101–110 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was the verse?
I wish I could remember it, or even just the word, but it was several years ago. It might have been the word 'prevent' which 400 years ago meant to precede, but I really don't know.
I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word.
Versus the NIV's
I rise before dawn and cry for help; I have put my hope in your word.
Would be a good candidate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My personal and completely unfounded speculation on the gospels is that they're a script for actors. (Thus the confusion about whether certain names refer to two people or one person appearing multiple times. It's one person but different roles.) So that part of the verse is a stage direction for the performer.
Hah, I like that. If you need some foundation for it, you could always quote Paul: "You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ." (1st Corinthians 11:1)
Does anyone know whether or not the language of the king James bible was typical of early 17th century English? I heard that the translators use archaic expressions no longer commonly used in 1604 for stylistic reasons.
Shakespeare certainly had different linguistic goals and ideals, but they make for a nice contrast.
Obviously it’s interesting to religious people and people who study religion. But, on top of that it’s an important document of the English language at that time. So it’s got linguistic interest as well. But that’s the case for many historic religious texts. One has to do with religion the other is the linguistic aspect. Of course there are other areas of interest like culture and so on.
I learned a little bit of Korean by reading the bible as the primary source and when I tried to speak, I only got weird looks. I get why. It is like someone asking you "How art thou?"
Edit: sensitive ass down voters that can’t ack their own bigoted bullshit. I was force fed the Bible for years. Read that shit, or “interpret it” as you will. It’s all contradictory bullshit.
If god is so infallible why does his word change between versions?
How can _you_ interpret it differently?
Maybe because it was written but a bunch of assholes trying to control peons thousands of years ago.
This may be off-topic but is there any consensus on what is the most accurate translation of the bible into English?
This may be off-topic but is there any consensus on what is the most accurate translation of the bible into English?
Any translation has a profound impact on the way the bible is perceived, so perhaps it is worthwhile to look directly at the source. Take this famous opener in the KJV bible for example: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Well just what does it mean by Word? Turns out this is Koine Greek λόγος, logos. Logos not only means word, but it importantly also means reas…
Basically Jesus asks Peter three times whether Peter loves him. And three times Peter says "You know I love you".
Seems like a pretty uneventful passage in English.
Our pastor elaborated a bit and explained that in the original (greek / aramaic, don't remember which), there are several kinds of love.
What Jesus is saying is basically "Do you love me perfectly, the way only God can?"
What Peter is replying is basically "I love you the way that man can, imperfectly."
This happens twice.
The third time Jesus asks "Do you love me imperfectly, the way that a man can?" And Peter gives the same refrain.
Put's a different spin on it since in the first it's just a repetitive exchange, but in the second form it's an instance of God coming down to man's level.
Thought that seemed really interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP but Psalm 37:8b[0] is my go to verse for this. I grew up reading, hearing, & memorizing out of the KJV and kind of prided myself in being able to understand that style of English. Even knowing various words & phrases have changed,I still have no idea what they verse would have meant to the original readers. I can look at a modern translation & see what it "should" say,but wow, I just can't get there from the K…
I understand you are not OP. I am confused as to whether the word "fret" is considered archaic. I'd settle on "used more often 100 years ago" or something similar, but I have doubts and curiosity.
Obviously it’s interesting to religious people and people who study religion. But, on top of that it’s an important document of the English language at that time. So it’s got linguistic interest as well. But that’s the case for many historic religious texts. One has to do with religion the other is the linguistic aspect. Of course there are other areas of interest like culture and so on.
It also has a lot of timeless wisdom
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also has a lot of timeless wisdom
I was going to post some parts of the old testament that could be deemed the opposite of wisdom, but here we try to avoid flame-wars so I ask for the same level of self-restrain from you when using adjetives about such controversial topics.
Note that the person you're replying to did not say that the bible was ALL timeless wisdom, or really say much at all about the overall quality of the bible.
There's no contradiction between the bible containing lots of timeless wisdom AND containing lots of utter nonsense and complete bollocks.
Even as somebody who is an atheist and who generally finds religion to be a blight on our society, I think one can find "timeless wisdom" in the bible mixed in with the other stuff. Whether that, on balance, makes it worth investing time in or not is another question.