logo Sign In

Random Thoughts — Page 418

Author
Time
Post link

TV’s Frink said:

Ryan-SWI said:

Yeah, forgot how hard it is for some people to realise there’s a world outside their own little bubble

This is idiotic.

One post prior you were replying directly to someone else. There was no reason assume you weren’t still engaged directly in the conversation taking place here as opposed to suddenly veering off into “everywhere else” territory in your next post.

But what should I have expected from someone who thinks “retarded” is a perfectly reasonable and not at all offensive insult?

Aren’t insults supposed to be offensive? 😉

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t know about the whole debate, but from what I’ve read, the KJV is much more poetic and straightforward, while the new translations are very watered down and often so concerned about direct translation that they are wordy and awkward.

That is not the reason the KJV only people are KJV only. What it has to with is that most of the newer translations come from different sources than the KJV. For example the New Testament of the KJV is mostly translated from the Textus Receptus where as the New Testament of most of the newer translations comes from the Nestle-Aland text. There are various differences between the texts. There are multiple verses that appear in the Textus Receptus, but not in the Nestle-Aland text. It is believed that through the years when people were copying the text years and years ago that the text was added to. The verses that appear in the textus Receptus but not in the Nestle-Aland text are verses that are thought to not have originally been part of the Bible. They were therefore removed. This is why some verses (like Acts 8:37) appear in the KJV but not in most newer translations. KJV onlyists believe the sources used for the new versions are corrupt. They believe that instances like Acts 8:37 are actually attempts to remove things from and change the Word of God. They believe that Satan is behind the newer versions and he created them to keep people away from the real word of God(the KJV). Some KJV onlyists think the Catholic Church is behind the newer versions. Some KJV onlyists really, really, REALLY, hate Catholics. KJV onlyists tend to be conspiracy minded. Some KJV onlyists are downright crazy. Most are nutty in some shape or form. I read and watched on youtube alot of what they have to say. I find there arguments to have huge gaping defects in logic. Just watch a few of this guy’s videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/husky394xp/videos

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

btw, I am making a project of reading through the entire King James Version and New International Version of the Bible. I have read through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Job, and am party through Deuteronomy in both Bibles.

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

btw, I am making a project of reading through the entire King James Version and New International Version of the Bible. I have read through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Job, and am party through Deuteronomy in both Bibles.

I’ve read the KJV at least five times total, with many other books a lot more than that. The poetic language really makes each book sound much more incredible. I’ve read NKJV, NIV, and NASB once each. NKJV is the best of those three in both accuracy and translation.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

btw, I am making a project of reading through the entire King James Version and New International Version of the Bible. I have read through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Job, and am party through Deuteronomy in both Bibles.

Why Job? It’s not in the middle of the Pentateuch in the KJV, is it?

Author
Time
Post link

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

btw, I am making a project of reading through the entire King James Version and New International Version of the Bible. I have read through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Job, and am party through Deuteronomy in both Bibles.

Why Job? It’s not in the middle of the Pentateuch in the KJV, is it?

Bibles don’t rearrange by translation. Unless you count the inclusion of Apocryphal books in Catholic or Orthodox compilations.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

btw, I am making a project of reading through the entire King James Version and New International Version of the Bible. I have read through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Job, and am party through Deuteronomy in both Bibles.

Why Job? It’s not in the middle of the Pentateuch in the KJV, is it?

No, I am following a reading plan. The reading plan lists Job between Genesis, and Exodus. I think it has to do with when it is thought Job was written.

Author
Time
Post link

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

btw, I am making a project of reading through the entire King James Version and New International Version of the Bible. I have read through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Job, and am party through Deuteronomy in both Bibles.

I’ve read the KJV at least five times total, with many other books a lot more than that. The poetic language really makes each book sound much more incredible.

I agree. The KJV is the Bible I grew up with. It just sound right to me. However there are areas where it is rather difficult to understand and it uses many words that have are no longer used and some that have changed meaning since the KJV was translated.

I’ve read NKJV, NIV, and NASB once each. NKJV is the best of those three in both accuracy and translation.

I have heard that the NASB is the most accurate. But I have no idea if that is true.

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

btw, I am making a project of reading through the entire King James Version and New International Version of the Bible. I have read through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Job, and am party through Deuteronomy in both Bibles.

I’ve read the KJV at least five times total, with many other books a lot more than that. The poetic language really makes each book sound much more incredible.

I agree. The KJV is the Bible I grew up with. It just sound right to me. However there are areas where it is rather difficult to understand and it uses many words that have are no longer used and some that have changed meaning since the KJV was translated.

I’ve read NKJV, NIV, and NASB once each. NKJV is the best of those three in both accuracy and translation.

I have heard that the NASB is the most accurate. But I have no idea if that is true.

It’s OK. My complaints with it revolve around corruption of poetic verses. They altered the “How art thou fallen from Heaven, oh Lucifer,” into something really nonsensical, and deleted the name Lucifer also. I also just prefer the KJV and NKJV’s way of separately indenting each verse.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
Post link

hate to tell you NASB’s way of rendering the verse may be more accurate to the original.

another thing to remember that the originals didn’t have chapter and verse separations. Those came much later.

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

hate to tell you NASB’s way of rendering the verse may be more accurate to the original.

To be quite honest, I don’t particularly care about the direct-translation accuracy. The impact of the verse is watered down by the newer versions.

another thing to remember that the originals didn’t have chapter and verse separations. Those came much later.

I know they didn’t, but it’s easier for me to read when they are indented.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

hate to tell you NASB’s way of rendering the verse may be more accurate to the original.

To be quite honest, I don’t particularly care about the direct-translation accuracy. The impact of the verse is watered down by the newer versions.

if the newer versions are accurate, then what you are saying is that the original is also watered down.

Author
Time
Post link

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m sure that a crappy girl-power movie brings misogynists out of the woodwork, so I’m not doubting that, but I think we might be disagreeing on whether or not being opposed to remaking Ghostbusters with women is misogynist in and of itself.

EDIT: Also, I would call them apples and oranges, but because TFA was a real movie that happened to have a female lead; Ghostbusters is a pointless remake with one of its main purposes and gimmicks being replacing the original cast members with women. That’s why it’s so hated.

As I said, I’m sure a disastrous trailer like this with such a goofy premise draws misogynists in from all over the internet, but let’s not pretend that this would have been received well had it been the same trailer yet with four men.

Certainly there would be hate (honestly I haven’t seen the trailer so I can’t really comment on its quality) but yes my point is that the only reason the hate is record breaking is because of misogyny. And I’m not just talking about the fringe loony bigot contingent of the internet. The world isn’t binary and unfortunately there are a lot of subconscious misogynists out there too (lot of people don’t like to admit this fact). Can’t say with any certainty how many but it’s a factor.

Don’t know if disagreeing about remaking Ghostbusters with women is misogynistic or just close-minded. Nothing about the initial premise of the film necessitated a group of guys. I don’t think making it a group of women is so much a gimmick as it is the director just preferred to work with Wiig and McCarthy and then naturally felt that the whole team could be female. The cast is talented enough. I think the more people can think outside of the go-to male action hero/comedy protagonist standard the better. Ghostbusters was going to be remade anyway, in my mind an all female team actually makes me a bit more interesting (I personally feel remakes are pointless if you aren’t going to do a new take on the material - this definitely qualifies).

Author
Time
Post link

Trident said:

Leonardo said:

Wasn’t there a thread for people that randomly disappear and then come back for a while?
Anyway hello folks, I disappeared and came back! Popped in to say hi, what did I miss?

Hey buddy! Welcome back to the land of trolls and stuff. 😉

We’ve been having a love-fest in the politics thread. And I had a bit of a near-meltdown experience in the Emotional Support thread. But other than that nothing new. And maybe even with those things nothing’s new hey?

How’s it going with you? Any tales from your travels in the great beyond?

I’m constantly busy with a job that so far has no reward, monetary or otherwise. Mostly because even if I am doing fine the rest of the time, I tend to get stuck on my mistakes, my brain won’t move on quick enough from them.
I feel like every day of the week is running slightly ahead of me and I can’t catch up. Sometimes I just wanna stop.

Author
Time
Post link

Leonardo said:

Trident said:

Leonardo said:

Wasn’t there a thread for people that randomly disappear and then come back for a while?
Anyway hello folks, I disappeared and came back! Popped in to say hi, what did I miss?

Hey buddy! Welcome back to the land of trolls and stuff. 😉

We’ve been having a love-fest in the politics thread. And I had a bit of a near-meltdown experience in the Emotional Support thread. But other than that nothing new. And maybe even with those things nothing’s new hey?

How’s it going with you? Any tales from your travels in the great beyond?

I’m constantly busy with a job that so far has no reward, monetary or otherwise. Mostly because even if I am doing fine the rest of the time, I tend to get stuck on my mistakes, my brain won’t move on quick enough from them.
I feel like every day of the week is running slightly ahead of me and I can’t catch up. Sometimes I just wanna stop.

Well I’m glad you’re busy. I mean it can be a bit of a ride. I know what it’s like to hit the ground running each day. I just hope you’re on a path up. Something that pays no dividends of any kind’s got to burn you up in time. So I hope at least the experience is keeping you healthy and aware. And I’m hoping the momentum it’s giving you brings you somewhere hopeful.

Peace Leo.

-Trident

K. Let’s have this ride.

Author
Time
Post link

Leonardo said:

Trident said:

Leonardo said:

Wasn’t there a thread for people that randomly disappear and then come back for a while?
Anyway hello folks, I disappeared and came back! Popped in to say hi, what did I miss?

Hey buddy! Welcome back to the land of trolls and stuff. 😉

We’ve been having a love-fest in the politics thread. And I had a bit of a near-meltdown experience in the Emotional Support thread. But other than that nothing new. And maybe even with those things nothing’s new hey?

How’s it going with you? Any tales from your travels in the great beyond?

I’m constantly busy with a job that so far has no reward, monetary or otherwise. Mostly because even if I am doing fine the rest of the time, I tend to get stuck on my mistakes, my brain won’t move on quick enough from them.
I feel like every day of the week is running slightly ahead of me and I can’t catch up. Sometimes I just wanna stop.

Well I’m glad you’re busy. I mean it can be a bit of a ride. I know what it’s like to hit the ground running each day. I just hope you’re on a path up. Something that pays no dividends of any kind’s got to burn you up in time. So I hope at least the experience is keeping you healthy and aware. And I’m hoping the momentum it’s giving you brings you somewhere hopeful.

Peace Leo.

-Trident

K. Let’s have this ride.

Author
Time
Post link

suspiciouscoffee said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

I had to look up what that even meant.

I’ll admit, so did I.

But why hate on the King James?

Well, he’s obviously one of the best players the NBA has ever seen, and he has won two titles, but the way he’s gone about it has been less than inspiring.

I hear he’ll be in Space Jam 2. The fact that he signed on for it (assuming this is true) means something must be wrong with him.

I’m curious to know how Tyrphanax feels about this…

Welcome back Leo!

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

hate to tell you NASB’s way of rendering the verse may be more accurate to the original.

To be quite honest, I don’t particularly care about the direct-translation accuracy. The impact of the verse is watered down by the newer versions.

if the newer versions are accurate, then what you are saying is that the original is also watered down.

The wording is weaker than in the King James.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
Post link

DominicCobb said:

Don’t know if disagreeing about remaking Ghostbusters with women is misogynistic or just close-minded. Nothing about the initial premise of the film necessitated a group of guys. I don’t think making it a group of women is so much a gimmick as it is the director just preferred to work with Wiig and McCarthy and then naturally felt that the whole team could be female. The cast is talented enough. I think the more people can think outside of the go-to male action hero/comedy protagonist standard the better. Ghostbusters was going to be remade anyway, in my mind an all female team actually makes me a bit more interesting (I personally feel remakes are pointless if you aren’t going to do a new take on the material - this definitely qualifies).

I agree with what you’re saying about the cast and premise. I didn’t like the trailer specifically because it fell completely flat and appears to be wasting its talent.

Also, I didn’t say that remaking it with women is a problem, but rather the fact that they seem to be remaking it with women purely for a girl-power statement is a subject that I can understand people finding irritating. I also am generally opposed to recasting characters for such statements, much like I am opposed to making existing heterosexuals into homosexuals. Just create new material instead of rewriting the old.

If Ghostbusters turns out to be good, I’ll probably check it out. The trailer didn’t look promising though.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
Post link

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

hate to tell you NASB’s way of rendering the verse may be more accurate to the original.

To be quite honest, I don’t particularly care about the direct-translation accuracy. The impact of the verse is watered down by the newer versions.

if the newer versions are accurate, then what you are saying is that the original is also watered down.

The wording is weaker than in the King James.

well, here is some commentaries on Isaiah 14:12. There seems some conflict on whether or not Lucifer should be used.

Author
Time
Post link

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Don’t know if disagreeing about remaking Ghostbusters with women is misogynistic or just close-minded. Nothing about the initial premise of the film necessitated a group of guys. I don’t think making it a group of women is so much a gimmick as it is the director just preferred to work with Wiig and McCarthy and then naturally felt that the whole team could be female. The cast is talented enough. I think the more people can think outside of the go-to male action hero/comedy protagonist standard the better. Ghostbusters was going to be remade anyway, in my mind an all female team actually makes me a bit more interesting (I personally feel remakes are pointless if you aren’t going to do a new take on the material - this definitely qualifies).

I agree with what you’re saying about the cast and premise. I didn’t like the trailer specifically because it fell completely flat and appears to be wasting its talent.

Also, I didn’t say that remaking it with women is a problem, but rather the fact that they seem to be remaking it with women purely for a girl-power statement is a subject that I can understand people finding irritating. I also am generally opposed to recasting characters for such statements, much like I am opposed to making existing heterosexuals into homosexuals. Just create new material instead of rewriting the old.

If Ghostbusters turns out to be good, I’ll probably check it out. The trailer didn’t look promising though.

I can think of a few shows that had women protags and no one cared. I mean there’s Tomb Raider. And Clueless. And the Life Before Her Eyes and more. So I agree with you. I think this is more about getting 2 things wrong at once. Making the show a girl-power remake of an already loved show. It just feels like something’s getting trampled here. Almost like there’s a try at rewriting history. I don’t know. The thing is I wouldn’t have had any problem at all if they’d thrown 4 women into a brand new show about just about anything. But when it’s over-obvious they’re just there to replace the guys who came before? It’s nowhere near as fun.

K. Let’s have this ride.

Author
Time
Post link

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

btw, I am making a project of reading through the entire King James Version and New International Version of the Bible. I have read through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Job, and am party through Deuteronomy in both Bibles.

Why Job? It’s not in the middle of the Pentateuch in the KJV, is it?

Bibles don’t rearrange by translation. Unless you count the inclusion of Apocryphal books in Catholic or Orthodox compilations.

Yeah, I know, which is why I thought it odd that he read Job right in the middle of the Pentateuch. My question was rhetorical, I guess.

Author
Time
Post link

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

hate to tell you NASB’s way of rendering the verse may be more accurate to the original.

To be quite honest, I don’t particularly care about the direct-translation accuracy. The impact of the verse is watered down by the newer versions.

if the newer versions are accurate, then what you are saying is that the original is also watered down.

The wording is weaker than in the King James.

well, here is some commentaries on Isaiah 14:12. There seems some conflict on whether or not Lucifer should be used.

I’ve heard about that. I still think it (amongst other things) is much less impactful in non-KJVs.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
Post link

With a book like the Bible, though, which some people base their whole life on, it’s probably more important to be accurate than be poetic. Especially when the original text is pretty prosaic. That being said, poetic isn’t bad, but it isn’t always very useful for making fine theological distinctions.