wow, turns out they actually do sell pre-1965 bibles. whatchanow, I was wrong on that.

Zwaarddijk wrote:There's actually a few rather sensible points in avoiding words like 'ass' and the like

Ass? I presume you mean the Old English 'arse'.

Alan B wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:There's actually a few rather sensible points in avoiding words like 'ass' and the like

Ass? I presume you mean the Old English 'arse.'

If people don't know that ass in the bible refers to donkey and not a sexual term for a backside, then maybe they should be forced to read something other than the bible.

Agrippina wrote:

Alan B wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:There's actually a few rather sensible points in avoiding words like 'ass' and the like

Ass? I presume you mean the Old English 'arse.'

If people don't know that ass in the bible refers to donkey and not a sexual term for a backside, then maybe they should be forced to read something other than the bible.

Exactly! Like something written in 'proper' English.

redwhine wrote:http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Brilliant! Dats de one.

Just because people no longer know the "actual" definition of a word is no reason to change or simplify an ancient text.

Lonso wrote:Just because people no longer know the "actual" definition of a word is no reason to change or simplify an ancient text.

Sounds like you think there is an objective measure as to what a given word should mean?

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Lonso wrote:Just because people no longer know the "actual" definition of a word is no reason to change or simplify an ancient text.

Sounds like you think there is an objective measure as to what a given word should mean?

Words are to be interpreted by the reader. Just because one reader finds the bible to have liberal connotations does not mean another reader will. There is not a single organization that I would trust to re-write any ancient text.

Lonso wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Lonso wrote:Just because people no longer know the "actual" definition of a word is no reason to change or simplify an ancient text.

Sounds like you think there is an objective measure as to what a given word should mean?

Words are to be interpreted by the reader. Just because one reader finds the bible to have liberal connotations does not mean another reader will. There is not a single organization that I would trust to re-write any ancient text.

Uh, that's not what I was asking, though. "Just because people no longer know the "actual" definition of a word is no reason to change or simplify an ancient text." - this looks, prima facie, as though you think earlier translations are good, because if people no longer know the "actual" definition of the words in the translation, that's their problem.

As for "re-write", that's quite a different thing from "re-translate". Re-translation can be justified on account of better methods, on account of changes in the target language, on account of more knowledge about the culture(s) in which the texts were written, and even more actual knowledge of the languages in which they were written. As I earlier (iirc) said in this thread, the scholarly community probably knows more about Biblical Hebrew than the Hebrews of Jesus' time did.

A very important change would be to dump "servant" ,with its upstairs downstairs implications, and use the correct term - slave.

Did servants exist then?

Agrippina wrote:I came across this website this morning: Apparently Americans have a problem with genocidal killers taken "booty."

Ow! My eyes.

From http://www.tldm.org/News15/BishopsNewAm ... 0Woman.htm

"I ask that all who hear My voice will take their Bibles, and if they do not have one, search, but find the right Bible, those printed not after 1965, My children." -Jesus, October 5, 1985

Did I miss the return of jesus in 1985? I would have been 9 years old so I was probably busy playing with plastic soldiers, or getting the shite smacked out of me by older kids, but I feel sure I would have noticed a news report about zombie jews walking the earth.
Where is he now?

this is clearly errnous ideas to proliferate. Other are more eloguent than I.

God “gives” us “Free Will” so that we can choose which path to follow. He knows what we’re going to do, but he’s “giving” us the choice to, uhm, choose what he already knows we’re going to do? To put it simply, if God can know 100% without a doubt you’re going to do it, it’s set in stone, you can’t change it, you’re just fulfilling destiny or a “plan” laid out by someone else. Either he gives us free will to do what we want (in which case there are many different paths and there is no way to KNOW which one we’ll do), or it’s all an illusion and you’ve got a puppet string coming out of your ass

Hello Joe, and welcome to Ratskep.

Exactly, the whole thing about free will is total nonsense. God supposedly already knows where he wants you to go, he pulls the string to push you in the direction he wants you to go but fools you into thinking that you chose it for yourself. No free will at all.

Complete nonsense.

Agrippina wrote:Hello Joe, and welcome to Ratskep.

Exactly, the whole thing about free will is total nonsense. God supposedly already knows where he wants you to go, he pulls the string to push you in the direction he wants you to go but fools you into thinking that you chose it for yourself. No free will at all.

Complete nonsense.

And the ones who have been duped most of all are the priests and bishops who actually believe that they can 'pull the strings' by prayer as though this 'God' was a puppet to do their bidding.

Very true

So, there's ass and booty in this book then? I may give it a read after all.

Start with Judges 19.