22
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 380:
Line 380: − + − + − + − + − + + + Line 417:
Line 419: − + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 23:05, October 26, 2011
, 23:05, October 26, 2011→Top 5 Bible verses: three answers to Aschlafly, widely scattered...
*I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
*I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
*the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
*the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
|-
|-
!John 1:1
!rowspan="2"|John 1:1
|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|Here, I like ''all'' versions :-)
|Here, I like ''all'' versions :-)
|At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
|At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
|-
|There seems to be a reason that this translation isn't in the canon of the CBP any longer: It doesn't seem to be stronger, richer, but only more confusing: It lacks the aesthetic beauty of the original. However: when you said to chose verses from the CBP, I only thought of the current version!
|-
|-
!John 14:6
!John 14:6
:::::What's the specific problem?
:::::What's the specific problem?
::::::You are applying our standards of precise time measurement to a society which had no idea of this concept. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::If you only read ''half a verse'', you can try to give it an environmentalist spin. But I don't see a problem, as we should look at the context, even when reading a translation. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)