it because God told them to do it.

It is all mans interpretation of early history, some things may have happened, some things may not have, at least as they are told in the various books of the bible. But what makes this one so awful. If there were no earlier editions, would anyone be wondering?

 

[Aimeedyan]

Originally posted by mickeyfan1
If the people that did this said God told them to, a lot of you would scoff. However, you don't scoff when you hear the original writers did it because God told them to do it.

It is all mans interpretation of early history, some things may have happened, some things may not have, at least as they are told in the various books of the bible. But what makes this one so awful. If there were no earlier editions, would anyone be wondering?

I don't remember saying that I believed that God told anyone to write anything...?

Guess I don't get what your point is... I didn't take this new "translation" as something that someone did because they believed God told them to, but instead that they wanted to offer a fresh alternative view to things... did I read the article right? I just didn't catch anything in it that stated the editors/writers were acting out of obedience to God solely...

So I'm not sure what you mean. ?

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by mickeyfan1
But what makes this one so awful. If there were no earlier editions, would anyone be wondering?

The Bible is a collection of ancient documents. You may or may not agree with these documents, but when you publish a translation of the Bible, you should publish a translation of what these documents said, not make up a new version that says what you think the original documents ought to have said. I agree there is room for some interpretation here, but this new book ebellshes and rewrites these original documents, it goes far beyond translation and interpretation.

 

[Winka]

Originally posted by vernon
You presume the original translation was correct and irrefutable.

The Bible, as translated by the Romans, was adjusted to fit in with the confines of Roman society, it's customs and it's history. The King James version was one that suited the societies of that time, whether those versions are cast in stone or available for a translation that is easier to understand to todays society is a point for debate but IMHO translating any document into another language is always at best a rather subjective exercise.

Of course. Isn't everyone generally aware of this?


I think as treesinger mentioned, the negative reaction seems to stem somewhat from the colloquialization.

 

[Maleficent13]

Take a running jump, Holy Joes, humbugs!"

I am going to start incorporating this into my daily vocabulary.

I don't even think this is colloquial. I don't know anyone who talks like this. This is just bad writing.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
actually, the Old Testament is Hebrew and Aramaic, but the New is all in Greek.

This is true. But my statement is not incorrect, is it? It was not intended to be all inclusive.

 

[Winka]

"Take a running jump, Holy Joes, humbugs!"

Lol, Maleficent...agreed, that's pretty ridiculous.

If the translator was a DISer they should be cursed with that as a tag for all eternity.

 

[dizneegirl]

Originally posted by treesinger
New version: "Take a running jump, Holy Joes, humbugs!"

That has GOT to be one of the funniest things I've ever read!

 

[totalia]

I think people make too much of the bible. Its just a book.

Let the flaming begin.

 

[septbride2002]

that is why it is called faith. I did not see anyone write the bible, but I believe it is the word of God. I did not see Jesus walk on water or feed the multitudes, or heal the sick, but I believe he did. If you have to see it 100% in front of you then that is not faith which therefore does not please God.

I like your post. Let me add to this:

I have faith - however I do not believe every word written in the bible - why? Because it was put together and translated by a committee! I have faith that God is all forgiving, that God loves all his children whether the color of their skin, sexual preference, or religion - as long as they are happy and not causing harm to others - God is happy for us.

I have faith that God will not cast aside those that love openly and freely even if they are the same sex!

I have faith that God will not cast aside those that sit in judgement of his children.

~Amanda

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Lanshark
Sounds like a new age membership drive to me

ROFL! More power to them!

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by septbride2002
I like your post. Let me add to this:

I have faith - however I do not believe every word written in the bible - why? Because it was put together and translated by a committee! I have faith that God is all forgiving, that God loves all his children whether the color of their skin, sexual preference, or religion - as long as they are happy and not causing harm to others - God is happy for us.

I have faith that God will not cast aside those that love openly and freely even if they are the same sex!

I have faith that God will not cast aside those that sit in judgement of his children.

~Amanda

All I can say is, you're making up your faith as you go along!

 

[treesinger]

And your reasoning for that opinion is...?