378
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 127:
Line 127: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Translations: Intermim version pending insertion of site-references...
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before inclusion if you insist!...
:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:
:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be antique, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms.
:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Other versions can be compared verse-for-verse at the NIV site at..., whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly.
:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'' at..., which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.
:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.
:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''
::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)