Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 204: Line 204:  
:::::::: I agree completely.  Just one of the insights in the table in this entry can be worth hundreds of hours of personal effort in value.  A stronger understanding of these concepts is priceless.  Yet it is freely available here for merely the click of the mouse.  Can you imagine the value when this table is two or three times as long?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 28 December 2008 (EST)
 
:::::::: I agree completely.  Just one of the insights in the table in this entry can be worth hundreds of hours of personal effort in value.  A stronger understanding of these concepts is priceless.  Yet it is freely available here for merely the click of the mouse.  Can you imagine the value when this table is two or three times as long?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 28 December 2008 (EST)
 
::::::::::::Bugler, you are setting up a false dilemma.  If you were more aware of exegesis you would know that.  One of the principles of sound exegesis is to set the limits of the passage as can be seen by the link I offered before.  With that in mind, I certainly did not say I was against having a vision.  At the same time, often without adequate preparation the visions people have often fail.  I doubt the Normandy invasion would have been successful if the generals merely had a vision apart from adequate preparation.  The Normandy invasion was successful though because the generals had a vision which also had sufficient preparation. Now if you think you can retranslate the Bible without being knowledgeable in Greek/Hebrew, Ancient Near East culture, and exegetical principles then go right ahead, but I reasonably think your quest is rather quoxitic as can be seen by your rather poor exegesis of my previous post.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:17, 28 December 2008 (EST)
 
::::::::::::Bugler, you are setting up a false dilemma.  If you were more aware of exegesis you would know that.  One of the principles of sound exegesis is to set the limits of the passage as can be seen by the link I offered before.  With that in mind, I certainly did not say I was against having a vision.  At the same time, often without adequate preparation the visions people have often fail.  I doubt the Normandy invasion would have been successful if the generals merely had a vision apart from adequate preparation.  The Normandy invasion was successful though because the generals had a vision which also had sufficient preparation. Now if you think you can retranslate the Bible without being knowledgeable in Greek/Hebrew, Ancient Near East culture, and exegetical principles then go right ahead, but I reasonably think your quest is rather quoxitic as can be seen by your rather poor exegesis of my previous post.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:17, 28 December 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
: I'd suggest that first we establish what sort of a translation we want; then we start with a smallish book with fairly simple language, and move to another book when that's completed and polished. I'd suggest Esther as a nice place to start - it's got a good consistent narrative, the Hebrew is not overcomplicated or overpoetic, and we don't want to get any "teething problems" in something like one of the Gospels. An interlinear approach might be best; and I'd really suggest we do our best to work ''in vacuo'' without too much reference to established translations. Do people prefer working with the Masoretic vowels, notes, and breaks, or just from the plain text, allowing for wider interpretation as to the vocalization? How do we arrrange dealing with disputes and variation in text? One talk-page per chapter? I'd like to be able to suggest that we take an LXX approach and work individually and have the translations miraculously agree, but the evidence above suggests this might not be the best plan ;) [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:00, 29 December 2008 (EST)
    
== "Rich" Issue ==
 
== "Rich" Issue ==
Block, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
201

edits

Navigation menu