-
I would love to see how the Bible would stand up to being rewritten in modern language. Removing all those words and sentences that hold multiple or vague meanings. There would of course be one condition, that they use the earliest known version which of course would be in the original Hebrew and thus eliminate many of the translation difficulties and errors.
-
What's the NIV then? Plus wasn't most of the OT originally written in Aramaic?
-
I wasn't there at the time as I was busy slaughtering a few bulls so I had no imput into it.
If as I have said earlier, the bible was written primarily as a means of Propaganda for the purpose of uniting the various tribes of herders that had decended from the hills into one people. Then it is likely that it may well have been written in several languages. However I feel sure that if that was the case, then either Aramaic or Hebrew would have been the major language. I would suggest that the latter was in fact the most common language with the largest following and this the Hebrew language would have become the most used.
Another point that should also be borne in mind is that originally the Jewish people had many gods and that the worship of then all extended past the time of king Soloman.
I am both new to these Forums and rather stupid. So what do you mean by NIV?
RikkiRae -
-
Oh, ok. Welcome to the forums. I'm stupid as well. NIV = New International Version (I think). It was an attempt to render the KJV (King James Version) into modern English translated by a team from several countries around 1978 I think.
I am not actually a Christian or a Biblical scholar.
-
-
-
-
-
-
If the Bible were to be rewritten into modern English, I believe that it should be done by a group of Jewish and Chrisrian scholars. As it is they who believe in the Bible.
But on the other hand, many people that I've spoken to who claim to be christians and think that know the bible appear to have a very incorrect understanding of many of the terms as used. People see a word and instantly apply a modernday meaning to it when in fact it had a totally different meaning when it was first written. -
-
You can say the same thing about Shakespeare.
-
-
Greetings Cynewulf
I don't believe that you should say the same thing about Shakespeare and apart from his play Richard III (which was in fact written more as Tudor propaganda and thus anti Richard) most of his plays were at least semi fictional and produced for entertainment.
The "Book of Fables" or as it is also known, the "Bible" is put forward by its adherants as the "whole and complete truth" -
-
I was referring to the language of Elizabethan/Jacobean England rather than the actual plays themselves. He 'borrowed' a lot from Holinshed & other sources (including Boccaccio, Ovid & Saxo Grammaticus) .
What I meant, intrinsically, is that much of the language of 400 years ago would not be familiar to many English people now. How many people know the real reason that the Welsh are supposed to eat cheese a lot (The Merry Wives of Windsor makes much of this with the character of Sir Hugh Evans)? & how many people would be offended to be called a 'burnt pimmel knave'. If someone called you that in Elizabethan times you could sue for defamation of character. How many people know what it actually referred to?
The semiotic interpretations of language are in constant flux & change. Language is in fact more of a gestalt psychological response to unconditional wholes as opposed to the analysis of discreet event.
Language also contains semiotic signifiers & signifieds. These are the vehicles/images & concepts/meanings of language. They have to be interpreted in cultural context.
Furthermore you have the denotative, connotative & the ideo-mythological in all linguistic systems. Mythology in language can be viewed as a series of extended metaphors that can organise shared ways of conceptualising cultural values. Again these have to be viewed in their cultural contextuality taking into account any subtextuality & meta-narrative.
The KJV for instance was deliberately written using antiquated pronouns & third person present indicatives to give it a sense of gravitas to its Jacobean readership.
-
-
-
-
-
I'm afraid not arafura, I have no real interest in the bible as such. However I do have an interest in how people can believe so strongly in a document that is so flawed in logic and its meanings plus the fact that it is a rather poor example of propaganda. But then maybe that is to be expected as after all, the King James Version was written by a committee.
-
-
We live on through our genes. Whether we are put in a hole with friends or enemies, or whether we are converted to ashes, we will become a small part of the planet on which we have lives. The fear and the hope so many people have of living for all eternity is an old religious belief. Long before Judism and Christianity came onto the scene.
Today we look at the Egyptian and other ancient mummies who had many centuries ago had hoped to live forever and we laugh at their beliefs. What is so differrent from the beliefs of people today?? Modern man is just as stupid!! -
-
Yep... because we are still just as scared of that big black nothing as the ancients were.
While some of us can live with the expectation of oblivion... most can't and need to find a belief system that doesn't include it. -
-
Sorry arafura, it's not a belief in nothing as you would say
I AM A BELIEVER, and I respect your views
yet the Bible has withstood times longer than any other book written
yes the New Contemorary version is The Message I invite you to read it -
-
I believe we all have to find the belief system that works best for us Rick. If for you that is the bible, then good for you. It doesn't work for me however.
I think an averse reaction to religious fundementalism from the three major mono-theistic religions (Christianity, Zionism and Islam) has created a lot more non-believers lately. -
"yet the Bible has withstood times longer than any other book written"
Wait, didn't the Sumerians and Egyptians write books that are at least twenty centuries older than the Bible? And they still exist today, by the way.
-
-
-
-
I imagine that even our prehistoric ancestors possibley felt much the same.
In general terms, man is never satisfied. no matter what he has or how much he has, he always wants more. He is afraid of dying because he is afraid that religion has been all a fakery, but he keeps believing in the hope that he will live forever.
A little like the snake that swallows its own tail. -
if the bible were rewritten in modern terms shouldn't it be rewritten to modern beliefs?
And modern laws. I think it would work because if it were by modern law there they would cut out half the contradictions and the bible would be about half its current size -
-
Greetings S Lexington
Beliefs, if correct are unchangeable.
To change one's beliefs is to admit to one's self that their beliefs were originally incorrect.
If a belief is that killing is wrong, does it matter what laws, etc and etc man may make or whether the time period is 1million BCE or today or any time in the future, killing would still be wrong. That belief does not change.
it must therefore be exactly the same for the belief the "God created the world".
The moment you start talking about "Modern Beliefs" then you have moved away from the bible. It must be one or the other, it cannot be both.
-
-
The idea of removing 'all vague and ambiguous language' from the bible is ridiculous. Some words and phrases from hebrew, latin, aramaic, or greek will never perfectly be translated to english. Languages don't always interlap like that, and attempting to erase the ambiguity will only ensure that one interpretation alone is solely accepted. This will destroy not only the credibility of the bible but also the beauty. Words are by nature ambiguous. They are only placeholders for ideas. The ideas represented in the bible are ancient and complex. Any attempt at oversimplification takes us farther and farther from the original ideas being represented.
The language of the bible does not need to be modernized, our interpretation of it, our acknowledgement of it's history, and our acceptance of alternative interpretations and loose constructions should be the real change.
Don't try to alter the source, improve your understanding of it. -
aight. but people are entitled to an opinion. not everyone has the same faith.
-
I think the Bible should be ignored. Or, at the very most, only be considered a work of fiction.
-
To SingTheSorrow15
The true beauty of words is that they can be extremely precise. We have numerous cases of a variety of words to describe the varying degrees of a word or word combination.
To use an ambiguous word to describe an evet, action or place is to mislead, to use falsehood and fakery, almost akin to lying. We get enough of that from politicians and the like. We don't need it from our so called religious leaders. -
A better question would be, should there be a bible?
I vote no. -
-
Greetings Miss Macabre
I think that saying there should be no bible is going too far.
It is not all that many centuries ago that those who did not believe in the bible or held a variation of "the faith" were cruelly tortured and often burnt in the flames. So I think that while you may think such a comment is fair, it could also be considered a backward step, returning to those black and blind times.
People are free to believe whatever they wish and if it gives them comfort and helps to brighten their darker days, then I say good.
-
-
The original Bible was written in Greek, the Hebrews were divided on whether Jesus was really the Messiah. Jesus's brother James the Just was the leader of the Jews who beleived Jesus was the Messiah. He was thrown off a wall and killed. Saul who became Paul wrote a lot down and when the leaders of Christianity met in Nicea they decided what to put in 'THE' Bible. There are many others who have written, Mary and Judas had their own followings back then. I think there is an American Standard Version which is much easier to read than the King James Bible. You can probably find something you like in the average book store.
-
-
Greetings celadia
I am sorry to say that I must totally disagree with you. The original Bible was written about 1,000 BCE at the latest, possibly earlier.
At that point of time Greece did not have any great influence in the Middle East as we call it today, because it was a disunited gaggle of independant and waring kingdoms. There is still debate as to whether the Trojan war and fall of that city took place in 1200 or 900 BCE. Either way it matters little to this debate other than to help give an approximate timing for the writing of the bible as the city of Troy is mentioned in it, so the "Book of Fables" or the bible as many call it must have been written before 900 BCE.
Greece only became a major influence in the area during the period known as the "Golden Age of Greece", between 600 and 400BCE. Since the Jews had their own language, it would have been written in that laguage.
To imply that the Bible was written originally in Greek is the same as saying that the American Constitution was written in French. What is the sense of writing something that all the people are expected to read if no one can read it??
Originally, Christianity was considered as a Jewish sect, until Saul started converting Gentiles in large numbers and since he refused to stop doing so, the Christian sect was expelled from the Jewish religion and was thus forced to stand alone as a separate religion. -
-
Perhaps celadia was referring just to the New Testament, which WAS written in Greek originally. And, let's face it, there are plenty of goofs out there that only consider the New Testament when they talk of the Bible, except when they want to justify their hatred toward gays.
-
-
Greetings AutoPilate
What a wonderfully comforting and friendly av you have.
Now to the matter on hand, the New Testament. That book of sacred and unbiased writings of those that were there. I started reading it once and found it so amusing I started to laugh. I guess that might be the best way to read all the supposed sacred books. As a joke!!
A little after 300 CE several concepts and beliefs started to appear that the holy bishops of christianity considered as herasies. If i recall correctly, there were gospels by over 100 different writers. Mind you, since they were all virtually written after 100 CE none of there could have been written by those who were there. So several of the bishops spent a considerable amount of time and effort in obtaining every copy they could lay their hands on, then destroying all but those written by four authors. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Now why would those saintly bishops have done that?? I am sure that it would have had nothing to do with eliminating anything that conflicted with their opinions.
Over the centuries the New Testament has been heavily interpreted and revised and rewritten, to such an extent that in all possibility the saintly bishops who approved the New Testament at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE would not recognise it.
I think that is more than enough reason to all but ignore such a book.
-
-
-
-
If you're looking for a modern, rewritten version of the Bible, I would suggest "The Message", "New Living Translation" and "Good News Bible" . . . even the NIV can be a bit difficult and dense at times
-
wow all these comments
Well we all do have diffeent believes..all I can say is that I believe. In the word my dad is a minister..so..were all not perfect sont claim tob ..but just a opinion we have..i believe in the kjv of bible I dont think it should be redone or ttouched because the lord spoke in those days and u cant take away what he says. -
-
Then you should be following the old testement surely? That's as close to the original documents as we can get.
-
The 'Lord' (or insert a deity of your choice) did not 'speak' to the Jacobeans & the KJV was only created so that there was a standard Bible for the new religion that had developed in my country (I blame Henry). I am not sure if it was Jimmy the First's idea or not. He was reputedly scared of witches. He must have spent way too much time in Glasgow. The stupid Jock.
-
-
Hey Cynewulf!! have you ever seen an old Scottish granny from Glasgow. If you haven't, I hope you never do, it's more than enough to frighten hell out of the vilest of sinners. Oh, I have just heard that all the vilest sinners live in Glasgow, or so I've been told.
-
-
Oh, I avoid Glasgow. Edinburgh's nice though. It's way too cold that far up north anyway. I very rarely venture further north than Carlisle these days.
-
-
The only thing the Bible needs is a good burning, because it is trash.
Forums /
Adult Board 'The Friendly Cafe' /
Should the Bible be Modernised and Rewritten?
|
|
Forums
Sign up for FREEA free account is required to comment and participate. It's fast and free! 
Already a member?About AllpoetryWhere friends share poetry - get feedback & publish free today.
→ Learn more
Online: 431Moderators - add ticket Greeters - ask question Gold members
↓
anaxybia
Aussie Gypsy BearWoman BluesMan bond ChristyDear cricketjeff Evenstar everyone1 Jesann Katja Hochlan Mapassion00 MJ Donnelly Mr Jigs penman rufina caraid SakuraVS sgking123 Sharon Marie storiesuntold Veiled Beauty winterbound. Zahhar 241 visitors → Show all onlinePlease Support AllpoetryUpgrade today from 5.95/month!
|
|
Notify a moderator
Ask a question
Random
Chat
Terms of Use
Rules
Our sites: Stories, Critical Poetry, Old Poetry, Quotes, Philosophy, Journals, Role-playing. © Social Design Poem History:
| |
Adding your reply:
RikkiRae
Oct 26 10:13 PM
Reply