12 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThank you, but that was not intended.
You're so funny.
My question is really - why is such an old translation used? I don't know from what year, but with the sound of the old language it must be hundred(s) of years ago. At a time many things was not knows which would aid a proper translation.
In Sweden we got a new translation 2000. The earlier one was from 1917 and was quite crude by our modern standards. Now even young people can read and understand without difficulties. And that's what it is all about, to make the bible readable, not only by scholars, but by everyone.
I don't think that the "thou-shalt" bible is well read by young people. Do you?
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThou art but jestering, yes?
If this is English, I've never heard English spoken like that before. Is it a dialect or something, spoken in the BibleBelt area? Or is it pentacoastal? Is it still a living language spoken by living people?
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt's probably a question of taste. When I was much younger, I much preferred the King James translation to the modern Good News version; one had style, the other did not. If young people can read Tolkien, they can read the seminal King James translation, with the proviso that they are informed that it is a translation, not the literal Word of God, as some not-so-young people are still determined to believe in the face of all the evidence you can throw at them ...
I don't think that the "thou-shalt" bible is well read by young people. Do you?
No translation can hope to capture the nuances of ancient Hebrew. Serious scholarship is required of those inclined to take up the task. You don't think your super-duper modern Swedish translation is capable of conveying the letter and spirit of the original, do you?
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSwedish is the most complete language ever conceived. It's divine in its perfection, and covers all
You don't think your super-duper modern Swedish translation is capable of conveying the letter and spirit of the original, do you?
nuances of human ingenuity. 'nuff said.
12 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, I think that a modern language with modern nuances is better than a language from past times, not anymore spoken.
It's probably a question of taste. When I was much younger, I much preferred the King James translation to the modern Good News version; one had style, the other did not. If young people can read Tolkien, they can read the seminal King James translation, with the proviso that they are informed that it is a translation, not the literal Word of Go ern Swedish translation is capable of conveying the letter and spirit of the original, do you?
Is it true that King James bible was published 1611? How much did they know about the culture at that time? How much better translation can be done if you know what you know today?
Example: At the time of translation, war was a business of honour. War was described from the mighty men, and from the winning side. Today it is not. Now we know how much people suffers from war. Family catastrophes. Injured women and children. Not to mention the soldiers themselves.
When passages of war was translated, the romanticism of the time at the translation was passed on in the texts. It was ten fold better if ten fold more people was slaughtered at the battle ground.
Another example: The word rape, and how to treat women, and daughters. See Judges chapter 18. A father let his daughter be raped, no the guest was offered the daughter to be raped. Nowhere in the text, not a word, that he was doing wrong. In the Swedish modern translation the headline for the chapter is "The rape in Giva in Benjamin". Rape is translated in King James with (vers 25) "they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning" Abused? Only abused??? It was gangbang going on, with the permission from her father. And she was furthermore killed for been being raped!
In King James it was more or less described as a joyful event.
So I think it is important to do a retranslation from the sources, all new knowledge included not knowed from the earlier translation.
Jigtie: "Swedish is the most complete language ever conceived. It's divine in its perfection, and covers all nuances of human ingenuity. 'nuff said."
Nice of you to say that, but that's simply not true.
12 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasLike I said, a question of taste.
Example: At the time of translation, war was a business of honour. War was described from the mighty men, and from the winning side. Today it is not. Now we know how much people suffers from war. Family catastrophes. Injured women and children. Not to mention the soldiers themselves.
When passages of war was translated, the romanticism of the time a of human ingenuity. 'nuff said."
Nice of you to say that, but that's simply not true.
In your sublime humourlessness, you seem to have missed an obvious point: That ancient Hebrew can never be made to sound modern. The King James version was not rendered in contemporary idiom for that reason.
The translation ought to be faithful to the source text, not pander to the susceptibilities of a politically correct and intellectually emasculated readership.
To the ancient Hebrews, the slaughter of enemies was precisely a source of joy; the King James translation got it right. That such carnage should have been celebrated will be questioned by any thinking person, young or old. Don't you think that building a moral commentary on the subject matter into the translation is a bit bureaucratic?
I'd hate to read the modern Swedish translation of The Iliad.
Edit: It's crystal clear from the context what 'abused' meant in Judges 14.
12 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBosse de Nage: "That ancient Hebrew can never be made to sound modern."
Like I said, a question of taste.
In your sublime humourlessness, you seem to have missed an obvious point: That ancient Hebrew can never be made to sound modern. The King James version was not rendered in contemporary idiom for that reason.
The translation ought to be faithful to the source text, not pander to the susceptibilities of a politica is a bit bureaucratic?
I'd hate to read the modern Swedish translation of The Iliad.
No, of course. I agree. The poetry get lost in every translation. If it's poetry we want, then any suitable language is good. That's the reason that Sheakspeare is not translated into modern language.
But if it the essence of what the bible says, to be understood properly by anyone, then it's good to translate it into a language that is well understood by everyone.
But I understand your point, I just don't agree to it.
Bosse de Nage: "I'd hate to read the modern Swedish translation of The Iliad"
Try it. It's a religious experience!
Bosse de Nage: "In your sublime humourlessness"
My humour, or lack thereof, sublime? Nooo, you don't mean that? Do you?
12 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageLOL!
I'd hate to read the modern Swedish translation of The Iliad.
So, anyway, a lot of stuff happens right, and we end up on the shores of Troja.
And like, Achilles kinda got mad, yeah?
He didn't like Agamemnon a lot because, like, Agamemnon took his bitch right?
Well, anyway, Achilles kinda left the party real pissed.
Now, the Trojans on the other hand had a really awesome hero.
The great Hector. He really was awesome. Did I say say that already?
Anyway, he was true to his wife and shit, right?
Well, in battle he kinda whacked Achilles buddy.
Now, Achilles being the testy little thing he is kinda took revenge,
killed Hector and defiled his body for days.
But Hector's father, the Trojan king no less, kinda asked for the body back.
Turns out that Achilles was not really all that bad after all, 'cause he kinda said: "Yeah, sure".
And that, as they say, was the whole story. Yeah. Yeah. 'Twas kinda messy.