Perf needs a Bible

[Scratch]

I got curious and found out that people are working on translating the Bible into Klingon.

This could be a chance for Perf to learn the Bible and Klingon at the same time.

 

[Rashiminos]

It is a bit thick in language though. It's translated for a different time. The problem is trying to translate it into our modern language is hard to do without also changing the meaning of passages. One simple word change can entirely change the meaning.

I do like it though. It sometimes takes longer to figure out what's being said but I like the accuracy.

It's even harder when certain groups are trying to read meanings into it that were not there before.

 

[civ_king]

It's even harder when certain groups are trying to read meanings into it that were not there before.

that is why the Latin Vulgate is the clearly superior Bible

 

[Holycannoli]

No. Go with the Bible read by Darth Vader.

That is epic, I almost want to buy it.

 

[classical_hero]

that is why the Latin Vulgate is the clearly superior Bible

No it is not. The Old Testament for one is wrong since it relies on the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew, so that way it is a translation of a translation and the New Testament does not rely on the majority reading that we have with the Textus Receptus.

 

[civ_king]

No it is not. The Old Testament for one is wrong since it relies on the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew, so that way it is a translation of a translation and the New Testament does not rely on the majority reading that we have with the Textus Receptus.

How is it wrong to use the Septuagint?

The New Testament uses the Septuagint cf Mark 7:6-8 where Jesus uses a version of Isaiah 29:13 found only in the Septuagint.

 

[_random_]

No it is not. The Old Testament for one is wrong since it relies on the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew, so that way it is a translation of a translation and the New Testament does not rely on the majority reading that we have with the Textus Receptus.

The Septuagint is the oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament we have, and it was the definitive Old Testament for Christians from the time the New Testament was written until Luther decided the Masoretic text was better.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

St Jerome actually began the trend of turning back to the original Hebrew, for which he drew much criticism. The Vulgate is based mostly on the Septuagint but it was edited to be more in line with the original Hebrew. My version of the Vulgate includes 2 versions of Psalms, one emended from the Septuagint and one translated directly from the Hebrew.


It is still debatable whether the Septuagint is more or less accurate then various Hebrew versions. It was translated centuries before the invention of vowel points, and may represent a much older tradition of how to interpolate vowels and interpret the words than the Masoretic text. In many places where the Septuagint and the Masoretic text differ, the Septuagint is closer both to the Samaritan Torah and to the Dead Sea Scrolls. This does not change the fact that some things are lost in translation.

 

[civ_king]

St Jerome actually began the trend of turning back to the original Hebrew, for which he drew much criticism. The Vulgate is based mostly on the Septuagint but it was edited to be more in line with the original Hebrew. By version of the Vulgate includes 2 versions of Psalms, one emended from the Septuagint and one translated directly from the Hebrew.


It is still debatable whether the Septuagint is more or less accurate then various Hebrew versions. It was translated centuries before the invention of vowel points, and may represent a much older tradition of how to interpolate vowels and interpret the words than the Masoretic text. In many places where the Septuagint and the Masoretic text differ, the Septuagint is closer both to the Samaritan Torah and to the Dead Sea Scrolls. This does not change the fact that some things are lost in translation.

So the Vulgate is still a great translation (provided you know Latin)?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This is the version of the bible that I've read most recently. The phrasing and spellings are a little odd, but it doesn't take too long to get used to it.

 

[GoodGame]

This is the version of the bible that I've read most recently. The phrasing and spellings are a little odd, but it doesn't take too long to get used to it.

I wuz liek oh Hai, dat iz da wurd to lift up my catz hart. I can haz free? Srsly.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I don't know why you would even want to read the Bible. From what I've glimpsed, it really is as ludicrous as it sounds. But even if you wanted a good translation, you will never find a perfect one. There is always the language barrier that prevents an ideal translation, and in addition, there is the taint of bias in nearly all translations, since Biblical translation naturally draws the religious. At one time, I entertained myself by translating various NT passages (btw, Biblical Greek seems to be the most simplistic of any Greek I've come across), and what I got was often far removed from the "official" translation was. It seems that many passages aren't even translated, but paraphrased, often to inject a theological slant that the author(s) wish, rather than the literal meaning of the text.

I suppose you could get around this by learning Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but that seems rather laborious.

 

[civ_king]

I don't know why you would even want to read the Bible. From what I've glimpsed, it really is as ludicrous as it sounds. But even if you wanted a good translation, you will never find a perfect one. There is always the language barrier that prevents an ideal translation, and in addition, there is the taint of bias in nearly all translations, since Biblical translation naturally draws the religious. At one time, I entertained myself by translating various NT passages (btw, Biblical Greek seems to be the most simplistic of any Greek I've come across), and what I got was often far removed from the "official" translation was. It seems that many passages aren't even translated, but paraphrased, often to inject a theological slant that the author(s) wish, rather than the literal meaning of the text.

I suppose you could get around this by learning Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but that seems rather laborious.

Yeah, Koine Greek is pretty simple

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Yeah, Koine Greek is pretty simple

It's not even the dialect that is at issue. I've tried reading Josephus, who not only wrote in the same dialect, but at around the same time, and he is far more eloquent and nuanced than the NT. This is telling, because Josephus was not a native Greek, yet his Greek was as good as one. To me, that indicates that the authors of the NT were relatively uneducated.

 

[_random_]

It's not even the dialect that is at issue. I've tried reading Josephus, who not only wrote in the same dialect, but at around the same time, and he is far more eloquent and nuanced than the NT. This is telling, because Josephus was not a native Greek, yet his Greek was as good as one. To me, that indicates that the authors of the NT were relatively uneducated.

St. Paul seems to have been fairly educated, since he shows familiarity with classical argumentative techniques. His audience, however, probably wasn't, so it's likely his writing was somewhat "dumbed-down."

 

[timtofly]

It's not even the dialect that is at issue. I've tried reading Josephus, who not only wrote in the same dialect, but at around the same time, and he is far more eloquent and nuanced than the NT. This is telling, because Josephus was not a native Greek, yet his Greek was as good as one. To me, that indicates that the authors of the NT were relatively uneducated.

St. Paul seems to have been fairly educated, since he shows familiarity with classical argumentative techniques. His audience, however, probably wasn't, so it's likely his writing was somewhat "dumbed-down."

I thought that was the same reason the first English translations were banned. It took educated people to do the interpreting. It was too hard for the lay man to understand? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm under the impression that Paul's actual writings are rather poor quality. It's his ghost-writers that weren't too bad.

 

[civ_king]

It's not even the dialect that is at issue. I've tried reading Josephus, who not only wrote in the same dialect, but at around the same time, and he is far more eloquent and nuanced than the NT. This is telling, because Josephus was not a native Greek, yet his Greek was as good as one. To me, that indicates that the authors of the NT were relatively uneducated.

Or they were speaking to the uneducated

 

[Integral]

I'm under the impression that Paul's actual writings are rather poor quality. It's his ghost-writers that weren't too bad.

There's decent support for the notion that Paul himself wrote only a small amount of his letters, limited to greetings and farewells; he had ghostwriters for even those letters normally considered authentic (see, inter alia, Rom 16:22; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17; Gal 6:11; Philemon 19).

I haven't read the letters in a few years, but I do remember feeling somewhat disappointed by the writing style and argumentation on more than one occasion.

 

[GhostWriter16]

He had a secretary writing what he told them to write. He did write a few things with his own hand for some reason though (The evidence is there, in the letters.)