FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-09-2006, 03:29 PM   #61
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default 1 Tim 3:16

Hi Jeffrey,

You have aptly scolded Praxeus for refusing to discuss the original Greek. At http://www.tektonics.org/gk/inerrancy.html, there is an article by James Holding that is titled ‘Why We Could Not and Can Not Have Inerrant Copies and Translations of the Bible.’ If I am correct, Holding is on your side with “Have you ever read Chaucer or Shakespeare in the original? Most of you would look at that Olde English and understand a few words of it, but unless you were a scholar of that time period, or had Cliff's Notes, you would miss most or all of the puns, political references, etc. peculiar to that time. Now if we have such trouble with 400 year-old English, imagine what trouble the Septuagint translators had with even older Hebrew! They read it - but you can bet they didn't always UNDERSTAND it!”
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 04:00 PM   #62
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Am I the only one who has read both Shakespeare (which was actually very easy) and Chaucer (took a little more work) in the original? Fun stuff, that is. Chaucer especially, it's the sound I love.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 04:10 PM   #63
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
Hi Jeffrey,

You have aptly scolded Praxeus for refusing to discuss the original Greek. At http://www.tektonics.org/gk/inerrancy.html, there is an article by James Holding that is titled ‘Why We Could Not and Can Not Have Inerrant Copies and Translations of the Bible.’ If I am correct, Holding is on your side with “Have you ever read Chaucer or Shakespeare in the original? Most of you would look at that Olde English and understand a few words of it, but unless you were a scholar of that time period, or had Cliff's Notes, you would miss most or all of the puns, political references, etc. peculiar to that time. Now if we have such trouble with 400 year-old English, imagine what trouble the Septuagint translators had with even older Hebrew! They read it - but you can bet they didn't always UNDERSTAND it!”
The assumptions you are working with here are (1) that the Hebrew that the LXX translators were working with was, vis a vis their own, an archaic Hebrew rather than something still very similar to what they knew and used, (2) that that the changes over time within Hebrew -- if any there were -- were as drastic as we were the changes that took place in English between Chaucer's and Shakespeare's time and between Shakespeare's and our own time, and (3) that the LXX translators were not experts in their nations history and language.

Now all of these assumptions may well be true. But they simply cannot be assumed as true.

In any case, thanks for your kind words.

Jeffrey
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 04:17 PM   #64
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
Am I the only one who has read both Shakespeare (which was actually very easy) and Chaucer (took a little more work) in the original?
I don't know. But what seems clear is that you are one of the few of all who only post here on matters Greek and Latin (not to mention those who claim that we should regard what they say on matters Greek and Latin as authoritative), who actually reads Greek and Latin.


Now what do you say as regards Steve's "responsibility" claim?

Jeffrey
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 04:47 PM   #65
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgibson000 View Post
I don't know. But what seems clear is that you are one of the few of all who only post here on matters Greek and Latin (not to mention those who claim that we should regard what they say on matters Greek and Latin as authoritative), who actually reads Greek and Latin.
I couldn't have it any other way. I'm firm on that stance.

Quote:
Now what do you say as regards Steve's "responsibility" claim?
I find it hilarious. Why do you ask?
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 11:32 AM   #66
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
Am I the only one who has read both Shakespeare (which was actually very easy) and Chaucer (took a little more work) in the original? Fun stuff, that is. Chaucer especially, it's the sound I love.
I've read most (by no means all) of Shakespeare and Chaucer in the original.

Chaucer is easier than typical Middle English because it is the sort of Middle English that developed into Modern English.

Gawain and the Green Knight is much more difficult.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:23 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.