• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

The Bible?

Interesting to see this thread bumped up after so long.
Was going to respond to the OP questions(s).
But after reading back a few posts from here, I guess I won't.
So, nevermind.
 
Peder ,there is a Greek saying:

"It hurts ,but I like it"

I have tried reading the bible,my try ended after a couple of pages.
 
Libra said:
Peder ,there is a Greek saying:

"It hurts ,but I like it"
Click to expand...

Hi Libra,

Thanks for the thought.

But your saying baffles non-Greek me, so I can't comment.

For the rest of what I have read in this thread, I can't bring myself to comment.

But you have a good day,
:flowers:
 
Boy,you are going to get it.I had to look up the lyrics to that cause I can't watch the vid at work.
 
And here I honestly thought it was an interesting article about the Bible as a literary work. It really is a pity that some people feel the need to constantly derail every thread into a non-comment on the perceived debating style of the forum (thereby contributing to it) rather than actually try to discuss the subject, or avoid it if they're so uninterested by it. But anyway, getting back vaguely on-topic, I just learned about the Circumcellions.

Circumcellions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, this is an early Christian sect that took its martyrdom seriously.
 
beer good said:
It really is a pity that some people feel the need to constantly derail every thread into a non-comment on the perceived debating style of the forum (thereby contributing to it) rather than actually try to discuss the subject, or avoid it if they're so uninterested by it.
Click to expand...

You do take things personally don't you?
 
beer good said:
And here I honestly thought it was an interesting article about the Bible as a literary work. It really is a pity that some people feel the need to constantly derail every thread into a non-comment on the perceived debating style of the forum (thereby contributing to it) rather than actually try to discuss the subject, or avoid it if they're so uninterested by it. But anyway, getting back vaguely on-topic, I just learned about the Circumcellions.

Circumcellions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, this is an early Christian sect that took its martyrdom seriously.
Click to expand...


Martyrdom? Or just an early form of 'Death by Cop'? This is a new one on me. I bet they also had the scripture in mind that says, 'To be absent from the body is to be with the Lord', taken from 2 Cor. 5. That passage speaks of the trials of living in a fallen world while longing for heaven.
 
Peder said:
You do take things personally don't you?
Click to expand...

Aaaaand you're doing it again. Why this constant need to drag discussions off-topic? You're too intelligent to not know what you're doing. Look, I like passive-aggressive sarcasm as much as the next guy, but it's really getting old. Please stop, or at least find a new way of doing it.

abecedarian said:
Martyrdom? Or just an early form of 'Death by Cop'? This is a new one on me. I bet they also had the scripture in mind that says, 'To be absent from the body is to be with the Lord', taken from 2 Cor. 5. That passage speaks of the trials of living in a fallen world while longing for heaven.
Click to expand...

Heh. Well, they were 4th century, so I guess it's not certain that they had the same Bible that we do.
 
beer good said:
Aaaaand you're doing it again. Why this constant need to drag discussions off-topic? You're too intelligent to not know what you're doing. Look, I like passive-aggressive sarcasm as much as the next guy, but it's really getting old. Please stop, or at least find a new way of doing it.
Click to expand...

Well, Beer Good. I don't exactly reccognize that it is me you are talking about. Please point me to the last discussion I dragged off topic. And then to several discussions, at least, to justify your use of the word "continually." As for your waving a stick at me and calling me passive-aggressive, that can remain for later consideration, until you have proven your major point; otherwise it is just insulting.

To return to topic. You are the one who chose to resurrect this thread, together with the thrust of its previous discussion, for the context and setting of your post. I found that the thread had the sort of discussion I do not care to get embroiled in, so I opted out, after being initially attracted by the thought that your link might be interesting to read. I find it hard to believe that I derailed anything by my remark. It didn't seem to be a particularly timid discussion here, nor are you especially timid as far as I have seen.

So please proceed with your proof that I always derail discussions through my passive aggressiveness, or else just please pass on with whatever you hoped to say or discuss.
 
beer good said:
Heh. Well, they were 4th century, so I guess it's not certain that they had the same Bible that we do.
Click to expand...

They were closer to having the original manuscripts for Paul's letters than us. I just think they saw a way out of their struggles and used their key passages to justify their methods. Here is the whole passage:
"
The Temporal and Eternal

1For we know that if the (A)earthly (B)tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house (C)not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2For indeed in this house we (D)groan, longing to be (E)clothed with our dwelling from heaven,
3inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.
4For indeed while we are in this tent, we (F)groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be (G)clothed, so that what is (H)mortal will be swallowed up by life.
5Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who (I)gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.
6Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that (J)while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord--
7for (K)we walk by faith, not by sight--
8we are of good courage, I say, and (L)prefer rather to be absent from the body and (M)to be at home with the Lord.
9Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be (N)pleasing to Him.
10For we must all appear before (O)the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
11Therefore, knowing the (P)fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are (Q)made manifest also in your consciences.
12We are not (R)again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an (S)occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart.
13For if we are (T)beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you.
14For the love of Christ (U)controls us, having concluded this, that (V)one died for all, therefore all died;
15and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer (W)live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
16Therefore from now on we recognize no one (X)according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
17Therefore if anyone is (Y)in Christ, he is (Z)a new creature; (AA)the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
18Now (AB)all these things are from God, (AC)who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the (AD)ministry of reconciliation,
19namely, that (AE)God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, (AF)not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20Therefore, we are (AG)ambassadors for Christ, (AH)as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be (AI)reconciled to God. 21He made Him who (AJ)knew no sin to be (AK)sin on our behalf, so that we might become the (AL)righteousness of God in Him.

Cross references:

  1. 2 Corinthians 5:1 : Job 4:19; 1 Cor 15:47; 2 Cor 4:7
  2. 2 Corinthians 5:1 : 2 Pet 1:13
  3. 2 Corinthians 5:1 : Mark 14:58; Acts 7:48; Heb 9:11, 24
  4. 2 Corinthians 5:2 : Rom 8:23; 2 Cor 5:4
  5. 2 Corinthians 5:2 : 1 Cor 15:53; 2 Cor 5:4
  6. 2 Corinthians 5:4 : 2 Cor 5:2
  7. 2 Corinthians 5:4 : 1 Cor 15:53; 2 Cor 5:2
  8. 2 Corinthians 5:4 : 1 Cor 15:54
  9. 2 Corinthians 5:5 : Rom 8:23; 2 Cor 1:22
  10. 2 Corinthians 5:6 : Heb 11:13
  11. 2 Corinthians 5:7 : 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 4:18
  12. 2 Corinthians 5:8 : Phil 1:23
  13. 2 Corinthians 5:8 : John 12:26; Phil 1:23
  14. 2 Corinthians 5:9 : Rom 14:18; Col 1:10; 1 Thess 4:1
  15. 2 Corinthians 5:10 : Matt 16:27; Acts 10:42; Rom 2:16; Rom 14:10, 12; Eph 6:8
  16. 2 Corinthians 5:11 : Heb 10:31; 12:29; Jude 23
  17. 2 Corinthians 5:11 : 2 Cor 4:2
  18. 2 Corinthians 5:12 : 2 Cor 3:1
  19. 2 Corinthians 5:12 : 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:26
  20. 2 Corinthians 5:13 : Mark 3:21; 2 Cor 11:1, 16-ff; 12:11
  21. 2 Corinthians 5:14 : Acts 18:5
  22. 2 Corinthians 5:14 : Rom 5:15; 6:6; Gal 2:20; Col 3:3
  23. 2 Corinthians 5:15 : Rom 14:7-9
  24. 2 Corinthians 5:16 : John 8:15; 2 Cor 11:18; Phil 3:4
  25. 2 Corinthians 5:17 : Rom 16:7
  26. 2 Corinthians 5:17 : John 3:3; Rom 6:4; Gal 6:15
  27. 2 Corinthians 5:17 : Is 43:18; 65:17; Eph 4:24; Rev 21:4
  28. 2 Corinthians 5:18 : 1 Cor 11:12
  29. 2 Corinthians 5:18 : Rom 5:10; Col 1:20
  30. 2 Corinthians 5:18 : 1 Cor 3:5
  31. 2 Corinthians 5:19 : Col 2:9
  32. 2 Corinthians 5:19 : Rom 4:8; 1 Cor 13:5
  33. 2 Corinthians 5:20 : Mal 2:7; Eph 6:20
  34. 2 Corinthians 5:20 : 2 Cor 6:1
  35. 2 Corinthians 5:20 : Rom 5:10; Col 1:20
  36. 2 Corinthians 5:21 : Acts 3:14; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5
  37. 2 Corinthians 5:21 : Rom 3:25; 4:25; 8:3; Gal 3:13
  38. 2 Corinthians 5:21 : Rom 1:17; 3:21; 1 Cor 1:30
Source: Bible Gateway.com
New American Standard Version(My favorite)

Note:Ooops, the links won't work. Sorry!
 
That article is interesting BG, and it is true that the reverence for the language of the King James Bible still has a deep grasp on many people today. I know a few people who are very "religious" about that verison and won't read any of the newer translations.
I have read a lot of different translations and while the linguistics are certainly different, I don't see much disparity in the actual meaning of the words. Basically, the spirit of the text remains the same from translation to translation. I have heard that there are some new controversial translations out there that are contradictory to the more mainstream translations, but I haven't read them.

I did find this statement to be a little bit lacking in credence : "What better way could there be to show that Christianity is an outdated cultish fringe with nothing of use to say to contemporary society? Ruffs and morris dancing, possibly, but it would be a close-run thing."
Lets be honest, it isn't the thee and thou of the King James Bible that makes Christianity unfashionable to some, it is the ideas that are conveyed in any translation of the Bible that make it unpalatable to some people. Also, for an outdated cultish fringe, it still seems to be pretty popular amongst the masses....

What I found most interesting was what the author said about the use of the words thou and you. This was new for me and very interesting. I think it is nice that God was addressed in a more personal and familiar way by the translators, whatever the reason may have been. This is an aspect of God that is prevelant in the Bible. That He is holy but still accessible, apparently more so than King James himself. :)
Anyhow lots of interesting stuff, hopefully the discussion will continue...
 
753C said:
What I found most interesting was what the author said about the use of the words thou and you. This was new for me and very interesting. I think it is nice that God was addressed in a more personal and familiar way by the translators, whatever the reason may have been. This is an aspect of God that is prevelant in the Bible. That He is holy but still accessible, apparently more so than King James himself. :)
Anyhow lots of interesting stuff, hopefully the discussion will continue...
Click to expand...


I always liked the passage in Mark where Jesus is addressing God the Father and he calls him Abba Father. That's like us calling our fathers 'dad' or 'daddy'. That reveals a very intimate relationship between God the Son and God the Father. In looking up that passage on Bible Gateway, I see a couple of other passages where Christians are told we have that same intimacy available to us. (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6)
 
753C said:
I have read a lot of different translations and while the linguistics are certainly different, I don't see much disparity in the actual meaning of the words. Basically, the spirit of the text remains the same from translation to translation. I have heard that there are some new controversial translations out there that are contradictory to the more mainstream translations, but I haven't read them.
Click to expand...
I'm not a huge Biblical scholar by any means, but one that springs to mind immediately is the one from 1 Corinthians 13, which the KJV translates as "Faith, hope and charity" and most other translations as "Faith, hope and love". I'm sure there are others (here, for instance). It might look a bit like splitting hairs, but the Bible tends to have some "Greatest hits" - passages that everyone's read and which form the basis of many people's understanding of the book - and when you form an opinion of what they mean, I think it's interesting to note that some of those words are ambiguous. Especially since the meaning of both "charity" and "love" has changed quite a bit since the 1600s. But I agree, on language alone, it really is a remarkable piece of work. It's a tricky situation, that shows up not only in English; on the one hand, a centuries-old text eventually becomes hard to read - but on the other, so many of the phrases and stories have found their way into everyday language, so when you re-translate the book to make it easier to understand, suddenly all those phrases sound so much more... pedestrian, somehow; what it gains in clarity, it loses in literary value, exactly because we already know how it's "supposed" to sound - we expect stories set 2000 years ago to sound like they were written in the 16th century (or whenever your favourite translation came out. When the new Swedish translation came out a few years ago, someone remarked that Matthew 17:4 had been so updated that "Lord, it is good for us to be here" might as well have been translated as "Hey man, thanks for letting us tag along.")

What I found most interesting was what the author said about the use of the words thou and you. This was new for me and very interesting. I think it is nice that God was addressed in a more personal and familiar way by the translators, whatever the reason may have been. This is an aspect of God that is prevelant in the Bible. That He is holy but still accessible, apparently more so than King James himself. :)
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the same in most languages, I think; what makes it look odd in the KJV is that English has lost the informal second-person address in almost all other areas - technically, God is the only one who's still addressed in the familiar way while everyone else, including your own family members, are addressed as strangers. (That sounds like a metaphor for something, which really wasn't my intention.)
 
I read it in about a week, I at first read it critically trying to look for things that i could say about if i was in an argument with some obsessive zealot. However i then began reading it as an allegory, seeing it as a cultural document a moral handbook (akin to homers works) and a spritual book with jung in mind, reading it this way you can actually get alot out of it. the problem is with the church focusing on an object rather than the inner self, the book itself is quite good.
 
beer good said:
It might look a bit like splitting hairs, but the Bible tends to have some "Greatest hits" - passages that everyone's read and which form the basis of many people's understanding of the book - and when you form an opinion of what they mean, I think it's interesting to note that some of those words are ambiguous. Especially since the meaning of both "charity" and "love" has changed quite a bit since the 1600s. But I agree, on language alone, it really is a remarkable piece of work. It's a tricky situation, that shows up not only in English; on the one hand, a centuries-old text eventually becomes hard to read - but on the other, so many of the phrases and stories have found their way into everyday language, so when you re-translate the book to make it easier to understand, suddenly all those phrases sound so much more... pedestrian, somehow; what it gains in clarity, it loses in literary value, exactly because we already know how it's "supposed" to sound - we expect stories set 2000 years ago to sound like they were written in the 16th century (or whenever your favourite translation came out. When the new Swedish translation came out a few years ago, someone remarked that Matthew 17:4 had been so updated that "Lord, it is good for us to be here" might as well have been translated as "Hey man, thanks for letting us tag along.")
Click to expand...

Yes, there are some "Greatest Hits" passages and I have to admit that sometimes certain scriptures just seem to feel/sound/resonate more authoritatively when spoken in the good old King James! The language tends to feel more majestic, even though apparently the thees and thous don't lend themselves to majesty very well. Who knew? A great example would be the book of Psalms, and from that book, that all time great hit Psalm 23. I read it in the KJV and then in the NIV and it just isn't quite the same. :)
The key is to read them aloud and imagine you are reading to a group of people. The difference is evident and I think the spoken beauty of the King James is what has allowed it to linger so long after the common language has changed so drastically. The author of the article mentioned that hymns were still being written using that language long after the language had fallen out of common use. No wonder. It sounds nice! Or at least there must have been a certain contingent that liked it.
I actually have read a couple of online articles like the one you linked to in your last post BG. I have to say the greatest asset that I have gained to date in my searching out of my personal faith has been a set of Hebrew Commentaries on the Old and New Testament written by a gentleman named David Stern who is a Messianic Jew. The author of the article on the King James Bible mentioned that it had succeeded in translating Hebrew Idiom literally, and boy did he say a mouthful there. That could be a whole other discussion thread.
Back to the original article though, I wonder at the end of the day if it really matters? Overal do you think the King James Bible has been a valuable addition to the Christian faith, or has it had a detrimental effect by ostracizing people who don't care for the sound of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top