Dumbing down the Bible

[Marcus Trajan]

Alas, for those who thought "stoned" in biblical context meant smoking pot and "aliens" meant little green men, there is help. Do you think the new version would help woo the younger generation?
The New International Version [NIV] of the Bible has a new edition, Today's New International Version [TNIV] with changes that are meant to keep up with the evolution of English language -- as spoken by the youth.

"Aliens" have become "foreigners." Instances of "stoned" have been clarified with "stoned to death." And the Virgin Mary is not "with child" anymore. She is "pregnant."

One example of the evolution of the language used in modern versions can be found in Matthew 1:18.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost," reads the King James Version.

The N.I.V.: "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."

The T.N.I.V.: "This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit."

Another notable change is the use of "Jesus the Messiah" instead of "Jesus Christ," a relatively modern convention in biblical terms. "Christ" is an English transliteration of a Latin word borrowed from the Greek Christos, which is a translation of Hebrew and Aramaic words meaning "the anointed one."

Despite concerns that the Bible succumbed to the feminist movement, "Man" and "brother" are no longer used to refer to a group of people. "God created human beings," not "Man," in the latest version. But "God" remains a male.

Another significant change is the elimination of "saints," a reference thought by the scholars who revised the Bible to be too "ecclesiastical."

http://community.netscape.com/n/pfx/forum....ag=ws-newsforum

I think it's a good iead for making the Bible more readable , but it leaves sour taste that even the Bible has to be 'politically correct'. :erm

[Cluny the Scourge]

think it's a good iead for making the Bible more readable , but it leaves sour taste that even the Bible has to be 'politically correct'.

Are you :wub:ing kidding? You think that makes it MORE readable? 'God created human beings'. Give me a break.

[Aged One]

K.J.V is good enough for me. The original greek is great but learning greek well, it is what it is.

[Sidus Preclarum]

Instances of "stoned" have been clarified with "stoned to death."

lol
risks of confusion for pot smoking readers ?

[Cluny the Scourge]

Pot smoking readers, a) Wouldn't be reading the Bible anyway, and b) Even if they did would be too doped up to understand the words whatever they were.

[Dead Lurker]

I once skimmed through a series of books called the Alpha and Omega. It was suppossed to be written in a way to make it easier to teach Christianity to the indigenous people. After skimming through it, I wanted to wash my hands and burn the books. I thought it was heretical. It was an abomination to me (I was Protestant Christian with heavy influence of Catholicsim at that time) and its even more insulting to me today (I'm more of a Diest now).

I'm don't think its a good idea.

[Sidus Preclarum]

Originally posted by Cluny the Scourge@Mar 28 2005, 12:35 PM
Pot smoking readers, a) Wouldn't be reading the Bible anyway, and b) Even if they did would be too doped up to understand the words whatever they were.

somebody must have missed one particular episode of the Simpsons *wink*

[Aged One]

Originally posted by Cluny the Scourge@Mar 28 2005, 12:29 PM

Are you :wub:ing kidding? You think that makes it MORE readable? 'God created human beings'. Give me a break.

If God didn't create man than who did?

[Marcus Trajan]

Originally posted by Cluny the Scourge@Mar 28 2005, 01:29 PM

Are you :wub:ing kidding? You think that makes it MORE readable? 'God created human beings'. Give me a break.

Well, I don't like that part either. It rather sounds ridiculous. But, I still like the general idea of using modern words. And, I don't think it's actually 'dumbing down' the Bible. Translation of the Bible always creates controversy. But, unless I understand Aramaic or Greek, I want to read it in words actually I use every day.

[shadepanther]

Originally posted by Sidus Preclarum@Mar 28 2005, 06:38 PM
somebody must have missed one particular episode of the Simpsons *wink*

Don't think I've seen that one. What happens?

[Sulla]

The worst thing about the ongoing translations is less that it dumbs it down and more that it can subtly change (or enhance) a particular part of the text. For example 'Jesus Christ' is 'Jesus the Messiah'. This is a subtle change that make him sound more than the ancient authors may have intended him to be.

Sure, some interpretation is needed. A direct translation from classical times (in either Greek or Latin) is nearly unreadable but we should keep changes to a minimum lest we change the meaning of what was truly intended.

[Hamelkart]

I'm not that religious, but I did read Apocalypse from the top to the bottom. The best part of the bible, definetely... :grin

But this translation idea I find funny and not needed.. Remember the Bible on klingon?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I agree Sulla, Translating it may indeed change the message of a particular part or someone may mis-interpret it and change it to fit thier needs.

[Sidus Preclarum]

Originally posted by shadepanther@Mar 28 2005, 01:13 PM
Don't think I've seen that one. What happens?

homer gets hash medication because of an eye injury, and therefore is constantly completely high . At some points he somehow invites Flanders to read him the bible in its entirety, and gets all "wow, that jesus dude was so cool, I didn't know ..."

and I agree abvout Hamelkart, even if you're not Christian, the Apocalypse is a good read .
Ditto for the laments of Jeremiah and the song of songs, imho .

[Marcus Trajan]

Originally posted by Sidus Preclarum@Mar 28 2005, 03:16 PM
and I agree abvout Hamelkart, even if you're not Christian, the Apocalypse is a good read .
Ditto for the laments of Jeremiah and the song of songs, imho .

I'm not sure if Apocalyse is a good read. The whole message sounds like a big puzzle and free for any interpretation just like the prophecies of Nostradamus.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Originally posted by Aged One+Mar 28 2005, 01:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Aged One @ Mar 28 2005, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cluny the Scourge@Mar 28 2005, 12:29 PM

Are you :wub:ing kidding? You think that makes it MORE readable? &#39;God created human beings&#39;. Give me a break.

If God didn&#39;t create man than who did? [/b][/quote]
Nobody created man, but that isn&#39;t the point I was making at all, you self-defensive Christian. My point was that &#39;God created human beings&#39; sounds clumsy and awkward compared to &#39;God created man&#39;, which is much more smooth off the tongue.

[Profler]

I agree Sulla, Translating it may indeed change the message of a particular part or someone may mis-interpret it and change it to fit thier needs.

Is the new version taken from the King James&#39; translation, or have they actually gone back to the original (greek and hebrew) texts?
While I am extremely dubious of any attempt to simplify the King James&#39; text, a fresh translation from the earliest texts would not necessarily be a bad idea.

[GoldenKnightX2]

Originally posted by Cluny the Scourge+Mar 28 2005, 03:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Cluny the Scourge &#064; Mar 28 2005, 03:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Aged One@Mar 28 2005, 01:39 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Cluny the Scourge

@Mar 28 2005, 12:29 PM

Are you :wub:ing kidding? You think that makes it MORE readable? &#39;God created human beings&#39;. Give me a break.

If God didn&#39;t create man than who did?

Nobody created man, but that isn&#39;t the point I was making at all, you self-defensive Christian. My point was that &#39;God created human beings&#39; sounds clumsy and awkward compared to &#39;God created man&#39;, which is much more smooth off the tongue. [/b][/quote]
he has a point there, he was just saying it sounded weird, some of there changes werer unneccasary

[rububula]

Who cares, it&#39;s all lies anyway. (Except for the torah :cool )

[Aged One]

Originally posted by GoldenKnightX2+Mar 28 2005, 04:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (GoldenKnightX2 @ Mar 28 2005, 04:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Cluny the Scourge@Mar 28 2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Aged One@Mar 28 2005, 01:39 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Cluny the Scourge

@Mar 28 2005, 12:29 PM

Are you :wub:ing kidding? You think that makes it MORE readable? &#39;God created human beings&#39;. Give me a break.

If God didn&#39;t create man than who did?

Nobody created man, but that isn&#39;t the point I was making at all, you self-defensive Christian. My point was that &#39;God created human beings&#39; sounds clumsy and awkward compared to &#39;God created man&#39;, which is much more smooth off the tongue.

he has a point there, he was just saying it sounded weird, some of there changes werer unneccasary [/b][/quote]
point taken