interested in your comments.
Even funnier/sad was when I told him I was saying Kaddish, he asked me what
it was. (The son's are the ones who are required to do Kaddish, daughters
are exempt).
_____
From: Ben Braver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 4:40 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: KJ Version
/me withholds comment about Sandy's brother so as to not offend Sandy
-Ben
>This reminds me of a funny story.
>
>To give the background, my family is Jewish but not religious and my
brother
>is a christian convert. After my dad died I was saying Kaddish (which is a
>prayer praising God, said on behalf of a dead parent) and started looking
at
>the Torah (5 books of Moses). Of course I am reading a translation since I
>don't read Hebrew.
>
>Anyways, my mom is in the hospital for surgery and my brother and sister
are
>down. I'm looking for a book to read and take (I think it was Exodus). My
>version has the following: The verse and a discussion of the meaning (both
>in Hebrew and in English). I of course am reading the English.
>
>My brother picks up my book at sometime and looks at it. After a point he
>asks me what I am reading and I tell him. I tell him I find the
discussions
>fascinating. He says, "Oh you mean the study guide" and I say, "No, the
>discussions as to what the different words can mean" (Hebrew is a compact
>language and one word can translate to many different words layering
meaning
>upon meaning on a sentence). Anyways, he warns me that the "translation
>might be off" and I tell him, I understand that, referencing the above re
>Hebrew is a compact language. and he then tells me, "No I mean the
>translation into Hebrew from the original." I then say, the Hebrew in here
>is the original, this is the Jewish Bible.
>
>He didn't talk to me for the rest of the day.
>
>I still don't know whether he meant the greek or aramic translation or if
he
>thought the Hebrew was a translation from the King James.
>
>Sandy
>
> _____
>
>That is somewhat a separate issue. The Church of England was spun off from
>the
>Roman church, and the King appointed his own Arch Bishop, in order to
>receive
>absolution for his divorce, which at the time the Roman church refused. The
>Calvinist translation (known as the KJV) is somewhat a different issue,
>although
>still a controversy for those scholars who are studying the history and
>origins
>of the bible.
>
>The Hebrew language contains no vowels, and therefore is extremely
difficult
>to
>translate into English. As a result it was done via "committee, that was
>appointed by the King, and thereafter has been termed the "Inspired Word of
>God"
>Many of the more conservative Christians (I call them radical) insist that
>the
>KJR is the "Literal Word of God," which, of course is completely false.
>
>======================================
>Stop spam on your domain, Anti-spam solutions
>http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm
>For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
>======================================
>Aspire to Inspire before you Retire or Expire!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Candace Cottrell
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 3:25 PM
> Subject: Re: KJ Version
>
> Thanks. I was bothered by the fact that the king may have altered things
>to
>fit his own agenda. And there were some folks here criticizing me and
making
>me
>feel like an idiot.
>
> I brought up the subject of divorce. Wasn't it true that in the original
>texts, divorce was never permissable, but in the KJV it was altered so that
>James could divorce his current wife? I believe I heard this in a history
>class
>in college.
>
> Candace K. Cottrell, Web Developer
> The Children's Medical Center
> One Children's Plaza
> Dayton, OH 45404
> 937-641-4293
>
> http://www.childrensdayton.org
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "There is no right price for the wrong product, even if it is inexpensive
>and
>delivered on time."
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/26/2004 4:21:24 PM >>>
> In a roundabout way of answering the question, I'll point to something
> discussing the various historical revisions the bible.
> http://www.atheists.org/church/realbible.html
>
> I'll acknowledge that it's a biased source, but it still provides some
> historical background.
>
> One quote:
> "We may note one other oddity concerning the "received text" used to
>produce
> the King James Bible: Because the Book of Revelation was never popular in
> the Greek Orthodox Church, it was hard for Erasmus to find Greek MSS of
>the
> book. Indeed, he could not find a single MS that contained the last six
> verses. Consequently, he had to make up his own Greek - translating the
>last
> six verses into Greek from the Latin Vulgate! To this day no Greek text
>has
> ever been found that reproduces Erasmus' version of the last six verses
of
> me Bible, yet it is the source of the King James rendering. "
>
> Another quote:
> "The Greek version reflects a Hebrew text more than a thousand years
older
> than the Hebrew text used as the standard for the King James."
>
> Even if you disregard the political decisions of which books and chapters
>to
> include in the bible, there are still fundamental problems with
>translation.
> Concepts in one language don't always translate easily to another
>language.
> Anyone who knows another language can attest to that. For instance, there
>is
> a German word "Schadenfreude" that roughly means "taking pleasure in the
> discomfort of others". But there's no word in English to really express
>the
> subtle nuances of it. Sadism is a common mistranslation.
>
> I'm sure Mike can speak to this, but Scholars have debated for centuries
> over the interpretations of passages in the Hebrew, and trying to bring
>that
> over to yet another language is inevitably going to introduce vagaries.
>
> -Kevin
>
> > Can someone tell me why the King James version of the bible is said to
>be
> altered to fit his own agendas?
> _____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
