You are splitting hairs. There's no need for re-writes when a reader knows exactly what the words mean. And only if the translation was incorrect in the first place does a quote need altering.

Now ask yourself whether the words 'behold' and 'lo' are commonly used by English speakers in the 21st century.


Think hard...

Think harder...and lo and behold the answer will come to you!!

No. This is a matter of substantive difference. A retranslation and a rewrite are two very different processes.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/...ans-Chapter-4/

What does the word "prevent" mean in this context? (Hint: This is not a mis-translation, but a change in word usage over time.)

At this point, I have nothing more to explain to you except that you're a stubborn idiot. You have not presented any argument of substance and you're holding onto something akin to "tradition" the same way that supposed grammar purists insist that dangling prepositions and split infinitives are incorrect.

Sorry. That's not a phrase that's used commonly. I would be surprised if more than 1% of the population uses that phrase, and that the percent is even smaller if you take only those who are younger than 50.

(Edit: Are you younger than 50?)

OK, we will agree to differ. Perhaps the fact that I am from the UK means that our expectations differ slightly.

As for: 'you're holding onto something akin to "tradition" the same way that supposed grammar purists insist that dangling prepositions and split infinitives are incorrect.' My belief is exactly the opposite: if a person understands something there is no need for a re-write. So I accept "He only bowls left-handed" is OK even though I would say "He bowls only left-handed." A purist would insist on the second sentence. And I even split infinitves. Quite accidentally of course!

But I will never believe that a quote can be altered. Posters here take care to quote a previous poster exactly if they wish to refer to it...just as you have. If the translation was incorrect to begin with, then my original queries as to the accuracy of the translations is QED.

PS By splitting hairs I was referring to your mentioning I think that 95% of fluent English speakers understand those words and phrases.and It's not as if the word 'behold' is no longer in common use, believing me to say that they both mean the same thing. But I still believe both those to be correct.

Lo and Behold is a fairly common phrase in the UK if someone is telling a tale and about to reveal a surprise which is expected by the listener. I am sure UK posters could suggest lots of such instances where it might be used. And the word beholden is also pretty common. No doubt it will eventually die out - but if it's obvious what it means why alter it?

There are hundreds of thousands of Anglican churchgoers in the UK who could recite the whole passage verbatim if asked. I believe it to be one of the most beautiful passages of prose in the English language. So they all know what it means!!!

The answer is precede - obvious I would have thought.

It's NOT altering a quote. Pretending as if the first translation somehow sets the gold standard for translating is pretty horrific. The fact that you can't wrap your mind around that is a demonstration of your lack of actual cognition on the topic.

I gave you an exact parallel for the existence of multiple translations, which you have not disputed in any way.

Yes, I'm aware of what it means. But that's not really the point. People can understand Catebury's Tales in the original English with some thought and reflection. We can also replace "lo and behold" with "zoiks" and it would still be understood in context.

You keep saying "alter" as if that's meaningful with regards to multiple, distinct translations. It's not.

Being able to quote something doesn't mean that they understand it.

Give me a contemporary example of the word "prevent" meaning "precede."

And the word beholden is also pretty common. No doubt it will eventually die out - but if it's obvious what it means why alter it?

The King James Bible has been re-written! Many of the words haver been altered! Why can you not accept that?

If a quote has been altered then it's because it was not, or may not, have been correct in the first place. Which is what I said in my very first post! It's the crux of my first post.

The Oxford English Dictionary shows prevent as: To come before, to precede. But as you know it is not used in contemporary speech. It comes from Pre - venire. Anyone who knows no Latin dcould guess this from the French venir.

Finally, as for saying that if an English churchgoer knows the passage 'it doesn't mean they understand it' is ridiculous. It's not difficult to understand. I do not believe any English-speaker could read it and not understand it. What would be the stumbling block?

I can! The KJV has been rewritten from its original 1611 version. It's obvious to anyone who has read the 1611 and read a newer version. You're the one who is objecting to changes as being an unnecessary rewrite.

What I'm saying that there is a difference between rewriting and and re-translating. The New King James Version is a rewrite. The NIV is a re-translation. There are two distinct processes going on, and so far you've failed to acknowledge that.

To say that a quote has been "altered" is missing the ENTIRE point. Repeat it aloud with me several times:
* Rewriting and re-translating are not the same process.
* Rewriting and re-translating are not the same process.
* Rewriting and re-translating are not the same process.
* Rewriting and re-translating are not the same process.
* Rewriting and re-translating are not the same process.

Thank you for conceding the point. The bolded is what I was challenging you to do, and you've demonstrated that you can't do it.

As for knowing Latin roots and a little French, I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of English speakers do not know enough Latin or French (edit: actually, I think the vast majority of English speakers don't know ANY Latin outside of a few legal usages), or have the cognitive ability to deconstruct the word prevent in such a way as to understand its meaning, especially in context and especially given that the word "prevent" already has a distinct meaning in English.

In my own judgment of the word, I figure there's at least a 25% chance that you looked it up in a dictionary, and that you did not reach the conclusion on your own cognitive abilities.

It's the gap between reciting something by rote and taking the time to think about what it means. It's exactly the same thing that is going on when you fail to understand the thing that I've been saying to you repeatedly. Let's say it a few more times and marvel at your ability to say it and not understand what it means.

* Rewriting and re-translating are not the same process.
* Rewriting and re-translating are not the same process.
* Rewriting and re-translating are not the same process.
* Rewriting and re-translating are not the same process.
* Rewriting and re-translating are not the same process.

from the outer limits thread

i thought i was in this thread

Aaron W. I think we are slightly at cross-purposes. I have been thinking of the 21st Century version of the King James Bible (as well as other modern versions). This is definitely not a re-translation, see http://www.biblegateway.com/versions...on-KJ21-Bible/ . There are numerous other re-writes in English as well. The 21st version is the one I have seen locally.

I have been Googling and see that indeed the NIV is a new translation. But even then I see that 'sore afraid' has been re-translated as 'terrified.' You can, I am sure, understand why I was perplexed. I guess that 'sore afraid' was put in by Bacon, who I understand worked on much of the King James version and who perhaps wanted to jazz it up a bit.

May I say that you have been very patient with me, and indeed caused me to look things up which I would not otherwise have done, and now understand that re-translations have taken place.

I am an aethiest, but still marvel at the effect the Bible and the writing therein has on people.

Since I am conscious that I have been slightly off-subject I will write again that Jesus Christ existed and most major religions accept this.

PS. I am in close contact with many local church members and I do not think that any of them understand that there have been some re-writes and also a re-translation.

What is an "aethiest?"

Right. I never claimed that the KJV was never updated.

It's not so perplexing once you think about it as a translation. These word choice decisions are standard questions.

Do you translate everything strictly literally? To do so sometimes causes meaning to be lost. I can say "That was cool!" in English but if you translate it strictly literally you may end up with something like "That was a little cold!" which is a pretty fair literal translation, but you can see how it can be understood completely differently.

So it seems there's value in translating in a way that tries to communicate meaning rather than just a mechanical attempt to translate individual words. But then in order to pick the right phrasing to communicate meaning, you have to decide what the meaning is, and that interpretive phase requires careful consideration, especially when you start weaving into the mess the fact that sometimes there's theological nuance behind the words themselves.

All of these things can lead to very different choices along the way, which leads to different end results.

Nobody here claims that all Christians are fully knowledgeable about all things about the Bible. In the US, while there are some King-James-Only churches, many of those are seen as hyper-conservative (and full of old people). Churches generally use the NIV or NASB, but sermons sometimes emphasize certain points using paraphrases like The Message. So at least in the US, we are accustomed to seeing multiple translations all the time.

Ummmm.... what? I'm an atheist now but I grew up religious, and this is just steaming bull****.

Everyone who's older than about five or six and has been to church more than once or twice understands that there are many different translations of the Bible. They might have differing ideas and opinions about which versions are best, but there's not a regular churchgoer in the USA that's unaware there are multiple translations.

Don't make the assumption that because you were unaware, everyone else is too. The fact that there are multiple translations is exceedingly common knowledge among the religious. What you've said is the equivalent of saying "I am in close contact with many local basketball players, and I do not think any of them understand that you're supposed to dribble the ball."

I am from the UK. Our cultures obviously differ wildly. I am in awe of five-year-olds in the USA who have been to church twice and understand that there are many different translations of the Bible.

there's not a regular churchgoer in the USA that's unaware there are multiple translations.

Really?

Yes, he was talking about 5 year olds because they are the standard by which we measure common knowledge.

Even though what follows my quote is a different topic, this part is still a valid criticism. Your bewilderment of the idea that regular churchgoers in the USA are universally aware of the existence of multiple translations is akin to your bewilderment that someone might possibly have thought at some point that ye olde English isn't the best way to communicate ideas.

Yep, really. Especially in protestant churches, there is no accepted "this version is the right one." A pastor might favor one, but chances are there are ten different versions of the Bible floating around in the congregation, and it's not uncommon for the pastor to read multiple versions of the same passage if he thinks it might shed more light on a particular topic.

Offhand when I was still attending church regularly (until about 2003), ASV, CEV, Amplified, NASB, and NIV were all popular enough that I'd call them "common usage."

The Message (a "modern" English paraphrase) was just starting to take off as the trendy thing for pastors to use, usually alongside another "traditional" translation.

The big controversy at the time was the upcoming TNIV, which was a slight update to the NIV, which was probably the most commonly used version.

And of course everyone was aware that the KJV exists, although very few actually used it.

Plus, if you stumble into any bookstore to actually buy a Bible, you'll see all the versions out in front of you.

Actually, I think the KJV usually ranks number two in sales behind the NIV.

Could be. I was speaking mostly from my personal experience in a variety of protestant churches growing up. A lot of people I know owned a KJV, but rarely actually used it.

Depending on which poll/research data you look at, the average American Christian owns 3-5 Bibles. If I was going to bet money on it, I'd guess that by far the most common configuration of that is a copy of the NIV, a copy of the KJV, and a copy of some translation that they actually read, if/when they read the Bible.

Your bewilderment of the idea that regular churchgoers in the USA are universally aware of the existence of multiple translations is akin to your bewilderment that someone might possibly have thought at some point that ye olde English isn't the best way to communicate ideas.

I probably know as much about USA culture as you know about the UK. I did not know that regular churchgoers in the USA are universally aware of the existence of mutiple translations. I am grateful for the knowledge and accept that I am ignorant, though I do not appreciate your unwarranted sarcasm. Aaron W.

I can tell you that I believe that this is not so in the UK. Have you any reason to doubt that?

Yes. It seems that you didn't even know that there were such things as translations outside of the KJV. I don't know why I should view you as authoritative on the use of Bible in the UK. I don't know why I should believe you know more than whatever local church you visit. Why should I trust that your experiences actually represent some sort of breadth of knowledge about religion in the UK?

I would expect that the UK is mostly Anglican (which includes the Church of England). I'm under the impression that the Anglican church prefers the RSV (Revised Standard Version) which contains much of the type of language that the KJV uses, but is at least an update of the language.

Your stance is rejected by virtually all New Testament scholars and historians.

Read Bart Ehrman's work (atheist NT scholar)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1400465.html

I assume you are responding to the OP. I don't think an appeal to authority really works well here. The problem is that most new testament scholars tend to be Christians of some sort, which brings into doubt what they would consider viable evidence. That combined with peer pressure makes it difficult to trust traditional theory on the nature of the Jesus Christ character.

Also I thought Bart Ehrman was an agnostic not an atheist, but could be wrong.

What I ask myself is what Mark used as source material when he wrote his gospel? What balance between historical fiction and historical fact was he aiming for? I guess he had a collection of papers and some oral tradition he based his story on, did he make up the character of Jesus Christ to fit in with the existing source?

The name Jesus Christ itself has always stuck me as rather too convenient to be believed. The only way it make sense to me as a real name, is if Jesus challenged his name to Jesus Christ at some point? Which is of course possible.

One guess is that there was someone called Jesus Christ, who was just a normal guy, however Mark liked the name so built a story around him, fitting him into the central place of existing messiah legends. In which case the only thing the historical Jesus might have contributed to the gospel would be his name and maybe when he lived, the rest being Marks imagination.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the Romans. I can see no reason not to believe they did not just pick some existing religion because it fit in with their current political agenda, and they had nothing to do with the commission of Mark's gospel. Still I could be wrong of course.

This post seems so very wrong, I don't know where to even begin!

Obviously, as starvingwriter82 mentioned, Yeshua was a very common name in Judea ( and in the vicinity ) in the 1st Century C.E. and "Christ" is a title which is the English form of the Greek christos which is the translation of the Hebrew mashiach. Yeshua refers to himself as the "Son of Man" which is likely an allusion to Daniel 7:13-14.