Live data from Hacker News

Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

neh.gov

161–170 of 245 posts

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#161
post #105

Besides oil, what else has mankind killed each other over as much as religion? 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 o…

Please keep religious flamewar off HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"reasoning, order, and logic" still make sense to me because I believe in theistic evolution - evolution is basically a tool that God used to get us where we are today. There is also Pandeism (where basically God ceased to exist because he became the universe). Scott Adam's book God Debris touches on this. FYI, (I'm not Catholic, but) the Catholic Church today holds that view that Science explains the how, and Religi…

Logos comes from the stoics also.

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#163
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bible is by far the most translated text (and a reasonably sized one). I just wish it wasn't written in a weird way. 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?"

I tried something similar to learn Samoan, but didn't get far. I would compare some phrases in English and Samoan, then ask native speakers what a confusing word meant. I stopped pretty quickly because I found that a phrase made of three words might mean "tree", but if you just take the first word alone it means something extremely vulgar (I couldn't get anyone to tell me what).

Think in syllables and that's not terribly unlike English.

Country Farmer

"So, I know what tree and farmer mean ..."

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#164
Could someone please explain to a non-English speaker why is it considered correct (in non-religious context, as many of the commenters here do) to write "the bible" instead of "the Bible" and "new testament" instead of "New Testament"? Aren't they proper names of the books? We don't say "the art of computer programming" instead of "The Art of Computer Programming" when we reference Donald Knuth's book, do we? Looks like there is some English language rule that I don't understand.

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#165
post #149
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, New Testament is a fair bit nicer.

That is kind of a myth. For example the concept of Hell and eternal punishment is from the NT.

Can you point out where it mentions eternal punishment? AIR from my reading I see absolute destruction vs living with God, but not Dante's inferno by a long shot.

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#166
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

so, uh, you probably weren't aware of this (I know I wasn't until fairly recently when I made a similar comment and a jewish friend pointed this out) but many jewish people consider speaking casually about how the new testament is good/ the old testament is bad to be pretty offensive. The gist I think of what my friend was telling me was that if I took the time to understand the jewish scripture, all of the stuff abo…

>"like saying "the religion my ancestors had has a more moral holy book than the religion your ancestors had" and it's pretty easy to see how that could give offense."

What if it's true though?

The problem you have is that the converse would be objectionable to Christians as you'd be saying God's new covenant achieved nothing.

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#167
post #146
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is there to such consensus, but there is an important (important beyond religious issues) lack of consensus of what is the most accurate text to be translated. Modern societies weren't the first to find absurdities and contradictions in holy texts. Early scholars decided to search for the "actual" underlying meaning. For if the gods are infallible, and failures in the text must be human failures trying to tr…

Just to be clear, the oldest texts unambiguously condemns male-on-male sex under penalty of death: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV translation https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A... ) The translation just doesn't use the specific word "homos…

Male on male sex was also a fact of life across many Christian communities, including/especially with monks, eunuchs, and other segregated communities, and people were certainly not frequently put to death for this. You can look up medieval crimes and punishments around the 12th century I think for a decent record of this.

Note I am being super reductive, lmk if you want better sources.

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare it with Tyndale’s translation from about eighty years earlier (normalising the spelling of both), and, where they vary, Tyndale’s is normally the easier to read and understand. Tyndale intended that the ploughboy could understand the Scripture, while the KJV was “appointed to be read in Churches”. (Most of the time they do not differ substantially, as the KJV drew most heavily from Tyndale’s translation.) See…

IIRC Tyndale was burned at the stake for his efforts.

You can understand why, the meaning of the NT goes pretty hard against established religion as it cuts priests out of the loop entirely. It also has a very strong, communist/shared wealth message.

If you're rich or powerful and don't believe it would be anathema. Letting just anyone read that ...

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#169

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.

The KJV does consciously use phrasings which were on their way out in several places. The most notable is hefty use of the singular second-person (thou), which was in decline at the time (somewhat akin to `whom' in modern speech); this was done to distinguish where the original texts used singular or plural second-person.

Thou was still widely used in some regions of the UK in the 80s. Not sure about those areas now.

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#170
post #154
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m personally a fan of the New World Translation [1]. It was first released in English, but has since been released in about 160 other languages as well. [1]: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/

Is that the Jehovas Witness translation? The word Jehova is itself a mistaken translation.

It agrees with the Byington translation, as well as early King James versions and many other translations in that respect.

But the most interesting testament to the accuracy of the NWT, I think, is that it uses parallel translations of texts from the era in languages other than Greek and Hebrew (for example Sumerian) that have definite article. This means that scriptures that are ambiguous due to the lack of grammatical constructs in Greek, are accurately represented. For example, John 1:1 reads “the word was a God” rather than “the word was God”.

The same constructs elsewhere are assumed in most translations based on context, but modern context is based on doctrine, and doctrine is uninteresting for literary science.

Post reply on HN