Changes

11,776 bytes added , 15:34, June 14, 2021

Line 33: Line 33:

Another thought: The Bible in its old translations has inspired or at least influenced countless works of literature. This influence is more easily spotted using the traditional translations.

[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

+

: Agreed. Seriously, retranslating the Bible on a WIKI!? I have edit privilege to "help" translate, even if I don't have any knowledge of the original languages? [unsigned - Luke314]

+

:: What's your objection? Unjustified edits are reverted on Wikis, and other edits are improved over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:05, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

: BRichtigen, with all due respect, the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students. Moreover, many of my students likely have a better command of history and linguistics than you do. Try your hand at [[American_History_Midterm_Exam_-_Boys]] and see how you stack up.

Line 97: Line 101:

: Wow, I never knew that. By the way, Dean, does the standard LDS Bible use the [[KJV]] plus explanatory footnotes?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Yes, it's a KJV with explanatory footnotes. The title page says it's the "Authorized King James Version with explanatory notes and cross references to the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There are also footnotes and appendix referring to the "JST" which is the ''Joseph Smith Translation''. These are excerpts from the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:43, 26 December 2008 (EST)

+

: Hebrew has two distinct words for killing (הרג) and murder (רצח). The Commandment is unambiguously referring to murder.—[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 11:16, 23 February 2009 (EST)

+

Is this suggesting that Christianity isn't a pacifistic religion, and that killing was ok with Jesus? Because although the commandment says "thou shall not murder", there are numerous instances in the New Testament of pacifism being not only approved of, but required to be a Christian. Acts 14:19-22, 1 Corinthians 4:9-13, Acts 7:59-60, Matthew 5:9,21-25 and 38-41 are just a few of the biblical examples that I could find promoting pacifism.--[[User:Bixnood|Bixnood]] 22:54, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

== Rich ==

Line 154: Line 162:

What is the planned translation of the tetragrammaton? In English translations it's often been rendered as 'Lord', sometimes with all-caps, based on the Jewish custom of the pronunciation "Adonai", used to avoid saying the name; others use YHWH/YHVH/JHWH based on the unvowelled consonants; others go with "Jehovah" based on a Latin form, fairly discredited now, I understand. Still others try and capture the "to be" root of it, opting for "the one who is" or "the eternal". Thoughts? I personally prefer one of the latter forms, though I think there is room for innovation here! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 17:46, 26 December 2008 (EST)

+

:Keep using it. Please do not alter the holy name of God, which He Himself gave to Moses; He revealed Himself as "El Shaddai" first - "God Almighty". Then He revealed Himself as He truly was, is, and will be: "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" - "I am that I am." Thus it was rendered YHWH, off of an older, ancient verb form of "hayah." Eve, in Hebrew, is "chavvah" because she was the "mother of all living things". "Chayah" means "to live", but the verb form was originally "chavah". Thus it can be inferred that the original verb form of "hayah" was "havah." Thus YHWH is an imperfect form of the ancient verb form "havah". (It could even be possible that it was said in a Piel form. "Y'havveh.") Like I said, keep it. It's not gonna do us any good if people don't know the true name of God. Plus, the true name of God needs no innovation. It is timeless, remaining through all time periods, four simple letters that encompass the past, present, and future, one of the greatest mysteries of the Scripture.[[User:Cbauserman|Cbauserman]] 03:29, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

==Grace==

Line 214: Line 224:

::: Personally, I have no objection to either - but if we're going to have a retranslation as Aschlafly originally proposed I think it's intellectually sterile to re-translate a translation, taking all but one or two assumptions of the translators for granted. If we wanted to do that, I think that he would have suggested a commentary or gloss. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:55, 29 December 2008 (EST)

+

::::You know, after progressing a bit into Esther, I've actually found that it's a bit harder than it seems. This is the most devastating and deepest underlying problem of translating the book of Esther: it is going to require much knowledge of Persian custom and sometimes even Persian loanwords, as is the case with the stones early on in 1:6 (the names of the stones might be Persian loanwords, not necessarily Hebrew words by nature). Thus, I think Esther is not a good book to be translating because of all the back-knowledge that is required to construct the whole story. If you want to keep going, go on; I just think there are some easier books out there. Like Jonah, or Ruth. Despite the fact that Jonah is a prophetic book, it is (1) shorter than Esther and (2) easier to translate directly from the Hebrew. (Plus (3) it has a bunch of imagery that is really cool if you get into it.) Also, the book of Ruth is easier because, (1) again, it is shorter and (2) the backstory of Ruth requires knowledge of Hebrew custom, which we have much more of than Persian custom. Thus, my defense of the translation of Jonah or Ruth as a small Old Testament book. Even one of the other small prophets from the Book of the Twelve could be easier to translate than Esther. (Except Hosea. Hosea is a COMPLETELY different can of worms.)[[User:Cbauserman|Cbauserman]] 23:16, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

== "Rich" Issue ==

Line 269: Line 281:

::Two I'm struggling with a proper term for, which you might think worthwhile, are socialism and gun control. The term socialism might seem anachronistic in a Biblical context, but the meaning - anti-freedom, anti-enterprise, enslaving of human values - will surely be relevant as an example of everything Christ was fighting against. On the other hand, if the term Socialism sums it up best, why not use ity? As for socialistic gun control, might 'weapon control' cut it? I'd value your opinion. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 09:41, 8 January 2009 (EST)

−

::: Good ideas, but I think we need first to find (or imagine) a biblical passage where specific issue came up, and thus a proper term could be used. Offhand, I can't think of one yet for "weapon control," but "socialism" is more germane to the Bible and should be added to the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 8 January 2009 (EST)

+

::: Good ideas, but I think we need first to find (or imagine) a biblical passage where a specific issue came up, and thus a proper term could be used. Offhand, I can't think of one yet for "weapon control," but "socialism" is more germane to the Bible and should be added to the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 8 January 2009 (EST)

+

::::Andy, it looks like "censor" is from 1526, according to Merriam-Webster online. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor here]. Not detrimental to the point, just a minor correction! [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)

+

:::::In additon, the word [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/412 censor (or censur)] appears in Latin as well, although I can't find an origin date for this, although the Romans did use the word Censor as a title for [http://www.bartleby.com/61/57/C0195700.html Roman officials] with a particular duty (such as the census)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)

+

== Translation suggestions ==

+

I didn't want to change the main page without asking here first. I think it would make more sense to replace "Meek" with "Humble" instead of "God Fearing". The former is much closer to the intent of what Meek meant in this context, and ties better with other phrases such as "the last shall be first". I'd also suggest using using "Leadership" to replace "Government", since it fits the context, and because his actions in New Testament showed the characteristics af a leader inspiring others than a ruler expecting compliance by authority. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:18, 10 January 2009 (EST)

+

== "Cast Lots" ==

+

The page suggests "gambled" as a correction for "cast lots". Might I suggest "rolled dice" instead? That's pretty much the modern equivalent of casting lots, to my knowledge, and more specific than "gambled". Plus, "gambled" has modern connotations of a trip to Vegas or some such, with all the wildness that entails, and also leaves the reader wondering "what did they do? play blackjack?" [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:47, 6 February 2009 (EST)

+

:When I was young I was told that when it said 'cast lots' it actually meant they played dice as well. It's still gambling, of course, but it's more specific. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:24, 6 February 2009 (EST)

+

::The modern translation should say "gambling", a word that did not exist for the [[King James Version]] translators.

+

::"Cast lots" is meaningless to people today. I can't even tell what is meant by it. No, it wasn't modern dice they were tossing either. What did happen was the soldiers gambled for personal gain, just like visitors to a casino today. The word gambling should be used so people see what it was, and how the evil practice is widespread today also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 6 February 2009 (EST)

+

:::Actually Andy the Romans did have "modern" dice, and throwing dice was common. But throwing dice is gambling!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 20:23, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

+

::::Well, fine, then do you agree the passage should be translated as "gambling"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

+

::Personally I prefer the "cast dice", because it is closer to the "casts lots" and is far more specific than just stating "gambling". I feel that any half-intelligent person would infer that casting dice refers to gambling, but perhaps I think the general public is smarter than they are HaHa!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 20:34, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

+

:::"Cast dice" doesn't carry the impact of "gambling" for me. "Cast dice" strikes me as odd, puzzling me as to whether they had modern dice. Would they have rolled the dice on an uneven, earthy surface? Seems difficult to imagine, and thus not as effective. "Gambled" gets the point across without raising questions of how.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

+

::Interesting interpretation. However for me at least (and perhaps for others) simply saying "gambling" raises the question of how did they gamble, in what way did they gamble? For me at least the "dice" translation allows a person to infer that they were gambling via dice (it is well known Romans had dice). More interesting is that other versions of The Bible have translated Matthew 27:35 as "After they had crucified HIM, they determined who would get his clothes by throwing dice for them" ISV and GOD'S WORD. --[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:11, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

+

:::"casting lots" is the phrase used by NIV and Holman, the two most respected recent translations. "Lots" is different from "dice", and given the distinction why not resolve it by using "gambled"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

+

::::Keep in mind there are multiple other usages of this. Casting lots was all too common in the Old Testament; there are eighteen mentions of this in the Old Testament alone. The word used to describe "casting lots" at the cross (λαγχανω - lanchano - "to cast lots") is used four times in the New Testament. Luke 1:9 (one of those four usages) talks about priests being chosen BY LOT to go into the temple and burn incense. Some of the Old Testament passages talk about things being chosen BY LOT to be dedicated to the holiness of the Lord. The new twelfth disciple was chosen BY LOT after the disciples acknowledged that the Lord knew the result of the lot before it was cast. The "lot" used in most cases was a little less like rolling dice than one might think. They would write their name on a small piece of wood or stone and put it in a vase. Then they would shake it and cast out the bits of rubbish. The person whose name was on the first bit of rubbish to hit the ground was the "lot". Kind of like dice-throwing, but with names, not numbers. (I think the "name-throwing" method is the same with all LXX passages as well. Gk. κληρος kleros - "lot, part, inheritance, heritage") Actually, this word κληρος is used in all four gospel accounts at the crucifixion, including in John where the word λαγχανω is used. The soldiers are quoted as saying λαγχανω "Let us cast lots"; but when they actually cast the lot, the word κληρος is used. Thus most of the time, when the word "lot" is used, it is referring to this sort of name-throwing game. And because, in some instances, it is done by the disciples and the priests and even Aaron himself (in Leviticus 16:8), I suggest we refrain from calling it "gambling". Though, what we should call it I have no clue. [[User:Cbauserman|Cbauserman]] 02:59, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

+

== Love ==

+

Hello all;

+

While I'm hesitant about this project as a whole (in Burma, any vernacular Bible at all was pretty amazing - and I was lucky enough to have a teacher who taught me to read it in Greek), there's one thing which I think would be really helpful.

+

That's the issue of 'love', or 'αγαπη'. It's a beautiful concept, and very famously explored by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13.

+

If any word has a difficult to pin-down/changed meaning, I'd say it's this one - ever since people started translating Greek into English, four Greek words with very different meanings (storge, eros, philia, agape - as CS Lewis outlined) have been kludged together into the word 'love', which means that we miss a lot of the subtlety of passages like John 3:16, Matthew 22:37-41, 1 John 4:7-22, and the aforementioned 1 Corinthians 13.

+

I don't exactly know how one would deal with this - if 'love' is too broad, then the KJV's 'charity' is too narrow (charity is more of an act, an expression of agape), and just romanising 'agape' into the text would run counter to its efforts towards clarity. My NRSV (yes, I know, problematic around Isaiah, but I still feel it points towards Jesus in prophecy - it's also got a very handy set of 'textual links') approaches this in what I think is a helpful way - it uses the normal word, then has a little explanation of the Greek and other authorities in the footnote. I think the NIV and many other Bibles do a similar thing.

+

In this case, it would be -

+

'For God so loved1 the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.'

+

1Greek - 'agape'.

+

Thoughts? I realise that it adds a potential layer of complexity, and detracts from the flow of the text, but I feel it's a nice compromise between ease of understanding and scriptural subtlety - it's a good way of drawing attention to what Paul calls 'the most special way'. [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 08:58, 22 November 2009 (EST)

Conservative

Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators

351,627

edits

Changes

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project (view source)

Revision as of 15:34, June 14, 2021