Changes

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes.  A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes.  A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LLXX and Vulgate as well.

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.

:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.

:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.

:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text.  For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste".  There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances.  The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way.  Why?  Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text.  For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste".  There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances.  The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way.  Why?  Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two.  But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament.  For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two.  But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament.  For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

== Portal ==