conservative 'translation ' of the Bible-- not PN by NewOldBrownCoat

I heard about this one from my friend Drago.

I'll say what I said to him: technically, there's a lot of evidence that Jesus was a militant revolutionary leader of a sect in rebellion against the Roman Empire.

Although, yes, the claims that the bible have been made less conservative and more liberal, and the fact that these people are even turning it into a conservative versus liberal issue is pretty laughable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 7:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I heard about this one from my friend Drago.

I'll say what I said to him: technically, there's a lot of evidence that Jesus was a militant revolutionary leader of a sect in rebellion against the Roman Empire.

Militant, seriously? That'd require some significant twisting of his story to get to the New Testament, right?

From my own vague readings, I got the impression that much of the NT is aimed at making the Roman Empire look pretty okay, which was prudent at the time of writing but probably doesn't acurately reflect public opinion in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, roughly a century before.

But that he was actually a militant revolutionary would seem like a much bigger, much more noticable manipulation of the historical sources at the time.

Then again, there is that virgin birth thing..

What is the evidence that points toward it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 8:15 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Then again, there is that virgin birth thing..

Well, the christian "god" HAS been fucking us for an awful long time. I'm surprised there was just the one bastard by the old fart.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

But that he was actually a militant revolutionary would seem like a much bigger, much more noticable manipulation of the historical sources at the time.

Then again, there is that virgin birth thing..

What is the evidence that points toward it?

Might argue with the word " militant"- could substitute the word " radical"
As to virgin birth, it's right there in the absolutely literally true, inerrant text, especially the Devinely inspired King James version. Certainly was wonderful that Jesus could speak English, wasn't it? :<)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 8:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

I don't know. I went to the Conservapedia site, found the Conservative version, and read the 'translated' version of the Book of Matthew - which shows the King James version, the Conservative version, and comments - and didn't find too much difference. The strangest thing was translating "generation of vipers" in King James to "you jerks" in Convservative.

Just seems like two versions of the same myth to me anyway.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 8:36 AM

There's also the whole "divinity" thing.

In the new testament, Jesus is made a very sympathetic figure who never asked for the treatment he received at the hands of the Roman Empire, and who was betrayed by his own people. He is made the perfect martyr for his people, the Christians, to follow, despite their own continuing persecution (until Constantine's conversion).

Quote:
Wikipedia: Scholars offer competing descriptions of Jesus as the awaited Messiah, as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement.

Quote:
Jewish and Roman authorities in Jerusalem were wary of Galilean patriots, many of whom advocated or launched violent resistance to Roman rule. The gospels demonstrate that Jesus, a charismatic leader regarded as a potential troublemaker, was executed on political charges.

-Harris, Stephen L. (1985). Palo Alto: Mayfield. pp. 255–260. ISBN 978-0-87484-696-6.

Quote:
More wikipedia: John the Baptist led a large apocalyptic movement. He demanded repentance and baptism. Jesus was baptized and later began his ministry. After John was executed, some of his followers apparently took Jesus as their new leader.[111] Historians are nearly unanimous in accepting Jesus' baptism as a historical event.

Quote:
Essenes were apocalyptic ascetics, one of the three (or four) major Jewish schools of the time, though they were not mentioned in the New Testament. Some scholars theorize that Jesus was an Essene, or close to them. Among these scholars is Pope Benedict XVI, who supposes in his book on Jesus that "it appears that not only John the Baptist, but possibly Jesus and his family as well, were close to the Qumran community."

Jesus was himself Jewish, after the failed 1st century Jewish revolts against Rome in 116 AD, it may have been necessary for the church's survival to change the figure of Jesus into one that appeared to blame his own people, the Jews for his execution, instead of Rome, and change Jesus from a figure who resisted Roman rule into a figure who accepted it.

Quote:
And they came to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves... (Mark 11:15)

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves... (Matthew 21:12)

And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought... (Luke 19:45)

And (he) found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables... (John 2:14-15)

Famous passage from the four canonical gospels. Jesus and his followers go into a temple, Jesus takes over the temple, makes a whip, and throws out the money changers. In Mark 15:7, it's suggested that the reason Jesus went into the temples on this day was because there was an uprising against the Romans.

That's not to say Jesus and his followers led this uprising, but rather that Jesus and his followers seemed to resent certain practices among the Jewish upper class, and there were numerous groups resisting Roman rule, and perhaps some manner of connection between the Jewish upper class and Roman rule (or perceived allowance, on the part of their Jewish leaders). And on the day of the uprising, Jesus and his disciples joined in with the general uprising activities or perhaps used it as a cover to visit one of the temples. In any case, they may have had some similarities to other Jewish resistance groups.

Heck, The Life of Brain may be the best researched and a more accurate portrayal of 1st Century Judea than most Biblical epics, which is incredibly, incredibly sad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Famous passage from the four canonical gospels. Jesus and his followers go into a temple, Jesus takes over the temple, makes a whip, and throws out the money changers. In Mark 15:7, it's suggested that the reason Jesus went into the temples on this day was because there was an uprising against the Romans.

That's not to say Jesus and his followers led this uprising, but rather that Jesus and his followers seemed to resent certain practices among the Jewish upper class, and there were numerous groups resisting Roman rule, and perhaps some manner of connection between the Jewish upper class and Roman rule (or perceived allowance, on the part of their Jewish leaders). And on the day of the uprising, Jesus and his disciples joined in with the general uprising activities or perhaps used it as a cover to visit one of the temples. In any case, they may have had some similarities to other Jewish resistance groups.

The money changer episode is the only thing that remotely suggests a militant aspect to Jesus, and it seems reasonable that he and his followers may have been part of a general uprising, but I am not convinced that he would have been a generally militant person at all. Too much of his teachings contradicts it, methinks, and I don't see why his (also Jewish) disciples would pick the death of a failed revolutionary as the inspiration to circulate numerous stories about him that go mostly against political revolution and the according violence.

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Might argue with the word " militant"- could substitute the word " radical"

Yes, I agree with that. His teachings were pretty radical. Hell, if he came around today, he's be considered radical, too. I find it more credible that these teachings survived to end up collected in the New Testament than I find that someone jus picked a random executed militant rebel with a slowly growing following and then pretended that the guy spouted off about the meek inheriting things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 11:23 AM

Oh, I don't think that Jesus DIDN'T say the things attributed to him. Peaceful messages don't necessarily prohibit someone from being a militant revolutionary.

Fidel Castro has said things like "Ideas do not need weapons, if they can convince the great masses."

And back in those times, considering all the different Jewish schools of thought and religious interpretations, at the same time as so much anti-Roman sentiment and underground resistance, it's not so hard to believe that one of the wandering prophets of the time might also have been the leader of a Roman resistance faction. In fact, from what I understand reading Jesus' wikipedia entry, there were a number such individuals who the Romans arrested and sentenced for their trouble-making.

Quote:
Too much of his teachings contradicts it, methinks, and I don't see why his (also Jewish) disciples would pick the death of a failed revolutionary as the inspiration to circulate numerous stories about him that go mostly against political revolution and the according violence.

No? The idea of a martyr is a powerful one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 7:31 PM

DREAMTROVE

Not the first time.

John tipped me off to this, and I've been reading about it.

The bible went through massive edits throughout history, and the character of Jesus no more represents Jesus then any of the OT figures.

The Bible began from a series of texts from different religions, including Egyptian, Assyrian, Sumerian and Canaanite scriptures. These were assembled into a library of texts by the 4th c. BC, but as separate books, with different versions used in different areas of the middle east and Africa.

In the 2nd C. BC there was a major rewrite of the old testament in Jerusalem, but this version was *not* used in Galilee at the time of Jesus Nazoraios, who would later be called the Christ by Paul in 160 AD. I'm fairly certain of all of this so far.

Jesus the Nazarene was from Galilee, where he lived his entire life. He spent little time out of the country. He was a most likely Greek, actually, though his religion would have been mostly an Assyrian-Zoroastrian hybrid (see history of Galilee.) He was a controversial figure for attempting to reform Judaism.

New Testament texts were edited and selected extensively from 160 to 310, when teh Nicean Creed established certain texts "Canon" ie to be deemed for public consumption, and others "Apocrypha" ie to be kept for the priests only. The council of Nicea in no way intended to define one as "true" and the other "false" but to retain the more extensive knowledge of the Christ to themselves, and their trained theologians, to hold power over the masses.

The First vernacular translations of the bible were considered to be fairly accurate, but publication was treasonous to the church, and the punishment for simply reading them was death. This had more to do with the control of superior information by the church, and hence, control, than with content.

The KJV 1611 contained some minor rewrites of content, but nothing compared to those of 200BC, 160AD or 310AD. The major KJV rewrites appear to have been 1640, 1791, 1820 and 1880, with the largest of these being the first and third rewrite. Any KJV published after 1640 is not actually the KJV. The 1880 rewrite was the last to be called the KJV, and new versions were dubbed as new versions. Still, KJV does not contain a consistent word of God or character of the Christ. There's no more similarity between a modern KJV and the original than between the original Nancy Drew written by Mildred Wirt Benson and the same Nancy Drew titles written later by Harriet Statemeyer Adams. (Hint: They are not at all the same books, and Nancy Drew is not at all the same character.)

The idea that this can ever be "the word of God" is fairly absurd, as rewrites have always served the authors of the time. The major powers pushing influence on the Bible and the character of the Christ over time were Judah, Israel, Byzantium, Roma, and London, and the empires of same, largely for their gain, to fit their agendas. The Christ gets fairly steadily more warlike, and the prominence of the second coming, a final battle, a warrior messiah, etc. also feeds into the imperial mindset.

As for the lineage of the power structure, I'd boil it down to "the players have changed, but the game remains the same."

A manipulative biblical translation is nothing new. Angry over it? Write your own. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 9:18 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

This puts me to mind about the book "Misquoting Jesus" written by Bart D. Ehrman, a christian scholar.

The book describes an early Christian environment in which the books that would later compose the New Testament were copied by hand, mostly by Christian amateurs. Ehrman concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to deemphasize the role of women in the early church, to unify and harmonize the different portrayals of Jesus in the four gospels, and to oppose certain heresies.........

The rewriting of history continues.........

Don't believe the hype, Public Enemy

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Oh, I don't think that Jesus DIDN'T say the things attributed to him. Peaceful messages don't necessarily prohibit someone from being a militant revolutionary.

Fidel Castro has said things like "Ideas do not need weapons, if they can convince the great masses."

That quote doesn't imply that violence is not okay. It certainly doesn't say "turn the other cheek".

IF Jesus was a militant revolutionary, then the teachings later atributed to him would be entirely contradictory to that, and I find the stretch that someone attached these radical non-violent teachings randomly to him... too unlikely. I don't buy the contradiction of it just randomly escaping everyone of the followers he gathered in his time and who formed the community that collected the early texts from which the NT was eventually created. The connection to God and humility would have to have been there at the onset or you would have two entirely diametrically opposed schools of thought attached to the same person - and no one caring enough to take note.

Bottomline:
If the teachings were from Jesus, he probably wasn't militant. If Jesus was militant, the teachings weren't from him, but then you have to explain why someone would randomly attribute them to him and no one would notice or care.

ETA: All this of course under the big headline "In My Opinion". I don't mean to sound like I necessarily know it all. Just what appears plausible to me.

Quote:

Quote:
Too much of his teachings contradicts it, methinks, and I don't see why his (also Jewish) disciples would pick the death of a failed revolutionary as the inspiration to circulate numerous stories about him that go mostly against political revolution and the according violence.

No? The idea of a martyr is a powerful one.

Only if the martyr is reasonably connected to the cause. Jesus dying for the revolution is QUITE different from Jesus dying after preaching non-violnce and meekness, no matter how many money-changer tables he overturned on one day in Jerusalem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 2:50 AM

KWICKO

Agent: So maybe replace "militant" with "radical", as Byte suggested above. Or even "leftist". :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 3:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Agent: So maybe replace "militant" with "radical", as Byte suggested above. Or even "leftist". :)

That was actually NewOldBrowncoat who suggested the "radical", which I stated I agree with.

Which is why I'm still debating with Byte because she hasn't.

ETA: I find the difference between radical and militant very important.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 5:32 AM

The only reason I'm holding to militant is because I just don't think "radical" implies quite the sense of Roman resistance I get from the accounts of his life. I think very much there was an element of this, and it explains WHY the Romans came after Jesus and executed him the way they did. He was a political dissenter, and his popularity was on enough of an upswing that he was a threat to the established order.

I think the question we're struggling with is how little we know about Jesus' life and motivations, much of it has been obscured to establish the story that the religion wants to tell. I don't think the story is wrong, I think the events and attributed parables and lessons are factual, but I think things have been tweaked to imply divinity. I guess I'm the Agent Scully character here (which is ironic, because Agent Scully was religious).

To be a militant, do you have to be violent? Is a "militant feminist" or "militant environmentalist" necessarily violent? I see the two groups described as such as trying less to attack mere people, but rather the established order. Militant Environmentalists have an unfortunate phenomena of ecoterrorism, but generally that's still less about hurting people and more about blowing up radio towers and such.

And storming into a temple and turning out the people inside, and comments about tearing down the temples, well...

Anyway, I do think Jesus did have a peaceful side, but like all real people (and there are very few people I think who dispute that he was probably a historical figure), he had layers. Just how violent was he? Hard to tell. Maybe he was generally a peaceful sort of wandering healer/sage, and only became angry enough to whip people when confronted by examples of greed and abuse of power. Or maybe he was a warrior poet, a Roman resistor with a strong anti-Roman anti-establishment following, who in his free time waxed poetical about religion, good behaviour, and philosophy... Traits that can be found in many good leaders, and which interest and intrigue followers. I think it could be either way, but in respect to ONLY his apparent resistance to Roman rule and no other aspects of Jesus' personality factored in, I call him a militant revolutionary because in regards to Roman rule that's what he functioned as.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Agent: So maybe replace "militant" with "radical", as Byte suggested above. Or even "leftist". :)

That was actually NewOldBrowncoat who suggested the "radical", which I stated I agree with.

Thank you , Rouka. I was gonna jump ALL OVER Kwicko, after the way he got on me last week, for mis-attributing to him-- here he goes mis-attributing something AWAY from ME.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The only reason I'm holding to militant is because I just don't think "radical" implies quite the sense of Roman resistance I get from the accounts of his life. I think very much there was an element of this, and it explains WHY the Romans came after Jesus and executed him the way they did. He was a political dissenter, and his popularity was on enough of an upswing that he was a threat to the established order.

I've never seen Jesus as being particularly anti-Roman. Isn't it the mainstream view that he was Jewish, and out to reform Judaism, and that while the Romans, in the person of Pilate, crucified him, it was at the instigation of the Jewish factions? He was upsetting THEIR applecart.
Not 'xactly saying yer wrong, just that I've never quite looked at it that way. Might be a worthwhile insight for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 5:53 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Agent: So maybe replace "militant" with "radical", as Byte suggested above. Or even "leftist". :)

That was actually NewOldBrowncoat who suggested the "radical", which I stated I agree with.

Thank you , Rouka. I was gonna jump ALL OVER Kwicko, after the way he got on me last week, for mis-attributing to him-- here he goes mis-attributing something AWAY from ME.

Right you are. Apologies to all. Mea Culpa.

I thought it was Byte who suggested "radical" instead of "militant". Looks like not so much. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:01 AM

Well, I've always thought that the new testament is rather inconsistent towards the Jews. Jesus says "forgive them, they know not what they do," but Pontius Pilate "washes his hands" and this supposedly absolves him of being the man who authorizes Jesus' execution? Really? It's fairly obvious to me that he was complicit, and yet the gospels make a show of not holding him accountable, and blaming the Jews when clearly Jesus DOESN'T. Why?

It speaks to me that this is something that was changed. Jesus' "forgive them, they know not what they do" was left in because it strengthened the message church leaders wanted to send the Romans after the Jewish uprisings that the Christians were peaceable and not a threat to them.

In any case, Jews or Romans, he's resisting SOMETHING about the established order and people in power, hence his execution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:18 AM

But how much of what Jesus does is actually resistance to the Romans?

I have no doubt that his death was a result of the Romans disliking his popularity (INRI, etc.) and suspecting him of being a troublemaker in a town rife with anti-Roman sentiment (all of which was later downplayed in the NT in favor to make nice with the Roman Empire and to clearly establish Christianity as more than a Jewish sect, I believe), but we cannot just assume that Jesus necessarily did concrete things to justify that suspicion.

Most of what is told about him in the NT has him calling, indeed for general reform, deeply steeped in Jewish religious culture. But against the Roman occupation itself? Not really, right?

I don't think he deserves the word militant even in the sense that you use it. Aside from that one episode in the temple, we don't see Jesus trying to force something on other people. He goes around preaching about being nice and the kingdom of heaven and, hell, he even sits down with the hated tax collectors for the Romans, so if anything I think he is surprisingly neutral on the subject of Roman occupation when you consider what public opinion must have been like. He may have been very direct in some of his accusations (rich people/needle's eye, etc.) but not enough to warrant the word militant the way I imagine a militant feminist/environmentalist/racist/anything-ist.

His call to action is not confrontational but personal, if you will. He's not asking people to throw off external oppression of any shape, he is asking them to commit inner change. That's not militant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:39 AM

Hmm. Good points.

I guess the description of Jesus as militant is dependent on whether or not and how much the Christian church may have softened any anti-Romanism Jesus expressed to make nice with the Romans, but that's all speculative. The evidence is on your side.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, I've always thought that the new testament is rather inconsistent towards the Jews. Jesus says "forgive them, they know not what they do," but Pontius Pilate "washes his hands" and this supposedly absolves him of being the man who authorizes Jesus' execution? Really? It's fairly obvious to me that he was complicit, and yet the gospels make a show of not holding him accountable, and blaming the Jews when clearly Jesus DOESN'T. Why?

It speaks to me that this is something that was changed. Jesus' "forgive them, they know not what they do" was left in because it strengthened the message church leaders wanted to send the Romans after the Jewish uprisings that the Christians were peaceable and not a threat to them.

In any case, Jews or Romans, he's resisting SOMETHING about the established order and people in power, hence his execution.

The Bible commentaries I've looked at ( won't claim STUDIED...) suggest that the different Gospels were targeted at different audiences-- Matthew particularly to the Jews, Luke particularly to the Romans, Mark, coming earlier, being source material for both.
L. Michael White's book From Jesus to Christianity is very good on the history of the early church and the literary history of the Gospel writings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm. Good points.

I guess the description of Jesus as militant is dependent on whether or not and how much the Christian church may have softened any anti-Romanism Jesus expressed to make nice with the Romans, but that's all speculative. The evidence is on your side.

In your favor, the evidence we have is of course a fairly one-sided literary source that has been tempered with numerous times as other in this thread have shown.

A good court of law would probably throw both of us out in the street and we'd end up eating frozen yogurt on a park bench, scratching our heads.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

His call to action is not confrontational but personal, if you will. He's not asking people to throw off external oppression of any shape, he is asking them to commit inner change.

Brilliant summation- Christianity that would fit on a postcard. The Very Short But Exactly Correct Gospel According to Rouka.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 6:51 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've read the Nag Hamadi Library. The Gospel of Thomas doesn't contain narrative like "Then Jesus went into Galilee and began to speak to the people ..." Instead, it is a collection of quotes that begin with "Jesus said ..." Many of the quotes are familiar (the mustard seed, the pearl of great price), a number of them are not, and are quite surprising. I think you might find it on the internet. If not, it's available through any book vendor.

There is also a version of the NT that came out about 20 - 25 years ago. At the time it was called "What Jesus Really Said". Scholars pored over the various historical texts - including the Nag Hamadi Library and other manuscripts - and removed what was obviously added later: references that were Greek for example or that didn't come into use until far later. Only about 10% of the supposed quotes of Jesus were verfied.

Finally, The Huntington Library won the right several years ago to grant scholarly access to photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Previous to that, the only access was through Israel which had held the documents pretty much incommunicado since their discovery. I'm sure that with more access there will be more historical context for the NT.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 7:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I don't know. I went to the Conservapedia site, found the Conservative version, and read the 'translated' version of the Book of Matthew - which shows the King James version, the Conservative version, and comments - and didn't find too much difference. The strangest thing was translating "generation of vipers" in King James to "you jerks" in Convservative.

Just seems like two versions of the same myth to me anyway.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

The King James is not the best translation to compare against. In its unrevised form it is 400 years old- Willie Shakespeare was still alive when it was first published. It has been revised, and re-revised many times-- I think somebody listed several major edition here. It does make beautiful, inspiring use of the English language, uses wonderful poetry-- I prefer it for that reason.It's also the "traditional" version, the foundation of much English-speaking culture And it does often use simpler, more blunt words that make easier, more obvious sense. The Methodist churches I've attended use the Revised Standard Edition, published in the 1950's and carefully re-translated in the light of then recent archaeological discoveries. It's also written to a higher grade level, not afraid to be intellectual or academic. I'd call it more accurate, but less inspiring. As for the NIV, mentioned here somewhere, it really is a modern "dumbed-down" version, almost " Christianity for Dummies. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 7:25 AM