• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Faith and belief + BKB babbling about free will (Split from "Mormon Church" thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
Buddha

Works for me. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
The following link goes to a resource that provides bible verses in any of a large number of translations, and it is thus quite interesting: BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.

You can also see how certain translations tend to differ at uncomfortable passages. For instance, compare the following various translations of Ezekiel 23:20:

Chaste:

The Message: "That whetted her appetite for more virile, vulgar, and violent lovers-stallions obsessive in their lust."

Amplified Bible: "For she doted upon her paramours there, whose lust was sensuous and vulgar like that of asses or stallions."

Contemporary English Version: "She eagerly wanted to go to bed with Egyptian men, who were famous for their sexual powers."


More moderate:

King James Version: "For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses."


Horny:

New International Version: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

New Living Translation: "She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse."
 
Upvote 0
^ FWIW, here's a translation from a Jewish Tanakh:

Yechezkel - Chapter 23 - Ezekiel - Torah - Bible

20. And she lusted for their concubinage, those whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose issue is the issue of horses.

Here's what Rashi says on the verse as well:

And she lusted for their concubinage: [Heb. פִּלַּגְשֵׁיהֶם,] for their concubinage, to be a concubine to them. : those whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys: [i.e.,] the phallus. : and? is the issue of horses: An expression of a profusion of sexual intercourse, for they engage in sexual intercourse more than any other male animals. זִרְמַת refers to the stream of semen, like (Habakkuk 3:10): ?A stream (זֶרֶם) of water passed.?


 
Upvote 0
Now I'm curious about the first three bibles I mentioned: The Message, Amplified Bible, and Contemporary English Version. I know absolutely nothing about any of them, who reads them (if anyone), etc.

Actually, I may try to find a chart of what bibles are used. That would be interesting. . . (Not necessarily to post it here, just out of curiosity.)
 
Upvote 0
kinch;1519971; said:
Now I'm curious about the first three bibles I mentioned: The Message, Amplified Bible, and Contemporary English Version. I know absolutely nothing about any of them, who reads them (if anyone), etc.
Click to expand...

I'll give you my summary (from some time ago in a galaxy far, far away...)

I've read the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, Living, and Amplified. I'm still going through my Tanakh (and it's been a too slow process).

NASB: probably my favorite when I was a Christian. I thought it incorporated meaning and intent rather well.
NIV: 2nd favorite. Lost a little respect for it as I left Christianity. Can't remember exactly why, but I think it had something to do with scholastic considerations.
KJV: rubbish.
NKJV: slightly better, but still based on rubbish.
Living: Entertaining with next to no value.
Amplified: very informative, but a long, tiresome read. Very helpful for in-depth study.

FWIW, I think the Message is the lowest grade. I recall a sermon that utilized this book, and the content and message were so convoluted from the original passage that it was disgusting.
 
Upvote 0
I just read the whole wiki on the KJV and don't see why it is rubbish. Is this because they did not want margin notes and instead opted to anglicize it as much as could be done? It seemed they were trying to be quite respectful to the originals they used. Is it their source material?

Okay, it's just wiki, but I'm new to most of this stuff. . .
 
Upvote 0
kinch;1520008; said:
I just read the whole wiki on the KJV and don't see why it is rubbish. Is this because they did not want margin notes and instead opted to anglicize it as much as could be done? It seemed they were trying to be quite respectful to the originals they used. Is it their source material?

Okay, it's just wiki, but I'm new to most of this stuff. . .
Click to expand...

Here's a brief history of it:

Chavurath B'nei Noach: How the King James Version (KJV) Bible Originated: A Simplified History of the Printing of the Bible

From my POV, there are MANY mistranslations that distort the meaning of the passage, and in a number of cases, Christianity has latched onto this variant and taken it as "gospel" literally.
 
Upvote 0
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060185163"]Amazon.com: God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible (9780060185169): Adam Nicolson: Books[/ame]

I heartily recommend this excellent read on the history behind the making of the KJV
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top