Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Alter Bible

tabletmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: The Alter Bible

#21

Post by lqet »

krapp wrote: post #17
lqet wrote: post #11

Very interesting, and although I have little to no experience with reading the bible, I have to say that everything Alter is quoted as saying in this article makes obvious sense to me. The difficulties translators have with any text should be a reminder of how painfully inadequate any language is as a mediator between two different brains. So much depends in context. > Perhaps the first person to openly suggest other…

>However, it makes me extremely sad if self-proclaimed "atheists" make fun of the the Bible / Torah / Koran by pointing out how unrealistic almost all of the texts are. I don't think atheists would have a problem with anyone treating the Bible (or any religious text) as literature, since there would be a lot less religious violence in the event that religious doctrine couldn't be cited as an absolute authority. But,…

I completely agree, and my paraphrasing of Marx was not against him, but against people using his quote blindly. But my original post was not about religion - again, I am no expert in any religion and don't consider myself religious - but about religious texts. But I might have massively (and shockingly) underestimated how much they are connected to the religion itself in the minds of many people.

Re: The Alter Bible

#22

Post by otterpro »

Translating Bible is a difficult task. There are usually two camps of philosophy of Bible translation. There's the word-for-word style where words are translated literally, rather than its intended meaning -- such as the classic King James Version (1611 AD), and more modern NKJV, NASB and ESV. Then there's thought-for-thought style, where it is translated based on its connotation, intention, and geared for modern English -- such as the popular NIV, NLT, and more paraphrase-style translations. I prefer the more literal Bible, but it also makes reading certain passages more difficult, since the original word used may not have the same connotation in English, and there are ancient idioms that may not make sense in English.

Re: The Alter Bible

#23

Post by lqet »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #19
lqet wrote: post #11

Very interesting, and although I have little to no experience with reading the bible, I have to say that everything Alter is quoted as saying in this article makes obvious sense to me. The difficulties translators have with any text should be a reminder of how painfully inadequate any language is as a mediator between two different brains. So much depends in context. > Perhaps the first person to openly suggest other…

"If you just dismiss these religious texts as opium for the dull medieval masses, you might miss some deep poetical truths about mankind that just cannot be stated explicitly because of the shortcomings of any human language described above." I generally agree with your take on how we should read these texts. However, nobody (that I know of) has been using Shakespeare to justify preventing me from buying whiskey on a…

> These texts are read as literal truth by the people where I live (rural Texas) and used to justify some pretty heinous things.

As a European who is pretty naive on this issue, I am slowly realizing how controversial my original post was as I am reading the responses here. I now regret writing it.

Re: The Alter Bible

#24

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

otterpro wrote: post #22

Translating Bible is a difficult task. There are usually two camps of philosophy of Bible translation. There's the word-for-word style where words are translated literally, rather than its intended meaning -- such as the classic King James Version (1611 AD), and more modern NKJV, NASB and ESV. Then there's thought-for-thought style, where it is translated based on its connotation, intention, and geared for modern Eng…

Then went to be preferable to have a literal translation plus translator's notes alongside? There's already a long tradition of putting commentary alongside the original text, and this seems like a perfect fit for it.

Re: The Alter Bible

#25

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #9
te_platt wrote: post #5

I've always been fascinated by the difficulties of translation. There is the issue of expressing the original thought. Already I've edited this post several times. Then there is the issue of the surrounding context which will be different for different people. Even for people in the same culture at the same time in the same place. Then the issue of the attitude of the reader. It's not uncommon to get different meanin…

I'd prefer a translator that just gave me the words and sentences. As a receiver of that information I can learn to do my own interpretation. Imperfectly and only after some thought and experience, but at least the translator won't be 'in the way' changing the message.

I happen to personally agree, not least because I don't necessarily trust the motivations of some alterations, but it is worth remembering that this raises the bar for reading and understanding. There is the difference between something that any lay person can read and get a reasonable understanding, and something that requires you to be a scholar of ancient Greek to understand.

Re: The Alter Bible

#26

Post by krapp »

lqet wrote: post #23
scarecrowbob wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you just dismiss these religious texts as opium for the dull medieval masses, you might miss some deep poetical truths about mankind that just cannot be stated explicitly because of the shortcomings of any human language described above." I generally agree with your take on how we should read these texts. However, nobody (that I know of) has been using Shakespeare to justify preventing me from buying whiskey on a…

> These texts are read as literal truth by the people where I live (rural Texas) and used to justify some pretty heinous things. As a European who is pretty naive on this issue, I am slowly realizing how controversial my original post was as I am reading the responses here. I now regret writing it.

>I now regret writing it.

You shouldn't, you were completely correct, just not aware of how correct you were.

Re: The Alter Bible

#27

Post by pax »

lqet wrote: post #11

Very interesting, and although I have little to no experience with reading the bible, I have to say that everything Alter is quoted as saying in this article makes obvious sense to me. The difficulties translators have with any text should be a reminder of how painfully inadequate any language is as a mediator between two different brains. So much depends in context. > Perhaps the first person to openly suggest other…

how else would/could be an atheist (or believer, for that matter) if not self-proclaimed? Does an atheist need external vetting to be a proper atheist? Also, what was the reason for the ironic quotation marks, do you imply those aren't real atheists?

Re: The Alter Bible

#28

Post by ConceptJunkie »

ohithereyou wrote: post #18
lqet wrote: post #11

Very interesting, and although I have little to no experience with reading the bible, I have to say that everything Alter is quoted as saying in this article makes obvious sense to me. The difficulties translators have with any text should be a reminder of how painfully inadequate any language is as a mediator between two different brains. So much depends in context. > Perhaps the first person to openly suggest other…

>Of course they are unrealistic - but so are the works of Shakespeare, or Dante, or Goethe, or any great poet in the last 3000 years. Last time I checked, there weren't nations willing to go to war and religious orders wiling to persecute and murder people based on the works of Shakespeare, Dante, or Goethe.

What about Hitler or Marx or Engels? It isn't just religious texts that result in wars.

Re: The Alter Bible

#29

Post by licebmi__at__ »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #9
te_platt wrote: post #5

I've always been fascinated by the difficulties of translation. There is the issue of expressing the original thought. Already I've edited this post several times. Then there is the issue of the surrounding context which will be different for different people. Even for people in the same culture at the same time in the same place. Then the issue of the attitude of the reader. It's not uncommon to get different meanin…

I'd prefer a translator that just gave me the words and sentences. As a receiver of that information I can learn to do my own interpretation. Imperfectly and only after some thought and experience, but at least the translator won't be 'in the way' changing the message.

It's impossible to not have the translator on the way. Even if you reduce the translation to words and sentences, the are plenty of ways to translate a word or a sentence that while being gramatically correct, could alter the meaning, you would still need the translator to pick the right one and not change the message.

So, in your translation, you'll still have the main disadvantage of relying on the translator, while gaining nothing.

Re: The Alter Bible

#30

Post by ConceptJunkie »

_uhtu wrote: post #10
arethuza wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trivia: the discussions that led to the suggestion to King James VI to create a new bible were held in a church a couple of miles from where I am currently sitting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burntisland_Parish_Church

> Kink James VI Quality Freudian slip here.

Reminds me of the Amboy Dukes song "Surrender To Your Kings", which on Amazon music is listed as "Surrender To Your Kinks". I wish there was some way to fix that because that error has propagated around the web.
Post reply on HN