Posted on 10/18/2009 6:06:12 PM PDT by HogsBreath
Agreed. I would think that accurate translation should be the driver of a “new Bible,” not a conservative, liberal, green, or whatever version. Footnotes, prefaces explaining the book in its historical, social, whatever context, and references back to other verses are nice too, as long as they don’t distract from the Message.
Just how do they propose to keep Stephen Colbert from being in the Bible? What kind of translation or mutilation are we talking about? I’m not sure I would want to read from that Bible.
NKJV is the cats meow.
If King James English was good enough for Adam and Eve, it’s good enough for me.
“No, Truth is Truth and does not change with tranlation. Whether or not the particular translation fits the Truth, that is a different story.”
But the truth must be captured in at least one translation, right?
Don't you mean the REVISED King James Version?
?
Just a little joshin’.
“If King James English was good enough for Adam and Eve, it’s good enough for me.”
Wow! Adam and Eve spoke English? Who would have thought?
Thanks for the helpful hint. ;-)
Before stampeding along with the liberal press, have you seen the bible? Are there omissions, or faulty translations? Is it objectively fraudulent? The MSM press describes it as “putting a conservative spin,” but is it closer to simply avoiding wordings that have acquired misleading connotations after centuries of usurpment by the social gospel movement?
“The Pentateuch and Haftorahs”, JH Hertz, ed.
King James
I seem to remember something about Revelation saying something about those taking away from the book having their name blotted out of the book of life; and those that add to it having the plagues added to them.
Just my stance, but I wouldn’t want to risk either.
I wouldn’t know.
“Gotta be a joke.”
No. Not a joke, though this silliness has been around for awhile. It’s usually best to leave good things alone (the Bible being the best of this category). Unfortunately, there will always be those in the religious community that can’t leave well enough alone. This idiocy is a prime example of what not to do.
I just use the KJV
Ah, it included the “apocrypha,” but made poor distinction between what Luther and James slanderously called apocrypha, and what had been ommitted for a thousand years, and sliced and diced Esther and Daniel so that the deuterocanonical sections made no sense and couldn’t be read in sequence. For instance, 1 and 2 Esdras:
“1 Esdras” (really 3 Esdras) is a redaction into one volume of Ezra (formerly 1 Esdras) and Nehemiah (formerly 2 Esdras). Because some ancient Greek texts used 3 Esdras (”1 Esdras”) instead of 1 and 2 Esdras, some historical Catholic bibles include it. However, because it contained no unique doctrine (being simply a shorter redaction of other Catholic books), the Council of Trent did not include it in its list of books which Christians must defend as inspired truth. Sometimes, it is referred to as “Greek Ezra.”
“2 Esdras” is a sequel to “Greek Ezra,” and hence, refers to itself as the “second” book of Esdras, even though it is the fourth Christian book known as “Esdras.” I’m not sure if any Eastern Churches use it, but it has never been included in the Catholic bible, before or after King James.
Even James’ naming scheme seems deliberate confusion, since at the time “1 Esdras” and “2 Esdras” were the names used by Catholics for Ezra and Nehemiah.
Tastless beyond measure.
Nope, I learned on the Authorized version. It works for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.