Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (15533)	5/20/1998 10:02:00 PM
From: Gregory D. John	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Bob, I like the first two criteria set out for the Bible translation; i.e., to be true to the original language and grammatically correct. As to whether a translation should be understandable to the masses... do the so-called masses need watered-down translations. I think this is an extraordinary example of hubris. Do we water-down Shakespeare? Consider the recent translations of the Iliad and Odyssey by Robert Fagles... are they watered-down? I've read prose translations of these two that attempt to do exactly that; however, the beauty of the language gets lost. Why does the AV sound so wonderful to the English speaker's ear? Off the top of my head, I certainly can't conjugate verbs in the English of King James, but which version of Matt. 16:23 do you prefer: A. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. B. But he turned, and said to Peter, Get behind me, Satan: You are an offence to me: for you do not savour the things of God, but those of men. In any case, I would give the masses more credit. I think the best translations do go back to the original and try to present in modern language... but let's not consider modern language restricted to a fourth-grade level (as some newspapers apparently do). But I digress... Oh... the fourth criteria, that Jesus should be given his rightful place, should not be forced... it should come out of the translation. If a translator is successful, then let him or her be known for it. After all, many of the books of the Bible are named after their authors. I agree that commentary can mislead. One must think for one's self. If you're driving to Chicago, and you see a blue sign that directs you to the right for Chicago, and you end up in Cleveland... well... Unless you learn ancient Hebrew or Greek - learn the language, the idioms, the cultural references, &c. then you have to rely on translations and hence on translators. Think about how well you know English... even after over 400 years, the English of Shakespeare and King James is understandable. I can only hope that those who translate and make comments have that degree of understanding of (at least) 2000 year old Hebrew and Greek. Let me just ramble one more point: look how the English of only 200 years ago can be understood in so many different ways. Consider the 2nd Amendment. In any case, I'm still interested to hear some good, solid examples that support your idea that "the time is now". Greg