Freethought & Rationalism Archive

OneInFundieville · 11-23-2007, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

The cynic in me sometimes thinks that the reason for not that many versions in more modern language is too deliberately make is less comprehensible to a modern reader,for how can you argue against something when you don't quite grasp the real meaning of it in the first place

Indeed.

Isn't my translation of the Matthew 18 passage just in more modern language?

And like my OP, I don't mean just modern grammar and voculary.

I mean informed vocabulary. Like one might hear on CNN or the BBC?

OneInFundieville · 11-23-2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneInFundieville

Is there explanation for what is kept in it's out-of-date historical context vs. what is brought up-to-date?

Yes. A translation should accurately convey the thinking of the original author, insofar as we can determine how and what they actually thought. There is no justification for revising their work using assumptions about what they would have written if they had known what we know now.

I guess what I'm thinking is that:

for "ouranos" the author was really thinking about the sky and that

for "basileus" the author was really thinking about a man ruling with near unlimited power in a rule-of-man, not rule-of-law fashion and that

for "kardia" the author was really thinking about locus of feelings and emotions here in this passage.

When I think "King" I think (almost quizically) what Charles is going to become. Somehow "dictator" seems truer to the original.

No?

OneInFundieville · 11-23-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Reasonable attempt to present old thinking now - probably most Bibles
Translation, paraphrase into modern thinking with clear explanations - probably does not exist,

I guess my question is why not?

We saw in the Song of Solomon verse where at least the NASB skipped "bowels moved" (which sounds like something from the benefit of a laxative to my modern mind) and went to "feelings being aroused."

Why don't modern translations translate into modern language?

Why isn't logos "idea," "thought," "notion" or even "meme" for instance???

Clivedurdle · 11-24-2007, 02:01 AM

Quote:

why not?

Quote:

my father in the sky

:devil1:

What would the Lord's prayer look like?

Toto · 11-24-2007, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneInFundieville

But anyone, isn't in today's modern world an individual functioning as a sole, individual sovereign head of state referred to as a dictator rather than a king?

A dictator is a modern strong man who has seized power.

A king has some sort of tradition, or divine rights about him, who typically was born to the job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneInFundieville

...

I guess what I'm thinking is that:

for "ouranos" the author was really thinking about the sky

yes - but it was a magical sky inhabited by gods.

Quote:

and that

for "basileus" the author was really thinking about a man ruling with near unlimited power in a rule-of-man, not rule-of-law fashion

I think that king is an adquate translation. Kings embody the rule of man, not rule of law, plus some sort of tradition

Quote:

and that

for "kardia" the author was really thinking about locus of feelings and emotions here in this passage.

For kardia, the author was thinking about the functions that we now know are associated with the brain - thinking.

Quote:

When I think "King" I think (almost quizically) what Charles is going to become. Somehow "dictator" seems truer to the original.

No?

Then you have lost the meaning of king. Charles is a figurehead because England is now a democracy.

Doug Shaver · 11-24-2007, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But can we determine what they thought?

In most cases, yes, up to a point. Reasonable people may of course disagree about where that point is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is there then a need for a series of translations?

Yes, as long as our own language continues to evolve.

douglas · 11-24-2007, 10:21 AM

Are there opinions out there regarding James Tabor's "The Bible Project?"

Quote:

The Original Bible Project (OBP) is a long-term effort to produce an entirely new and independent English translation of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament known as the Transparent English Bible (TEB). Despite the plethora of recent high quality scholarly Bible translations on the market serving the widest range of tastes and interests the TEB is distinctively and refreshingly different in that it allows the English reader to peer through to the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Its unique concept and special features will strongly appeal to a wide and diverse audience including general readers life-long Bible students and professional academics.

I like how they are trying to capture the subtleties of the Hebrew language.

OneInFundieville · 11-24-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A dictator is a modern strong man who has seized power.

A king has some sort of tradition, or divine rights about him, who typically was born to the job.

...

Then you have lost the meaning of king. Charles is a figurehead because England is now a democracy.

Kim Jong Il, son of Kim Il-sung, is a dictator.

Charles, son of Elizabeth II, is a future king.

I would suggest the present term dictator is closer than the present term king to the underlying concept of the historical term king.

Toto · 11-24-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneInFundieville

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A dictator is a modern strong man who has seized power.

A king has some sort of tradition, or divine rights about him, who typically was born to the job.

...

Then you have lost the meaning of king. Charles is a figurehead because England is now a democracy.

Kim Jong Il, son of Kim Il-sung, is a dictator.

Charles, son of Elizabeth II, is a future king.

I would suggest the present term dictator is closer than the present term king to the underlying concept of the historical term king.

Kim Jon Il also made himself a god and created a religion to worship him. He would probably have made himself emperor if he were not a Marxist.

Most dictators have not been succeeded by their sons. Think Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Franco, all those tinpot dictators.

OneInFundieville · 11-24-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Most dictators have not been succeeded by their sons. Think Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Franco, all those tinpot dictators.

I don't believe "δεσπότης" appears in the NT but wouldn't those guys be that?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.