Posted on 05/19/2015 9:48:39 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
From Left to Right: Mati Weiderpass, Ted Cruz, Kalman Sporn and Heidi Cruz at a literal fireside chat in Mr. Weiderpass’ apartment.
A nuclear-armed Tehran presents an urgent threat to freedom. Opposing the Iran deal are two unlikely allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel. And it’s just the latest sign of a thaw in a relationship that proves the wisdom of the old Sanskrit proverb, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Saudi Arabia officially dropped the Arab boycott against Israel in 2005 as a condition of joining the World Trade Organization. Last July, Prince Turki Al Faisal, Saudi Ambassador to US from 2005-2006, published an op-ed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It did not mention the Palestinian people’s “right of return” to their former homes in current Israel, a key demand of Palestinian activists for decades. Even more surprising, Faisal’s article did affirm the importance of the Holocaust and the Jewish people’s historic claim to Jerusalem.
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.com ...
Beat you by two minutes.
Hitler united the US and the USSR.
So?
Apple and Oranges
In my church, it’s KJ, all the time. I hate it. It is not my native tongue. And here is what is comical: On two separate occasions, during his sermon, our pastor interpreted what the king james said into “modern english” so that the congregation could understand what it really meant. In BOTH cases, he said, word for word, what was in the same place in my wife’s NIV bible.
I have many versions of the bible and study sites such as Blueletterbible and biblehub on the internet going to the original manuscripts and word/phrase definitions. I have no use for a King James bible other than to show people where it is confusing and sometimes just plain wrong. (look up “mansion”)
If the USA is going to protect both Israel and SA against their enemies, why do they need to look around for allies such as each other?
But now they are both looking over their shoulders at Iran.
I think there’s some validity to the idea that much of what the USA has done since WWII has allowed certain other nations to act like irresponsible teenagers.
Well, maybe Dad’s kicking them out of the house now and they have to face reality.
Apple and Oranges
There are many ways to get two countries to unite. One is to offer them a common enemy. It’s what Obama has done with Iran and what Hitler did with Germany.
There are two basic philosophies of translation, with a spectrum running between them.
I grew up with a very literal translation almost exclusively, it tried to translate word for word as closely as possible. Nothing wrong with that and it’s in many ways very useful.
The other is a free translation, by which the translator tries to get across the idea he believes the writer had in mind, but using words that a modern English-speaker would use.
I go back and forth between them, because I think they complement each other very well.
I also like the Amplified Bible, which brings in all the shades of meaning of words for which the other two methods have to pick one.
Christians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries spent far more of their time hating and killing each other for intramural differences than they did fighting the Ottomans or North African white slavers. The current divisions within Islam between Sunni (Arab and South Asian) and Shiite (Persian and a scatter of Arabs) are in a similar vein. For the Saudi ruling clan the conflict is existential.
I’m with you. But one of the problems I have with the KJV is stuff like “In my fathers house are many mansions.” That is a TERRIBLE translation of the original Greek. It would be like translating the Greek word for “car” as “Limousine”. The translators inferred meaning that was not there.
Also, you’ll notice that some parts of the KJV come from manuscripts different from those sourced for NIV and others. You notice it when looking at the lexicon. Not often, but it happens. This is where I try to look at both versions. But the bottom line is that I mostly treat the KJV as though it was a Gutenberg bible. i.e. not in a language I’m fluent in.
There are many of us who prefer the King James Version. It is a far more beautiful translation.
The “common language,” or “Lazy speak” of today lacks much in order to be admired. I find the arguments against the KJV rather like proposing that all of Shakespeare’s plays should be “translated” into today’s English. In a word, “UGH!”
It is a far more beautiful translation.
When I first gave my heart to Christ, I would sing songs from our church hymnal and translate thee, thou, etc. to “you, me, etc.” while singing. The reason is simple: I didn’t want to fall into a “false piousness” by using a “special Christian language”. I prefer plain and modern English to ensure I focus on the content of the words and not the words.
In a bible study I’m in, They move around the room to have the students read the scripture. I read through mine plainly and quickly. But others stumble and stutter on their confusing 16th century English as though first year students in a foreign language. The meaning of the words and phrases is lost as people just try to get through the individual words.
But that being said, I understand that opinions vary on this. My father thinks that all versions other than the KJV are from the pit o’ hell. We differ on that.
The “common language,” or “Lazy speak” of today lacks much in order to be admired. I find the arguments against the KJV rather like proposing that all of Shakespeare’s plays should be “translated” into today’s English. In a word, “UGH!”
Shakespeare HAS been translated into modern English. Ever seen West Side Story? :-)
It’s a sign of revering the artifact more than reading it for its message. There is much to praise KJV for, historically speaking: it was a revolutionary version for its time and it brought the bible into the most modern English of its day. If there was a worst weakness, it was that an eye for poetic diction often upstaged faithfulness to the source manuscripts. But the English language has evolved, as has manuscript scholarship.
ANY well-rendered bible will give you an acceptably accurate view of prophecy and doctrine. It was formulated to be robust across barriers of language and culture.
/rant
I find the arguments against the KJV rather like proposing that all of Shakespeare’s plays should be “translated” into today’s English.
Then again, so is Esther.
But the bible is about truth. The MAIN function is to enhance the relationship between man and his Creator. And none of the English versions are completely accurate. You must go to the original text and translate that to fully understand it. And the goal is to fully understand it, though it is a lofty goal.
To compare it to Shakespeare misses the point. Shakespeare didn’t write in Hebrew or Greek. If he had, then renditions of those works into the most modern English possible would have virtue.
Shakespeare used the early modern English of his day to formulate poetic verse and prose. It would be tricky to try to “update” that and it is sensible to strive to understand his language and worldview. On the other hand, modernization of English has not at all stifled poetry and prose by new authors.
To compare it to Shakespeare misses the point.
“But the bible is about truth”
And that is the bottom line. KJV is not any “truer” than any well-done modern translation, and sometimes it is misleading. I could wish that more versions would go down the road that the Amplified Bible did. Everything else is a tradeoff as to what will go into compact diction.
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.