…and this is a 
Somehow, this story is just too cliched.
Pastor Marc Grizzard claims the King James version of the Bible is the only true word of God, and that all other versions are "satanic" and "perversions" of God's word.
On Halloween night, Grizzard and the 14 members of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church will set fire to other versions of the scripture, as well as music and books by Christian authors.
Book burning, sectarian intolerance, and overalls? Good grief, man, that is just playing to the stereotype of the southern good ol' boy. Every educated Southerner is cringing at what you're doing to their image.
I do wonder what Pastor Grizzard thinks of this version?
Comments
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 25, 2009 9:10 PM
As we speak, Chimpy is weeping in shame.
Posted by: bojangles | October 25, 2009 9:12 PM
Absurdly stupid to be sure...but still, it's only a 14 member church.
Posted by: eeanm
|
October 25, 2009 9:15 PM
I wonder if he knows that King James was probably gay. :)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 25, 2009 9:15 PM
As we speak, Chimpy is weeping in shame.
Nah, he's laughing at North Carolina for a change :-)
Posted by: Zeno | October 25, 2009 9:16 PM
Hot damn! I have a pair of denim overalls just like that!
I wore them on my last undercover mission to the central San Joaquin Valley, the reddest part of California (where my right-wing parents live among others of their own kind). I needed the protective coloration, as you can tell from the kind of letters published in their local press.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
October 25, 2009 9:17 PM
You have to wonder what he thinks of the new conservative version of the Bible someone's coming out with...
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 25, 2009 9:17 PM
Despite the fact that the original Bible was written in 3 non-Shakespearian-English languages.
Even if the Xians get ride of all pagans, heathens, atheists, agnostics, gays, Jews, non-submissive women, and scientists, there will still be no peace as they bicker on how to interpreted their "infallible" book.
Posted by: Zeno | October 25, 2009 9:20 PM
Folks may recall that PZ talked about the new "conservative" edition of the Bible being sponsored by the whack-jobs at Conservapædia. Check out his item here.
Posted by: vanharris
|
October 25, 2009 9:22 PM
Pastor Marc Grizzard claims the King James version of the Bible is the only true word of God, and that all other versions are "satanic" and "perversions" of God's word.
I can't believe that anyone can be that stupid, without actually being severely mentally retarded.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
October 25, 2009 9:28 PM
Arggghhh, it's North Carolina!!! I'm not sure where Canton is, but I know it's not near me.
What a nut.
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 9:30 PM
A friend of mine has that... said they were gonna skip right to the "begats".
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 25, 2009 9:30 PM
King James Onlyism has a fair number of adherents. However, there are other fundamentalist Christians who disagree with them.
Posted by: WashingMachine0 | October 25, 2009 9:31 PM
Pastor Gizzard huh? What a name...what a guy.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 25, 2009 9:31 PM
Talk about premature expurgation! LOL! Couldn't the good reverend wait for Andy Schafly to finish his masterpiece?
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 25, 2009 9:32 PM
I wish these people would all move to Texas while the sensible Texans move out. Then Texas could go back to being an independent country like it was for a while in the 1800s. It would probably be a hell hole, complete with no science-based infrastructure and sectarian warfare 24/7. The question is, is it moral to wish for that in exchange for getting them away from the schools and the US Government? And if the answer is yes, is it okay to want to put birth control drugs in the new nation's water supply?
I know, I know, it would never work. But it's a thought.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 25, 2009 9:39 PM
He's missing the straw hat (the straw man is just no substitute for the hat), the length of straw dangling from the corner of his mouth, the shotgun, and the boob tube with Hee Haw on.
Posted by: Ewan R | October 25, 2009 9:39 PM
I don't think so much scorn should be heaped on this guy. He's only one step away from the truth. He's realized that all but one version of the bible are not worthwhile basing your life on. I think visitors to this blog should be a little more supportive and help this Grizzard and his admittedly tiny congregation to take that final step.
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 9:44 PM
..some of us just one Bible further.
Posted by: wrpd | October 25, 2009 9:45 PM
King James may have been gay??? He had a secret passage to his lover, Buckingham's, rooms. They were caught in flagrante in Spain while James was wife-shopping.
Posted by: Thomas | October 25, 2009 9:46 PM
At least PZ admits to the existence of educated southerners. There are too many people who buy into the stereotype this bible thumping hack represents.
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 9:46 PM
go... just go one... d'oh!
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | October 25, 2009 9:59 PM
Obviously he's right. When God dictated his word to the world, he did it in perfect King James English - that's how we know it was revealed scripture, because it foreshadowed the eventual emergence of that beautifully cryptic, oblique and impenetrable linguistic style...
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 25, 2009 10:01 PM
There is no word which cannot be translated from one language to another. If you give me an example and I ask what that word means you won't be able to tell me.
The very explanation of why that imaginary word cant be translated completes the function of translation.
The claim that God only speaks a certain untranslatable dialect of english (or koine or arabic) and His words cannot be accessed in other languages is just bad theology. A bit like the jargon of science used as the key to a door through which only people who understand words like "bulk" and "brane" and "virtual particle" can grant entry.
"What does the word "gobbledygook" mean?
"Oh...you wouldn't understand you're not smart enough"
KJV Onlyism is straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 25, 2009 10:07 PM
God can't speak except to you in your delusions. He doesn't exist elsewhere, so any talk about language your imaginary deity speaks is irrelevant.Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
October 25, 2009 10:08 PM
I have to point out that your use of the adjective 'bad' in front of the noun 'theology' is a redundancy; all theology is, by its very nature, 'bad'.
Posted by: Harmless Eccentric
|
October 25, 2009 10:10 PM
Of the 14 members of the church, how many are related to Pastor Grizzard? And how many are related in more than one way (for example, they are both his daughters and his granddaughters, or his brothers and also his uncles?)
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | October 25, 2009 10:11 PM
Lion, IRC: True enough, however I'd argue that there are phrases that can't be translated clearly - I come from French and English families and I often find myself looking for a corresponding meaning to a figure of speech in the other language and falling short.
You end up giving the other person an approximation of your meaning, but rarely do you manage to keep a hold of whole meaning of what you're trying to say. It's hard to explain just because it's never a huge difference - just a sort of ineffable feeling that you're not doing the phrase justice.
Posted by: Newman
|
October 25, 2009 10:13 PM
I don't think we (in Alabama, at least) have an image I'm exceedingly proud of anyway :DAs a former fundie evangelical, I studied either the NIV or NLT. And the Message Bible was even cooler.
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 10:13 PM
logic fail, IRK.
Tartle
A Scottish verb meaning to hesitate while introducing someone due to having forgotten his/her name.
find that word in another language.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 25, 2009 10:17 PM
Newfie, I like that word because that situation has happened to me a few times.
Tartle. I have uses for it.
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 10:26 PM
*blushes* my roots are showing.
This island is a linguist's dream, Janine.
Arn?
Narn! Yerself?
Yaffles!
Well, 'aul 'er to, b'y.. we'll chinch 'er in a tot.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 25, 2009 10:29 PM
you don't actually know any other languages beyond what you memorized in school, Lion, do you. only the most basic words of a language can be translated without loss of information.
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 25, 2009 10:30 PM
Thanks Newfie,
Well done! You just translated the meaning of a Scottish word into perfectly good English. Nothing wrong with combining verbs into one single verb.
To forget.
To hesitate.
To introduce.
Ever eaten a pizza, seen a tsunami, experienced deja vu?
These foreign words are undersood perfectly well by english speakers.
Now, THIS time try and find a word of which you CANNOT explain the meaning - translate.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 25, 2009 10:33 PM
says the guy who still can't grasp that ad hominem is not Latin for "insult"
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 25, 2009 10:36 PM
OK Lion IRC, translate this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyj63i74BQs
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 10:41 PM
Wow, you can't even grasp the concept.. can you, Skippy?
I'll try to explain to you:
You're translating a text. You come across a word that is pronounced "tartle" ... you have no reference whatsoever to this word, but you're being paid for a translation. What do you do? Again, you have no way to know what this word means. Do you omit the phrase? Or do you translate the word on what you think it might mean, after checking the paragraph, and sentence structure?
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth."
"In the beginning, God separated the heaven and earth."
I've read lately that some scholars are opting for the second translation... and if you're trying to be literal, the small details, can make all the difference.
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | October 25, 2009 10:42 PM
Lion, the word "like" as in "I like someone" doesn't translate very well to French. The word doesn't exist in French - obviously, there's a sort of approximation that works "J'apprécie untel" works, but it's not quite right.
Most people will say "Je l'aime," but that's just a very ambiguous use of the french word for "love." Which is a bit too strong for good ole' restrained english. The closest I've come to translating it is "C'est un peu comme dire 'je l'aime,' sauf en moins fort. C'est quelque part entre apprécier et aimer."
Which is incredibly vague - "Somewhere between appreciate and love" is not an adequate translation. Maybe it's just because I'm not a professional translator (it's just anecdotal, I know), but no one I've discussed this with has been able to do better.
Posted by: raven | October 25, 2009 10:43 PM
Oh no. PZ has gotten confused by that sophisticated xian theology he doesn't understand. Everyone knows that jesus wore overalls at all times. Since then, all real apostolic successor ministers wear overalls as a sign of office.
I bet PZ also doesn't know that jesus had a blue tick hound dog and a Winchester coon rifle.
Posted by: Jim | October 25, 2009 10:44 PM
Why the fixation with the king james version of the bible? Are these people closet roaylists? Do they love monarchs? Do they hate America?
Posted by: James F | October 25, 2009 10:46 PM
Cage match with the Westboro Baptist Church!
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 25, 2009 10:46 PM
Fun list, Newfie but I have doubts of some of those words being unique to Newfoundland. As an american midwesterner, I have used or heard used; by rights, chucklehead, dribs & drabs, duds, funk, jaw, mind, mush, and scruff. All of them with the meaning that was assigned on the list. But many of those words are considered to be old fashioned; i.e. mind your manners, by the scruff of your neck, and don't jaw at me.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 25, 2009 10:47 PM
So, Lion, how would you translate or even describe a hyrax to a person who has never seen or heard of a hyrax before, and how would you do that if you, yourself have never seen or heard of a hyrax before?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 25, 2009 10:48 PM
Oh, yes, bare buff is redundant.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 25, 2009 10:49 PM
Similar problem with the German phrase Ich hab Dich lieb. It doesn't mean the same as "I like you"(that's Ich mag Dich), and it doesn't mean "I love you" (that's Ich liebe Dich), but rather something in between that's sort of innocuous and cuddly that just doesn't have an English equivalent.Posted by: Steven Alleyn | October 25, 2009 10:52 PM
Jadehawk,
That's interesting. I'd always thought of German and English as being very similar (not that I've ever spoken german, but I was often able to discern words with similar roots).
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 25, 2009 10:52 PM
Hi Jadehawk,
Congrats to you also.
You just developed a theory for the complete disappearance of all words.
Over human history as words "lose their meaning" we (according to your theory) become progressively mute.
The words for love and hate and happy and sad MUST get diminished EVERYTIME they are translated from one ancient (dying) language into the subsequent more modern tongue until they become either completely meaningless or bear no resemblance to the meaning they had 50,000 years earlier.
How can we ever hope to recover this "loss of information".
We will no doubt evolve into a speechless society eventually.
Lion (IRC)
PS - I hope you dont think the words love and happiness are too basic. Maybe you can think of others which are much too complex for one human to explain to another without losing their meaning. "chewing gum"? "daytime soap opera"? "toe nail clippings"?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 25, 2009 10:54 PM
That's interesting. I'd always thought of German and English as being very similar (not that I've ever spoken german, but I was often able to discern words with similar roots).
Damned Anglo-Saxons.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 25, 2009 10:54 PM
I was right. you really have no flaming clue how languages work. hint: they're not translations.
Posted by: raven | October 25, 2009 10:56 PM
No real reason that makes sense. Xians just like to pick fights with each other and play heretic, apostate, crispy critter.
If they can't find any tangible reasons to hate each other, they just make up something arbitrary.
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | October 25, 2009 10:58 PM
Lion, I think you misunderstand how languages change. Latin didn't become French when someone invented a whole new way of speaking and told everybody how it translated and how awesome it was. It was a sort of evolution, where isolated people slowly changed the dialect of their language and appropriated new words they found more useful and changed those until the difference was significant enough for it to count as a completely different language.
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
October 25, 2009 11:00 PM
Nebula99 @15:
That's a pretty good idea, actually. We could even do a reverse Trail of Tears - let all the Indians go back to their lands, and resettle the southern wingnuts in Oklahoma.
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 11:00 PM
most have English, Irish, Scottish, and French roots.. but quiet a few, and many not on that list, have their origin here, or are a unique twist on Old World slang based on the population demographics in various communities. The Port-au-Port Peninsula on our west coast, has it's own liguistic flair. French and Mi'kmaq community for hundreds of years, and the latest 3 generations have been speaking English, so mix that up with Newfanese from other parts of the Island were connect by roads only 40 years ago, and you hear some wonderful words that you hadn't before.Posted by: paradoctor | October 25, 2009 11:01 PM
This illustrates the inherent inner conceptual disunity of theism; for there are infinitely many ways for there to be a god.
However, there is only one way for there to be no god. Thus atheism possesses inner conceptual unity.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 25, 2009 11:04 PM
If the king in question said that he had divine mandate to rule over them and systematically strip away their human rights as per his pious whims, then sure. Who do they think they are to dare to question what a person said that God said?Given as how it's not run by tyrants for Jesus, yes, very much so.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 25, 2009 11:05 PM
Just like biological evolution. And the two, at least in humans, appear to follow the same path.Posted by: ukko | October 25, 2009 11:09 PM
But what about CREOLES + PIDGINS !
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | October 25, 2009 11:10 PM
Nerd of Redhead,
I didn't want to go right out and say that, because for all my leisure reading of science books and all that Jazz, I'm still just an Historian. I've no expertise in either biology or linguistics; I didn't feel right categorically asserting something that I had no qualification to assert.
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 25, 2009 11:10 PM
Hi Stanton,
So let me see if I have this right.
I have no idea what a hyrax is. I have never seen one.
I have never heard of one. A person comes up to me in the street and they too have never heard of a hyrax before, never seen a hyrax and dont know the meaning of the word.
Now.....
At what point in your writing of this post did it occur to you that MAYBE (just maybe) there is absolutely NO desire on my part to psychically preempt the potential for a question being asked by someone I have never met before about the meaning of a word they didn't even know existed?
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 25, 2009 11:11 PM
Newfie, I was not doubting the plethora of unique words at all. Many sound like they are relating to events unique to Newfoundland, like the many relating to ice and seals.
As for the flooding in of a language, creating a new arrays of words and allowing for the playful uses of various words, that sounds like the theory of why the Irish had so many prominent English language authors in such a short time after English was forced upon them. The overlap of languages is what encouraged them to play with the words, with the epitome being James Joyce.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 25, 2009 11:17 PM
Not only that, if such a supernatural being does exist, there would be no reason to expect anything in reality to hold. We would exist in a dream world where anything would be possible that the god willed.Theism fits our experience and our understanding of reality very very badly, but theism fits our experience and understanding of language perfectly. Theism — it is all stories, for in language, anything is possible.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | October 25, 2009 11:21 PM
"Grizzard?" Overalls? Bible thumper? Really? Could he be any MORE of a redneck hillbilly stereotype?
Posted by: Anri
|
October 25, 2009 11:28 PM
Lion, do you believe that such things as meter and phrasing, things such as word flow and elegance convey meaning in writing? Especially in the case of writing that is attempting to influence emotion- to be persuasive?
If not, that's fine, but in my opinion unfortunate for you.
But if so - if you believe that there is a meaningful difference between something that is written and something that is written well, then doesn't an inelegant translation of a word or concept, however technically accurate, run the very definite risk of losing meaning?
Saying that the Japanese words ai and koi both mean 'love' is blurring the distinctions between them, while explaining the terms in full makes it very difficult to use the kind of puns often associated with these words.
In either case, meaning is altered, information is lost.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 25, 2009 11:28 PM
Except that hyraxes are mentioned in the original Hebrew versions of the Bible (as being unclean animals unfit for the consumption of the Faithful).And so, let's pretend that you're a Medieval church scholar translating the Bible, and you come across "hyrax." So, I repeat: what would you do to translate a word you have no concept of into your own language?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | October 25, 2009 11:33 PM
Find someone who knows what it means.
Look, his original point wasn't "there are no words that YOU can't translate." He said "There is no word which cannot be translated from one language to another." And that's true. Any word with a meaning in one language is capable of being described in another. I think you're getting stuck on the idea of translating a single word into another, or doing the translation without the help of a native speaker.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | October 25, 2009 11:35 PM
I mean, let's look at "hyrax."
"Hey Jim, the Bible says that a hyrax is an unclean animal."
"Bob, what the hell is a hyrax?"
"Hyrax. (n). An animal of unknown variety, declared as unclean in the Bible."
Tada. Translated.
Posted by: hje | October 25, 2009 11:38 PM
I guess he's not too keen on the Klingon or lolcatz bible translations either.
I highly recommend Crumb's recently published comic version of Genesis though--probably as good a translation as can exist. That and Jack Miles' Biography of God show how strange the actual text is, if one bothers to actually read it. Not that many fundies would ever acknowledge this, since all they ever do is quote mine the bible to support their pre-existing prejudices.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 25, 2009 11:40 PM
And you really think that medieval scholars were that stupid to use a silly tautological fallacy like that in translating the Bible?
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 11:42 PM
"Hyrax. (n). An animal of unknown variety, declared as unclean in the Bible."
looks tasty to me
Posted by: Sgt. Obvious
|
October 25, 2009 11:43 PM
Mike, the "translation" you provided is completely redundant and useless. A hyrax is "an unclean animal," huh? Shame that's the one part we already knew.
Setting that aside, though, how about something else: You're having a conversation with someone, and you make a reference to "crossing the streams." Never having seen Ghostbusters, they have no clue what you're talking about. How do you explain it? "It's something really, really, really bad" just sounds idiotic. The flow of the original phrase has been completely lost. There's a big difference between something that conveys the most basic, general gist and something that captures the complete meaning. Cultural references, therefore, cannot be translated clearly.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 25, 2009 11:45 PM
Newfie, you've obviously never encountered hyraxes before: their calls, alone, are extraordinarily unappetizing.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 25, 2009 11:47 PM
Thank you, Sargent.
Posted by: Stellar Moose | October 25, 2009 11:55 PM
If I were them I'd be totally suspicious of anyone who showed up in a firefighter's costume.
Posted by: James F | October 26, 2009 12:06 AM
Newfie #68
Not as tasty as this critter!
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | October 26, 2009 12:11 AM
"And you really think that medieval scholars were that stupid to use a silly tautological fallacy like that in translating the Bible?"
... We're talking about people who believe the book is true because it says it is. Yes.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | October 26, 2009 12:13 AM
As for Sgt. Obvious' statement:
Do you honestly think you couldn't explain a cultural reference in such a way that you could translate the meaning into another language? What a silly argument.
Besides, my example with the hyrax is a perfectly valid example of translation. Translations are not definitions. They don't HAVE to add more information.
Posted by: Raptureless
|
October 26, 2009 12:13 AM
In the linked story (on Fox News no less), the cherry on top is the last part of the story where it says: "The book-burning is being promoted as a social event with a barbecue dinner." I guess there are plenty of hot coals for grilling after the book burning.
I guess it beats treeing Wiccans for Halloween like they do over at Landover Baptist:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 26, 2009 12:21 AM
come on up for a feed of cod tongues and flipper pie, my son.Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 26, 2009 12:24 AM
Newfie, those may be english words but your are speaking a different language.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 26, 2009 12:27 AM
As was pointed out, your "translation" was redundant and useless. A translation needs to, at least, give information about what the word is: your attempt at translation doesn't give any information at all.Also, please do realize that not all Christians or Christian scholars during the Middle Ages were fanatical idiots.
Posted by: annmys | October 26, 2009 12:31 AM
at.. #75
" They don't HAVE to add more information."
Who made this claim ?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | October 26, 2009 12:38 AM
He did.
"Mike, the "translation" you provided is completely redundant and useless. A hyrax is "an unclean animal," huh? Shame that's the one part we already knew."
Implying that a translation is useless if it provides no new information.
As if "an animal the Bible considers unclean" would not convey new information to a person who hadn't read the Bible.
Give me a break.
Posted by: lewis e haymes | October 26, 2009 12:39 AM
I wonder if Pastor Grizzard has ever looked into the history of the KJV and how it came to be? Did he, he would croak. Hmmm, some have stuffed monkeys and teddy bears or 'happiness' blankets. Older ones have the KVJ
Posted by: annmys | October 26, 2009 1:04 AM
Sgt's comment about cultural references sounds accurate ...
If the culture reference is something like "Juliet on the balcony"..as a metaphor, and the translator has no knowledge of Shakespeare,...the translation will not be accurate.
It's not about adding more info.
Posted by: ivo | October 26, 2009 1:09 AM
Steven Alleyn, I think the common phrase j'aime bien is a near perfect French translation of I like. At least, they seem to me to tolerate the same use -- even if, as already noted, differing cultural temperaments may have the French use "j'aime" where some Englishmen would rather use "I like".
And, people: of course any words can be translated between any two human languages, only in not so few words as the original. Otherwise dictionaries couldn't work, and we would have to learn each new word by direct use.
The finer aspects -- like the nuances given by phonetics and rhythm, all sorts of implicit cultural references, and so on -- are much harder, and the poor translator has usually to compromise between sticking to the literal meaning or deviate form it and try instead to convey the gist of what is said. Often, one just can't have a text that "does the same" to the reader as the original -- but still, the original can surely be explained! Just take your time, and use as many foreigny words as you need...
I guess the squabble above is only due to different ways of understanding the meaning of to translate :-)
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | October 26, 2009 1:31 AM
"J'aime bien" is close, but as you stated in your following few paragraphs, it's not quite the same. I mentioned later that there's a sort of ineffable information loss, there.
"J'aime bien X," depending on the tone, can generally (in my experience) mean something along the lines of "I like X well enough," rather than simply the weak affection meant by the english word. It's a qualified "like" that is non-committal rather than simply expressing "I like X."
Conversely, it can also be a strong qualifier to "like," something along the lines of "I quite like" or "I rather love." It's close to the mark without quite hitting the bull's eye.
I can say "I like going out to parties," for example, but if I were to translate to French in the way you suggest - "J'aime bien sortir fêter" - and then translate it back into english, it would not retain the same meaning; "I quite like going out to parties," in this case. (To get the same meaning I initially referred to above, the translation would be "Sortir fêter? Oui, j'aime bien..." which would then be, "Yes, I like going out to parties well enough...")
My point was, regardless, the same as yours. Semantics aside, perfect congruence of meaning between languages is very difficult to achieve. This was to counter Lion, IRC's argument that this is not the case.
Disclaimer: I'm working from my experience as a native francophone Québecois. If the meaning is slightly different in other dialects, well... Again, this kinda reinforces the same point. =)
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 26, 2009 1:33 AM
What a terrible example. If it's a hyrax (
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Infraclass: Eutheria
Superorder: Afrotheria
Order: Hyracoidea
Family: Procaviidae
Genera: Procavia ; Heterohyrax ; Dendrohyrax
)
It's not unknown.
If it's unknown, it's not a hyrax.
Nonsense.
"שפן" is not a translation of "שפן". It's the word itself. An inclusion is not a translation.
Posted by: ColonelFazackerly
|
October 26, 2009 1:59 AM
Presumably, they would burn original Hebrew and Greek versions too. Taking a translation from an arbitrary point in time is time. That particular point in time is particularly dumb.
Posted by: WMDKitty | October 26, 2009 2:15 AM
@Thomas (#20)
The only educated Southerners are the ones who moved there from the North. The native population of the South... well... let's just say the average education level is ~8th grade. At best.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
October 26, 2009 4:03 AM
WMD Kitty:
Fuck you. There are tons of native educated Southerners. Is the reason that you don't know that because you never made it past 4th grade?
Posted by: wiley | October 26, 2009 4:16 AM
James Vl of Scotland (& 1st of England) wanted to put the bible in the hands of ordinary folk, so he commissioned the Authorised version which became known as the King James Bible. Less than 200 years later, English monarchs had lost the ‘divine right of kings’ as enjoyed by James himself, and Christian parliamentarians had legislation passed that effectively ended the slave trade (a fact that inexplicably gets stuck in the craw of many an Atheist).
Then again, Atheism is an idea that don’t amount to much more than a slogan you could slap on the side of a bus.
Posted by: Todd Ferguson
|
October 26, 2009 4:17 AM
Actually, the good reverend says the KJV is the only acceptable English version. If you consider insane fundie logic, this is totally consistent. The KJV is the only translation into English where god, or one of his magic angels, was sitting on the shoulder of the translator whispering the right translations into his ear. If you believe that the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts were divinely inspired, why not believe in a divinely inspired translation? The idea itself is not new at all. The Septuagint was considered by the ancient Israelites to be a divinely inspired translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.
If you believe in crazy to begin with, it's not so hard to believe in even more crazy.
Posted by: Todd Ferguson
|
October 26, 2009 4:19 AM
@wiley, #90
And Christian slave holders in the USA continued to use the Bible to justify the existence of that abominable institution.
Posted by: strangest brew | October 26, 2009 4:34 AM
My significant other is a Sworn translator Nederlands/English
English/Nederlands.
She received her MA and performed the oath in a specially contravened court under Dutch law.
The unwritten law in translation, but is enforceable under the law, is that the original text is the document of precedence in any dispute.
Also Word count is used as a yard stick of quality, between the original and the translation.
more the 10 % difference is not good.
In a document running to many pages that is the killer protocol.
No new information may be added, and certainly none lost.
This inevitably means that sometimes a translated passage reads in the target language like gobbldygook.
And the rules of engagement requires that it cannot be clarified by the adding of either context or explanation!
This remember is a translation between two Germanic languages that do share many roots from Greek/Roman/Latin, and constructions in grammer if not actual words.
And the protocol involved is a fairly modern concept...going back maybe 500 years.
Contrary to an opinion offered before that not one word in one language cannot be translated into another word in a target language is simply rubbish.
That is the problem...some words or abstract thought are impossible without adding text...and that under the rules is not really allowed...reliance is on a thorough knowledge of context and cultural borders that dictate the success of a translation.
And a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of both societies is only a vague help...my lady had to peruse both the media and developing trends in both countries daily to remain current in ability...and that is only in the straight delivery of the languages syntax, when the text drifts into dialect then the shit really hits the proverbial fan.
She had a piece about the 'Irish clarification of the declaration' several years back,and that sentence alone was just nightmarish from what I remember back then, it was conveying the context in which the clarification document was meant.
It was not the words used it was simply the context that was difficult to get across into written Dutch!
Came literally as a 'View' of the document not the 'elucidation' of the contents of that document.
And that was the best that could be made given the inherent constraints.
So take from that what you will...point is the bible is a very badly translated text which changed and morphed with the times and changing society.
Most biblical translation were literally a guess...and text was added to try and qualify the line and that text itself became the point of xian dogmatic adherence.
There is no true translation..never has been... even the Coptic/Hebrew/Aramaic versions are disputable...but there ya go..tis what happens when ignorance and unbridled enthusiasm is the only guide!
Posted by: Marek14 | October 26, 2009 4:36 AM
OK, since this is a discussion about translation, I feel I should add something. I am a translator (English -> Czech), so I think I have some experience.
I think that lots of confusion in this thread comes from having different ideas of translation. A perfect translation, one that preserves meaning perfectly, is hard to achieve. The most likely places to encounter it are probably legal documents - those that care for every word, meticulously defined in legal books. I imagine they keep an official dictionary.
But a perfect translation, or even an almost-perfect one, is only useful for scholars. It's unreadable. A perfect translation of Bible, in all probability, would be a book with about 1/3 translated text and 2/3 translator's notes. (Yes, the dreaded footnotes - someone has mentioned cultural references: this is how we deal with them.)
What a normal person who buys books wants is not a perfect translation, but an adequate one. The Holy Grail (no religious connotation intended) is to have a text which - at the first look - doesn't LOOK translated. For these people, KJV Bible apparently is an adequate translation, since they are comfortable with it.
That means a translator has some freedom with the text. Sometimes he has to ADD new information. Imagine a sentence like this:
"The teacher brought him a pen."
Now imagine this "teacher" character is only ever mentioned in this sentence. His/her gender is never mentioned. But if I translate it into Czech, I have to assign a gender, since the past participle in Czech requires it, and even the word "teacher" itself has male and female form. And, of course, there's always a risk that the teacher will appear in another (as of yet unwritten) book down the line, and my guess will prove to be wrong.
So, to sum it up. Translating is, in most cases, about producing a natural-looking text, even if you have to nudge the original meaning a bit. In hyrax case, there is a translation (Czech has the quaint feature of having its own Linneusque binomial system with Czech words instead of Latin), but since most people would never hear of it, it would be prudent to include a footnote explaining what it is.
In the French/English liking case, the best you can do is to translate the way you feel is right. If you end up translating the same word differently on separate occassions, doesn't matter. If a more precise formulation would disrupt the flow of translated text (cause a mental double-take in reader), and you don't lose MUCH of a meaning, it's within your rights to put form before function, as it is. It's a judgment call, and different translators will make it in a different way.
In the case of Bible - who does actually READ it? Not the believers, as they demonstrate again and again - they cherry-pick.
Really, quality of translation should be the LAST of their problems.
Don't forget a principle that might be easily applied on this book:
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Posted by: Karellen | October 26, 2009 4:46 AM
And if it's a culture reference about culture references, such as "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra", then they'll have no chance at all! :-)
Posted by: Walton | October 26, 2009 4:58 AM
I will never understand why some fundies are so obsessed with the KJV. For one thing, it's a less accurate translation of the original source texts, since the translators had fewer sources to work from.
Biblical literalism/inerrantism is bizarre and irrational in itself; but even for those who believe that the Bible is God's infallible word, why would a bad 17th-century translation - commissioned for political reasons by an eccentric bisexual Scottish king, no less - be intrinsically more authoritative than the actual original texts? If anything, it would be far more coherent for fundie inerrantists to do what Muslims do with the Qu'ran, and insist that the Bible should only be read in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. That would still be insane, but at least it would be internally consistent.
Posted by: wiley | October 26, 2009 5:20 AM
@TF#92
So what did the Atheists do about the existence of that abominable institution? Doodly-squat, because they didn't have Galations 5:1:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 26, 2009 5:23 AM
oh good. I thought I was the only one who thought that argument came straight from Star Trek!Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 26, 2009 5:24 AM
#96
"If anything, it would be far more coherent for fundie inerrantists to do what Muslims do with the Qu'ran, and insist that the Bible should only be read in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. That would still be insane, but at least it would be internally consistent"
It would be an excellent idea but the majority of xian fundamentalists never got passed Chapter 2 in 'Janet & John' and would therefore probably fail to see the diametric influences required to understand that to 'catch the red ball' is an equivalent but from a different frame of reference to 'the red ball will be caught'...'has been caught'...'shall be caught'
English, even the American version, is a linguistic challenge to them at the best of times,one can only marvel at what a stab at the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek would reveal.
At a guess it would define certain prejudices...seems that bigotry might require substance, what would be better then the original biblical document to provide!
With a little translational artistic impression of course!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 26, 2009 5:32 AM
on this note I feel inclined to present my new favorite example of Anglophone (and especially American) failure at grasping the very concept of grammar:"...my fiancé and I's apartment..."
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 26, 2009 5:38 AM
-Absurdly stupid to be sure...but still, it's only a 14 member church.-
How many other churches of 14 members are there though?
-Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.-
If that was in the bible from the beginning, why was the slave trade begun in the first place by christians? Children of Ham anyone?
Your silly book says whatever people want it to say. Therefore it is useless. A thing to be manipulated and abused.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 26, 2009 5:49 AM
#97
"So what did the Atheists do about the existence of that abominable institution?"
What atheists?
And even if they were vocal in those times why would the church listen to atheists instead of burning them?
And trying to blame atheists or atheism for the trade kindda sums up theist morality in general.
Theists condoned the practice absolutely...Church brethren were by and large the beneficiaries and indeed the Church itself owned a significant proportion of the trade and employed the pick of the fresh arrivals.
The trade was sanctioned by god...at least that was the consensus at the time...no one mentioned Galatians 5:1: at the time...no one!
It took a civil war in America and 26 years of Parliamentary hot air in Blighty to kick the abhorrence finally into touch!
The fact that the Brit abolitionist was an evangelical reinforces the point that the the church position could only be addressed by one of their own...still took a lifetime to achieve mind!
An Atheist would not be in any position to challenge the trade.
Trying to blame atheism is not a very honest position...in fact it is typical of xian dissonance and a trademark of general xian character.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 26, 2009 5:51 AM
They didn't use the bible to justify it, that's for sure.
Galations?
Meh. That obviously did not persuade a single one of the many Christian slave-dealers and slave-owners for centuries -- the verse does not appear to be one generally used by Abolitionists.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 26, 2009 5:55 AM
A lot. Those super-small Babtist splinter churches are very common: Westboro Baptist Church has about 100 members with 90 of them direct descendants (plus spouses) of Fred himself; and the congregation of Pastor Anderson (of the "Why I hate Barack Obama" sermon) is probably that small as well.Posted by: Richard Eis | October 26, 2009 6:03 AM
Only on pharyngula do your rhetorical questions get confirmed. Possibly with citations.
Thanks Jadehawk...and remind me never to go to the "south".
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | October 26, 2009 6:12 AM
I'm quite likely wrong, but I thought the word "lap" (when used to mean that unique (?) part of the body that a person has only when sitting down) exists in very few languages other than English.
Eg - in French, people sit on someone's knees or thighs, which loses some of the associated meaning it has in English, and hence have to use English for things such as "laptop", "lap dancer" etc.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 26, 2009 6:17 AM
a word for lap exists in German. the reason words like "laptop" are spreading is because of the Anglicization of many languages (because English=cool, apparently)
:-(
Posted by: wiley | October 26, 2009 6:22 AM
@Strangest brew#97
"What atheists?"
Thomas Jefferson. Atheism claims the great man to be one of their own, so wiggle out of that one before you claim the moral high ground, Sunshine.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 26, 2009 6:24 AM
a slight challenge and apologies but back to translation again....the challenge find a word in English that translates this example of a Dutch word in context!
'Klunen'
"Klunen (pronounce the u sharp, as in Munich) is a Frisian verb. It means walking on ice skates.
To understand why one would ever come up such a verb, one must know the tradition of (ice)skating, which is immensely popular all throughout The Netherlands. People skate over long distances on the many lakes, and canals that interconnect them. Frequently, long distance skating tours are organized. For instance, the most famous trip, the Elfstedentocht ("Eleven Cities Tour") stretches for about 220 km/138 mi, all on "natural ice" (as opposed to man made ice of skating rinks).
Oftentimes there are stretches where the ice is too thin to skate safely; for instance the water under bridges does not freeze over completely, and some canals are kept open for ships. In this case, the skaters get off the ice, and walk (or if it's a competition run) to a location where they can again enter the ice floor safely.
It would take too much time to remove the skates, so they are kept on. People put old carpets, wooden planks, or straw on the ground to protect the skate blades."
Posted by: Russ Painter | October 26, 2009 6:24 AM
Yeeee haaaaw! Put on yer boots maw, theys gonna be a book burnin.
Posted by: marek14 | October 26, 2009 6:30 AM
Czech has a word for "lap" as well. Although it can be used, poetically, for, say, organs in the vicinity, especially female ones.
Actually, that might be the original meaning, since another of the word's meanings is "wedge".
Would Mr. Dembski have more success with a "Lap Strategy"?
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 26, 2009 6:34 AM
Why, when anyone with an speck of knowledge knows that he was a Deist?
Says the guy whose God commits and commands genocide, in addition to permitting and sometimes commanding slavery.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 26, 2009 6:34 AM
# 108
"Thomas Jefferson. Atheism claims the great man to be one of their own, so wiggle out of that one before you claim the moral high ground, Sunshine."
Well 'Sunshine' seeing as Jefferson died 20 years before the slave trade ended then it is doubtful he had any significant influence at all on the nonsense!
And as theists like to point out...'it was a very different morality at play in those days'...
Stop trying to be smart 'Sunshine' you are tripping over your own IQ!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 26, 2009 6:36 AM
wiley you numbskull, Jefferson was a deist freethinker; and even if he had been an atheist, if a single man could have single-handedly ended the slave-trade, we'd have to pronounce him god.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 6:36 AM
What a dishonest little shit wiley is. Slavery is condoned in both OT and NT, and Christians ran the entire trade for centuries, often justifying it by claiming that the slaves benefited because their "souls" could be saved, even as they were kidnapped, raped, bought, sold and brutalised. Open atheists were not allowed into the UK Parliament, or permitted any sort of influence, until well after abolition. For that matter, even after the trade itself was banned, the industrial revolution in Britain was heavily dependent on slave labour to supply the cotton that first gave Britain its dominant position. The man most responsible for the end of slavery in the USA, Abraham Lincoln, was not a Christian.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
October 26, 2009 6:46 AM
I once met a translator in Prague who'd been working on the Guiness Book of Records. She was attempting to convey "bog snorkelling" into Czech without taking up the entire page. She was not happy.
You could think of two language's takes on a given text as being like the digital versions of the same scene being captured on two different sensors. On a gross level you'll get "the same" image. But if one sensor has hexagonal pixels and the other has squares- and one has a circular patch of higher pixel density in one place and the other has a rectangular patch somewhere else- then fine details will not be the same. And in language fine details can matter.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 26, 2009 6:53 AM
Acid Rain (wiley), there is no atheist dogma to draw from, so of course atheists would have to rely on something other than atheism to justify being for or against slavery. Jefferson rewrote the holy babble, but did he remove the parts calling for slavery or the parts calling for abolition? If not, he was no better or worse than many slaveholding Christians who relied on the holy babble to justify their evil ways. Either way, the holy babble was a tool of evil — still is. Wiggle out of that, Acid Rain, before claiming the moral high ground.Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | October 26, 2009 7:07 AM
JadeHawk #107
Of course you're quite right that often non-English languages now use English words because it's "cool", but not always. I don't think the French used "le weekend" because it was "cool", but because they just didn't have a word for it.
I don't think English uses a lot of Indian words (eg pyjamas, juggernaut, bungalow, pariah, bandana, shampoo, catamaran, dinghy and - appropriately enough here - dungarees) because they were "cool", but because they had no native English words for these things.
Of course, once you start regularily using a foreign word, you DO have a word for it in your own language. Some things are just not worth translating, it gets too longwinded.
Posted by: Marek14 | October 26, 2009 7:07 AM
116:
I can imagine. I have a concept idea of what "bog snorkelling" is, but rendering it in Czech is not easy. The digital sensors parabla is pretty good :)
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | October 26, 2009 7:14 AM
aratina cage # 117
"Jefferson rewrote the holy babble, but did he remove the parts calling for slavery or the parts calling for abolition?"
What parts calling for the aboiltion of slavery? There aren't any. There are over a hundred references to slavery in the OT and NT, and they are either supportive or neutral.
Funny that Yahweh didn't think "Thou shall not enslave another" worth including in the Ten Commandments.
Posted by: Ray Moscow | October 26, 2009 7:15 AM
Believe it. I've known preachers who maintain that very point: the KJV is the only true version, and all other translations are "per-versions".
This was in the US south, but I know one Baptist preacher in Chicago who had similar views about the KJV and the "received text".
However, actually burning other Bibles is something new for me.
Posted by: Walton | October 26, 2009 7:15 AM
Fin de semaine?
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | October 26, 2009 7:19 AM
Walton # 122
Is "the end of the week" the same as "the weekend"?
Posted by: lewis e haymes | October 26, 2009 7:21 AM
Quickly now! Everyone mail Pastor Grizzard your copies of translations (non KJV of course) c.o.d. and he'll take care of the abominable things for you
Posted by: TomS | October 26, 2009 7:36 AM
@Walton #96:
At one time, there was a widespread belief that the original Hebrew text of the Bible was perverted by the Jews, so that the traditional Latin version was more true to the original, lost text. Among other side benefits of that idea is that it justified the burning of Torahs.
One might also mention that when comes across a KJV today, it is usually modified from the original KJV. There is some modernizing of the spelling and such. And also, KJVs that I've seen have usually removed the Apocrypha.
The most important thing is for one's own beliefs be held against any intrusion of independent authority, such as reality.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 26, 2009 8:05 AM
Heh. You're right, I misspoke. Even wiley's Galatians reference does not appear to have anything to do with abolition but with departing from the practice of male circumcision.Posted by: Carlie | October 26, 2009 8:15 AM
Sacre bleu! The French had no weekends until les Americains told them about it? No wonder they suffered from so much ennui. ;)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 26, 2009 8:15 AM
As several people pointed out in that thread, we should seriously start calling it Conservapœdia instead.
There are lots and lots of words with the same roots. But phrase-wise, there are plenty of things that all of the European mainland (except presumably Hungarian) does one way, and English does another way. Splendid isolation, I suppose.
See? This is such a thing. German and Polish and almost all the rest of Indo-European have genitive endings; English has a genitive clitic instead, which attaches to entire phrases rather than only to words. Example: the king of Sparta's wife is {the king of Sparta}'s wife, not the king of {Sparta's wife}. Translating it into German yields something very different: die Frau des Königs von Sparta, literally the woman the's king's of=from Sparta.
Why not, actually?
Well, because it might create a black hole of stupidity in Oklahoma. But the population density might not get big enough for that.
Except that the Qur'an was at first written without the short vowels (as usual in Arabic). Most of the time this doesn't matter, because the vowels basically are more part of the grammar than of the word, so you can just guess them, but nonetheless, when the requirement to spell even the short vowels out was introduced after 100 years or something, fourteen different readings of the Qur'an already existed. They differ in meaning in a few points. All fourteen are still in use, AFAIK.
It goes without saying that Hebrew and Aramaic have pretty much the same problem.
More later, have to go urgently.
Posted by: littlejohn | October 26, 2009 8:17 AM
When, as a teenager, I forced myself to read the entire bible, it was a KJV (I was, nominally, an Episcopalian). The bible is a dreary, long tiresome book in any version, but at least the Elizabethan language of the King James is at times beautiful. It was compiled around the time of Shakespeare, and sounds a bit like Shakespeare, if Shakespeare had been a delusional asshat. Of course, the KJV-only idiots have never read Shakespeare, or, one assumes, anything else. Why do they attach such significance to that particular version, among so many, none of which comes close to the original dead languages? Is god an old gay British guy given to flowery prose?
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 26, 2009 8:18 AM
#126
So not only is the xian preoccupation of cherry picking a sentence of scripture can be shown to be disingenuous but the more out of context with the subject they are cherry picking for then all to the better!
Of course the paucity of relevant specific text to support the more outrageous contentions that they hold does not really help their cause, seems they have no choice but to misrepresent and basically lie as to intent, otherwise they have absolutely zilch, just bigotry and hatred.
Desperation in xian hands becomes rather ugly, if not actually felonious!
Posted by: Giddy in Godlessness | October 26, 2009 8:20 AM
Oh yes .. the KJ version is the only correct one. NOOOOOOO editing because of social and political pressures for crowd control of the ignorant masses EEEVER took place in that version.
Living and teaching in NC were 3 of the most unfulfilling and terrifying years of my life. The Mason-Dixon Line is the edge of the flat Earth for me!
Posted by: Mountain Humanist | October 26, 2009 8:29 AM
Perhaps they will burn the heretical LOL CATS version of the Bible (God can haz chezzbrgr?).
http://www.lolcatbible.com/
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 8:33 AM
But phrase-wise, there are plenty of things that all of the European mainland (except presumably Hungarian) does one way, and English does another way. David Marjanović, OM
Tsk, tsk. An unusual slip for you, David - you're forgetting Turkish, Finnish, Georgian and Basque (at least)!
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 26, 2009 8:37 AM
My condolences to both of them.
So now Junior Samples from Hee Haw is teaching Biblical Criticism?
What a world.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 26, 2009 8:42 AM
yawn
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | October 26, 2009 8:51 AM
Wiley:
You might find this article interesting:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/02/darwintheabolitionist/
Posted by: Bruce McNeely
|
October 26, 2009 8:54 AM
Wiley, you might find this article interesting:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/02/darwintheabolitionist/
Posted by: Rowen
|
October 26, 2009 8:56 AM
For those of you who are confused as to why RTCs only use the KJV, Jack Chick is pretty clear on that, usual historical innacuracies aside.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp
And, I would like to point out that I am an educated Southerner, who realizes that many people in the South are just plain ignorant (speaking of translation issues, ignorant USED to just mean something like "without knowledge of" or something similar. The current meaning/use is a lot more sinister.), but I've noticed that lots of people, all over the world, are just plain stupid and happy to wallow in their stupidity.
Posted by: Valdyr | October 26, 2009 8:57 AM
As some others have already pointed out, Gizzard is not quite maximizing his Hillbilly Stereotype Points. Personally, I think he needs to wear the overalls without a shirt underneath, and keep a jar of moonshine on the little shelf in his preaching pulpit. Not a jug, mind you. A Mason jar full of moonshine. No handle.
Lord, but he does get parched at times, preachin' the Gospel... needs somethin' to wet his whistle, iff'n you catch m'drift.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 26, 2009 9:02 AM
Funny how when people make statements like this it makes them seem even more idiotic than the group they are wanting to denigrate.
moron
Fine, but you'll miss out on a great area.
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | October 26, 2009 9:05 AM
littlejohn #129
Some people actually believe the KJV was written by Shakespeare.
Shakespeare was 46 when the King James Bible was written, and 46th word from the start of Psalm 46 is "shake" and the 46th word from the end is "spear". Oooh, spooky, huh?
Probably Dan Brown's next book - "Da Willy Code".
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
October 26, 2009 9:53 AM
> I will never understand why some fundies are so obsessed with the KJV.
Mostly because it's what they grew up with. Plus, as I think Clive James pointed out, the KJV was written at a time when the English language was so strong that it could be successfully written by a committee (as the KJV was).
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
October 26, 2009 10:23 AM
@141: sadly, those words in those places were already present in earlier English versions before the KJV and before Shakespeare. But that won't stop Dan Brown (hawk, spit).
Posted by: kopd
|
October 26, 2009 11:14 AM
@ Rev, #140
"Funny how when people make statements like this it makes them seem even more idiotic than the group they are wanting to denigrate."
Sounds like a corollary to Mooney's Law. :-)
Perhaps this and Mooney's are applications of a more generic law: "People who are careless in pointing out undesirable qualities in others will exhibit said qualities in themselves, often to greater extent."
Posted by: Caine
|
October 26, 2009 11:48 AM
My copy of Robert Crumb's Illustrated Genesis arrived last week. Read it that evening. The graphic format really brings out the WTF value of Genesis. A happy addition to my bookshelf.
Posted by: DemetriusOfPharos | October 26, 2009 12:14 PM
Wait, so on _Halloween_ night, a small group of _Christians_ are going to have a large bonfire to appease their God? You know what? I can't even properly mock this, its already to ridiculous.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 26, 2009 1:05 PM
Who claims otherwise?
there weren't enough of them.
Please!
Think a little!
"Yoke" is a metaphor.
So why don't you consider "bondage" and "entangled" metaphors, too, and "liberty" and "free" as applying to freedom from sin (another metaphor) rather than literal freedom? Obviously, lots of Christians did for centuries.
"Lap" can indeed be translated 1 : 1, without the Czech connotations explained in comment 111: Schoß.
But how would you translate "top"…? I'd do it differently depending on the situation, and none of the ways applies to "laptop", "desktop" or "palmtop".
In Québec, yes. In France, apparently not.
Possibly, but I'm actually not so sure about those in this context. ;-)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 26, 2009 1:12 PM
except that in modern times, this applies exclusively to computer-related stuff. But when German businesses suddenly start calling backbacks "body bags"(!) because Rucksack isn't cool enough, or when the Polish word for soccer/football suddenly becomes futbol when for ages it's been piłka nożna, that's nothing but Anglicization by replacing already existing words with new, "cooler" English words.Posted by: eddie
|
October 26, 2009 1:27 PM
Hey! That photie. That's T.C.
Posted by: Leon | October 26, 2009 3:31 PM
Makes me glad the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is based on the King James Version! Guess they can't touch it, huh?
Posted by: wiley | October 26, 2009 5:30 PM
Thanx 4 that article, Bruce McNeely. Darwin also financially supported SAMS (South American Missionary Society). He would, presumably, be appalled to learn that his Theory of Evolution is now used as a weapon against the Gospel he helped to spread.
David Marjonovic: it doesn't matter how you dissemble it, the fact is it was Christians like Wilberforce who stopped the slave trade. It may have taken 1800 years (or rather less than 200 years, if you follow my argument in #90) for them to realize that slavery is incompatible with the teaching of Christ, and its only you Atheists that claim otherwise.
Posted by: speedweasel
|
October 26, 2009 5:31 PM
@Newfie (#18) said;
Damn. I was 20 hours too slow.
Oh well, vote Newfie for +1 Internets.
Posted by: wiley | October 26, 2009 5:48 PM
Apologies, #151 poorly expressed.
These days, it is only Atheists that claim that slavery is compatible with Christianity.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 26, 2009 5:52 PM
@ #153
Might have something to do with the fact that many atheists know the Bible better than most Christians. It also has a lot to do with the fact that "Christianity" is such a nebulous term. Everything is compatible with Christianity - you just have to find the right sect.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 5:59 PM
He [Darwin] would, presumably, be appalled to learn that his Theory of Evolution is now used as a weapon against the Gospel he helped to spread. - wiley
Not necessarily, because he changed his mind about Christianity (but not about slavery).
Wiley, it doesn't matter how you dissemble it, the fact is it was Christians who ran the slave trade, and justified it both from the Bible, and because being enslaved allowed the slaves' "souls" to be saved.
Posted by: CJO | October 26, 2009 6:07 PM
These days, it is only Atheists that claim that slavery is compatible with Christianity.
Huh. You mean Christians aren't at pains to highlight the brutal and oppressive legacy of their tradition? Go figure.
"These days" there is no institutionalized slave trade and chattel slavery is considered reprehensible by all but the worst of white-supremicists. But the fact remains, Christians ran the slave trade, and scripture was adduced as support for the practice. It clearly was compatible with Christianity as practiced at the time by some self-professed Christians. Hell, despite your cherry-picked quotation from Galatians, the practice was acceptable to Paul, the ur-Christian. (1 Cor. and Philemon)
So, slave owners and traders either weren't True Christians, i.e. their practice wasn't normative Christian practice, even at the time, or the definition of "True Christian" has changed, or slavery is not incompatible with Christianity. Atheism and atheists have nothing to do with it. It's something your faith tradition needs to work out, and the empty claim that slavery is incompatible with Christianity as practiced in all times and all places won't do it.
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 26, 2009 6:30 PM
Hi Marek14,
You may very well be an experienced translator but take care when pronouncing to others that your trade requires skills which are very hard to master.
You know how that "sounds" dont you - boastful and pretentious. A bit like scientists and theologists who say "..oh its really really complicated and very few people can understand."
There is a very simple premise here.
Humanity is a language every human can understand.
There is NO word which cannot be translated. If there was such a word it could not be taught to an infant adopted into a family which lives where that word exists (culture)
And there is no Word of God which cannot be understood in any language on earth. If there was then God would be proven to have a disability.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 26, 2009 6:34 PM
The compatibility of slavery and Christianity isn't just historical, and isn't just Biblical.
If you look at the basic premise of Christianity, it's that men were created by an Authority to whom they owe complete submission. This Authority made them, and therefore owns them. Their only joy is to do its bidding. Their great crime is the refusal to recognize this duty, reject the only possible source of happiness, and, instead, try to go their own way. The purpose of suffering on earth is to show human beings what happens when they try to live for themselves, depend on the world, and not allow their Master to guide them. This sin of self-rule, of selfishness and worldliness, is so evil that it required a perfect sacrifice to take on the blame -- otherwise, rebellion merits death, eternal punishment, and banishment from the Creator.
To prepare humans to recognize their Ultimate Master, God places lesser masters over them -- parents, priests, and kings. Each person on earth has been given the task of cultivating the attitude of obedience and selflessness, love of God, and indifference to the world. The story ends when the creatures who have renounced their rebellious, self-seeking spirit, have become meek, mild, and submit humbly like lambs to their Ultimate Shepherd, allowing Him to rule them, that they may thankfully fill the place they were made for.
Now, come on. Are you really saying you see no way that the idea of slavery -- of submitting willingly to just authority in a moral hierarchy -- fits in with this rather nicely?
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 6:38 PM
Humanity is a language every human can understand. - Lyin Erk
Simple, yes; and simply false: humanity is not a language.
And there is no Word of God which cannot be understood in any language on earth.
Well, I have to admit that's true: there is no god, hence there is no word of god, hence there is no word of god which cannot be understood in any language on earth.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 26, 2009 6:41 PM
Funny how when people make statements like this it makes them seem even more idiotic than the group they are wanting to denigrate.
All right, I apologize - but it was right there in front of me; I couldn't help myself. "It was just sitting there, officer..."
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 26, 2009 6:47 PM
There is NO word which cannot be translated. If there was such a word it could not be taught to an infant adopted into a family which lives where that word exists (culture)
And there is no Word of God which cannot be understood in any language on earth. If there was then God would be proven to have a disability.
Oh, my freakin' FSM. How two-dimensional can you get?
A-square, is that you?
Posted by: CJO | October 26, 2009 6:52 PM
There is NO word which cannot be translated. If there was such a word it could not be taught to an infant adopted into a family which lives where that word exists (culture)
Ooh, fun, Concentrated stupid! *Pulls and stretches like silly putty*
Are you talking about an infant acquiring a first language? If so, no teaching required, and utterly irrelevant to questions of translation.
Regarding translation in general: it's not a simple matter of word-to-word correspondences, though there can be issues even at that level. No, the problem is that translation from one natural language to another is always, ineluctably, a matter of interpretation. Languages always contain "non-literal" elements, even in everyday usage, idionms and metaphors that may not be easily converted into the other language's idioms, and cannot just be rendered sensibly by plugging in the corresponding words. Move to literary texts, which often are dense with metaphor, wordplay, and verse, and the problems of interpretation multiply rapidly. This applies fully to literary texts claimed to be inspired by gods.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 26, 2009 6:56 PM
Stupid twit, there is no Word of God since god doesn't exist, except between your delusional ears. It keeps coming down to that. The concept of god is a fiction. All else is irrelevant.Posted by: kopd | October 26, 2009 8:53 PM
Humanity is a language
Ha! And my ham and cheese sandwich is a theology.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 26, 2009 10:11 PM
what a delightful example of Dunning-Kruger. For most things, skills and knowledge that are hard to master are a given. Your desire for everything to be simple and easy does not make it so.
your premise is wrong. humanity is not a language, and even people speaking the same language can and do often misunderstand each other. Fractal Fail.
there is no crocoduck, therefore evolution can't be true.
well, nonexistence is a sort of disability, if you will...Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 26, 2009 10:24 PM
Ha! And my ham and cheese sandwich is a theology.
Gruyere or emmentaler? I see a schism.
Posted by: kopd | October 26, 2009 10:33 PM
Not a schism - a rift. And it's deep, not bitter!
Posted by: wiley | October 26, 2009 10:37 PM
Much obliged, Sastra & others, for demonstrating my point so aptly. I'll just stand here in the liberty wherewith Christ hath set me free, because the version your preaching don't impressa me much. Whatsfurthermore, whereas some individual atheists may believe in freedom, Atheism has nothing to with it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 26, 2009 10:44 PM
Your point was that slavery was and is compatible with Christianity?
Set you "free" from what?
You mean the version preached by most Christians for most of the existence of Christianity?
So?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 26, 2009 11:00 PM
Not completely. Sastra mentioned how Christianity and indeed most religions are authoritarian with a dictatorial deity (the chief deity) at their heart. So in as much as theists think they must worship a deity, atheists do not have that stumbling block to contend with when developing moral beliefs. Atheism does not have anything to do with human freedom, but theism makes it that much harder to be a moral person with its celestial dictatorship™ a la Hitchens.Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 27, 2009 2:48 AM
I'll just stand here in the liberty wherewith Christ hath set me free
You people just LOVE the drama of KJV English, don't you? Makes you feel all kinda omnipotent.
You and your holy book should get a room.
Posted by: Marek14 | October 27, 2009 7:10 AM
157:
Being a plumber, artisan, or any of hundreds of human professions requires to master difficult skills. That's what makes them professions. Each human being spends time to learn his or her trade - why should mine be an exception? If claiming that I had to learn in order to do my job is boastful, then so be it, I do care not. Or should I be proud of being ignorant of any language but my own?
Scientists have to learn a lot to do their job. And yes, even theologians have to learn. Whether the skills learned are actually desirable, that is another question whatsoever.
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 27, 2009 8:47 AM
- Thanks Jadehawk...and remind me never to go to the "south".
Fine, but you'll miss out on a great area.-
I'm a loud opinionated english gay atheist. I would probably last about 20 seconds. Just long enough for people to finish ticking every "going to hell via a pitchfork" box.
The tourist board must hate the creationists and scientists with a vengeance.