Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
3,189
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 466:
Line 466: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 18:36, November 10, 2009
, 18:36, November 10, 2009→"Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through": new section
:Well put. Most, perhaps all, of the later additions to the Bible are liberal distortions that should not be kept. There's plenty of good stuff in the original Bible without any need for later stuff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)
:Well put. Most, perhaps all, of the later additions to the Bible are liberal distortions that should not be kept. There's plenty of good stuff in the original Bible without any need for later stuff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)
== "Idiomatic" shouldn't really "level through" ==
Just an observation, applicable now with consideration of "logos" remaining as "Word", we oughtn't as an outright and avowed attempt to put the Bible rightly in idiomatic English shy away from at times carrying on forward a non idiomatic but already hallowed and pregnant with meaning archaism, nor shy away from an embedded archaism of language. Our lead in this is the Bible itself:
"Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it were one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period (as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora) a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.
"For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek (so I am told) while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations." (from our Bible article)
In our church, we have no problem with having the Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel, read out in Divine Service in some modern version, while having the weekly congregational reading of the Psalm portion in the King James Version. People not only get used to it, they also understand what the "KIng James English" means. And not only that, but in MHO (which I take to mean "can't prove a thing"), "though I walk throug the shadow of death"...and "Thy rod and Thy staff", the "right hand of the Lord" and the "Day of the Lord" give me an additional comfort and strength[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:36, 10 November 2009 (EST)