logo Sign In

What are you reading? — Page 30

Author
Time
Post link

oojason said:

RayRogers said:

dahmage said:

chyron8472 said:

dahmage said:

RayRogers said:

Stephen King’s IT, Page 423 of 1041. (7 pt. font on Universal Book Reader for Android. Physical book is in storage.)

which font family?

I can’t tell if that’s a serious question. E-Readers usually have multiple selectable fonts.

it wasn’t?

I also don’t understand why you would buy the physical book, but not read it. Reading a physical book is usually faster (according to the random research i have seen, google it yourself). Maybe if RayRogers was reading the book he would be done by now :p

That is intended to be good natured ribbing by the way.

Usually on the bus getting to work and also campus. Even bought the book well over 20 years ago, it’s in storage, and that’s just too much shit to lug around all day, everyday.

Also reading: Who Gives a Flying Fuck? by Handy Wankstein III.

It would seem I missed the ‘joke’ of this - it may well not have been an insult - and I have misinterpreted the last line of the post above.

My apologies to RayRogers - who is as of right now - unbanned.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

DuracellEnergizer said:

Kings James Version? Pfft. New Revised Standard Version or bust.

eh. New International Version or New Living Translation.
2011 NIV is fine. I’m not picky about it being the '84 NIV like some people might be.

New King James Version might be “poetic”, but I imagine that wasn’t the intent of the original authors of the scrolls/books (outside of Psalms and Song of Solomon, obviously). KJV has also been said to be the least accurate translation, but is widely popular because a) there is no copyright; and b) it was the first ever english translation widely available to the public at large.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

chyron8472 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Kings James Version? Pfft. New Revised Standard Version or bust.

eh. New International Version or New Living Translation.
2011 NIV is fine. I’m not picky about it being the '84 NIV like some people might be.

New King James Version might be “poetic”, but I imagine that wasn’t the intent of the original authors of the scrolls/books (outside of Psalms and Song of Solomon, obviously). KJV has also been said to be the least accurate translation, but is widely popular because a) there is no copyright; and b) it was the first ever english translation widely available to the public at large.

I don’t know where you get that idea about the KJV. The scholars involved in that translation were very meticulous about being accurate with their translation. So much so that they italicized any word they had to add for clarity in the English language. So that the reader is always clear about what is actually in the text.

The NIV on the other hand is very liberal about changing the scriptures to suit the translators’ doctrine.

The KJV has its own issues but they’re nowhere near as profound as the NIV.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Kings James Version? Pfft. New Revised Standard Version or bust.

eh. New International Version or New Living Translation.
2011 NIV is fine. I’m not picky about it being the '84 NIV like some people might be.

New King James Version might be “poetic”, but I imagine that wasn’t the intent of the original authors of the scrolls/books (outside of Psalms and Song of Solomon, obviously). KJV has also been said to be the least accurate translation, but is widely popular because a) there is no copyright; and b) it was the first ever english translation widely available to the public at large.

Let’s see, off the top of my head, I own the NASB, AMP, NRSV, KJV, NKJV, NJB, NAB, NIV '84, NLT, TLB, NWT, and IV. I’ve had opportunities to get the others, but the approaches of these ones interested me. Really, I’ve only read the KJV throughout. I’ve wanted to read the NIV, but I’ve never taken the time to get more than a few chapters through Genesis.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Tobar said:

chyron8472 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Kings James Version? Pfft. New Revised Standard Version or bust.

eh. New International Version or New Living Translation.
2011 NIV is fine. I’m not picky about it being the '84 NIV like some people might be.

New King James Version might be “poetic”, but I imagine that wasn’t the intent of the original authors of the scrolls/books (outside of Psalms and Song of Solomon, obviously). KJV has also been said to be the least accurate translation, but is widely popular because a) there is no copyright; and b) it was the first ever english translation widely available to the public at large.

I don’t know where you get that idea about the KJV. The scholars involved in that translation were very meticulous about being accurate with their translation. So much so that they italicized any word they had to add for clarity in the English language. So that the reader is always clear about what is actually in the text.

The NIV on the other hand is very liberal about changing the scriptures to suit the translators’ doctrine.

The KJV has its own issues but they’re nowhere near as profound as the NIV.

Suffice it to say we have better tools, methods and knowledge regarding translations of ancient Greek than they did back then. And they did not translate the original KJV Bible from scratch, but rather from another translation of the Bible.

https://www.crosswalk.com/culture/books/non-fiction/how-accurate-is-the-kjv-400-years-later.html

Zondervan has said that a reason why many people take issue with the changes from the 1984 NIV to the 2011 NIV is because of the gap between editions. Prior to 1984, Zondervan apparently had released updates to the translation more closely together.

The reasoning why it’s problematic to just have one English translation, that forever unchangingly stands as the definitive version, is because language doesn’t work that way. The original writers were not, for the most part, writing verse. They were writing letters and such to each other in common regional languages of the time. Language changes over time, which is why it is even difficult for us to understand Shakespeare without having to ponder the orginal meaning.

And if by “doctrine” you’re referring to the '11 NIV including “brothers and sisters” in places, my understanding is that the wording used in the original source text was considered more gender-neutral back then than to deliberately address only just men.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

darth_ender said:

I’ve wanted to read the NIV, but I’ve never taken the time to get more than a few chapters through Genesis.

If you ever attend BSF (Bible Study Fellowship), they primarily use NIV in their study materials. They say you technically can use whatever translation you want, but there are study questions that directly ask your response to a particular given wording.

That’s why I got a new NIV thinline Bible for my wife a few years ago, when she generally prefers NLT. NLT is easier to just straight up read like a book, but she was attending BSF at the time.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

Suffice it to say we have better tools, methods and knowledge regarding translations of ancient Greek than they did back then. And they did not translate the original KJV Bible from scratch, but rather from another translation of the Bible.

The KJV was translated using over 5000 different sources in Hebrew, Greek and Latin; collectively known as the Textus Receptus. In the 1800s two new versions of the New Testament were discovered, written in Coptic Egyptian and known as the Alexandrian Codices. They dated back further than the texts in the Textus Receptus and so were believed to be more accurate. They vary wildly from the Textus Receptus, even omitting entire verses and are what most modern English translations (including the NIV) are based on.

HOWEVER, in the time since there have been over 24,000 fragments and complete texts of the New Testament discovered. Many of which are older than the Alexandrian Codices. They’ve been assembled together collectively as The Majority Text. With all 24,000 pieces available for comparison, they agree over 90% with the original Textus Receptus. The basis of the King James Bible.

chyron8472 said:

And if by “doctrine” you’re referring to the '11 NIV including “brothers and sisters” in places, my understanding is that the wording used in the original source text was considered more gender-neutral back then than to deliberately address only just men.

By doctrine I mean the myriad examples listed in that second link in my post.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link

I like the ESV translation, but then again I’m not religious in any way (though I was raised Episcopalian) and read it on occasion in the same way I read Greek/Norse/other mythology related texts.

Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Kings James Version? Pfft. New Revised Standard Version or bust.

eh. New International Version or New Living Translation.
2011 NIV is fine. I’m not picky about it being the '84 NIV like some people might be.

New King James Version might be “poetic”, but I imagine that wasn’t the intent of the original authors of the scrolls/books (outside of Psalms and Song of Solomon, obviously). KJV has also been said to be the least accurate translation, but is widely popular because a) there is no copyright; and b) it was the first ever english translation widely available to the public at large.

and c) Too those of us that have used it since childhood, it just sounds and feels right. I am not a KJV onlyist, but there is just something about the KJV.

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Kings James Version? Pfft. New Revised Standard Version or bust.

eh. New International Version or New Living Translation.
2011 NIV is fine. I’m not picky about it being the '84 NIV like some people might be.

New King James Version might be “poetic”, but I imagine that wasn’t the intent of the original authors of the scrolls/books (outside of Psalms and Song of Solomon, obviously). KJV has also been said to be the least accurate translation, but is widely popular because a) there is no copyright; and b) it was the first ever english translation widely available to the public at large.

and c) Too those of us that have used it since childhood, it just sounds and feels right. I am not a KJV onlyist, but there is just something about the KJV.

Is it the inaccuracies that really hit home to you?

Author
Time
Post link

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Kings James Version? Pfft. New Revised Standard Version or bust.

eh. New International Version or New Living Translation.
2011 NIV is fine. I’m not picky about it being the '84 NIV like some people might be.

New King James Version might be “poetic”, but I imagine that wasn’t the intent of the original authors of the scrolls/books (outside of Psalms and Song of Solomon, obviously). KJV has also been said to be the least accurate translation, but is widely popular because a) there is no copyright; and b) it was the first ever english translation widely available to the public at large.

and c) Too those of us that have used it since childhood, it just sounds and feels right. I am not a KJV onlyist, but there is just something about the KJV.

Is it the inaccuracies that really hit home to you?

No, it is the reading of things like Psalm 23 and other famous sections of the Bible that hit home, it is the cadence and artistic and poetic abilities that hit home. It just feels right to me, I don’t know how else to say it. Of course I also use the NIV 84 and other translations as well.

Author
Time
Post link

I mean I get that. And it really is beautiful. But with something thats supposed to be the word of God that gives you instructions on how you live your life you’d want it as accurate as possible

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Possessed said:

I mean I get that. And it really is beautiful.

If you get it, I have to wonder why you’d post this wisecrack:

Possessed said:

Is it the inaccuracies that really hit home to you?

Possessed said:

But with something thats supposed to be the word of God that gives you instructions on how you live your life you’d want it as accurate as possible

Hence why I am not a KJV onlyist. One can use multiple translations.

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

Possessed said:

I mean I get that. And it really is beautiful.

If you get it, I have to wonder why you’d post this wisecrack:

Possessed said:

Is it the inaccuracies that really hit home to you?

Mostly because of the other thing I posted that you also quoted in the same post.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

But again, language changes over time; and one language doesn’t necessarily have the same vocabulary of meaning for specific words that others do. This is why there are various translations—some of which place more emphasis on specific individual word-for-word translation, while others include the context of the whole sentence, paragraph, or section to glean the original meaning (ie. thought-for-thought)—with a continuum between the two.

Some translations are easier to use for a study focused on specific words or phrases, while others are easier to sit and read.

Instead of my just googling it, I ought to actually ask someone I know IRL about the validity of the claims I’ve heard that KJV isn’t as accurate as newer translations. But even still, while various verses I have memorized have been done so in the NKJV (see Warbler’s mention of “cadence”), in general I find (N)KJV more of a slog to read. If I’m in a bible study and someone is audibly reading from King James, I find myself focusing more on mentally interpreting the vocabulary than pondering the passage itself.

With a version like King James, you have to read the passage and then stop now and then to say “in other words, it means [this]”. As opposed to the Bible straight up speaking for itself as to what it means and not having to retranslate archaic words.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

With a version like King James, you have to read the passage and then stop now and then to say “in other words, it means [this]”. As opposed to the Bible straight up speaking for itself as to what it means and not having to retranslate archaic words.

Christianese is a real problem, and bible translations like the KJV only make it worse. related: how do you pronounce “beloved”

Author
Time
Post link

chyron8472 said:

With a version like King James, you have to read the passage and then stop now and then to say “in other words, it means [this]”. As opposed to the Bible straight up speaking for itself as to what it means and not having to retranslate archaic words.

One of my Bible College professors was really lazy with his correspondence courses. While the entire program was built on the NIV, this correspondence course I took was apparently something he found that used the KJV. A lot of the questions were asking what this archaic word means in this verse, when my NIV just had the modern word for it.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time
Post link

I apparently have accidentally stumbled into the What Bible are you reading? thread.

Author
Time
Post link

dahmage said:

chyron8472 said:

With a version like King James, you have to read the passage and then stop now and then to say “in other words, it means [this]”. As opposed to the Bible straight up speaking for itself as to what it means and not having to retranslate archaic words.

Christianese is a real problem,

excuse me???

and bible translations like the KJV only make it worse. related: how do you pronounce “beloved”

be-loved

I hope that it understandable. It is difficult to tell how something is pronounced without being able to actually speak to you.

Author
Time
Post link

doubleofive said:

chyron8472 said:

With a version like King James, you have to read the passage and then stop now and then to say “in other words, it means [this]”. As opposed to the Bible straight up speaking for itself as to what it means and not having to retranslate archaic words.

One of my Bible College professors was really lazy with his correspondence courses. While the entire program was built on the NIV, this correspondence course I took was apparently something he found that used the KJV. A lot of the questions were asking what this archaic word means in this verse, when my NIV just had the modern word for it.

weird.