Mr.Answer
CAGiversary!
Today's New International Version,
http://www.tniv.info/index.php
one free copy per household.
peace
http://www.tniv.info/index.php
one free copy per household.
peace
New Bible translation free
- Thread starter Mr.Answer
- Start date
Man, there's no need to crap on the deal guys. If you don't like it, just pass it up instead of spreading the hate.
Thanks to Mr. Answer--I don't think that was too much info on translations, rather, I appreciate it. Also thanks to fanskad and phattyphat69 for the appropriate, intelligent perspective on approaching this. And of course, thanks to the OP.
Now back to studying for my history of religion final...
Thanks to Mr. Answer--I don't think that was too much info on translations, rather, I appreciate it. Also thanks to fanskad and phattyphat69 for the appropriate, intelligent perspective on approaching this. And of course, thanks to the OP.
Now back to studying for my history of religion final...
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='Mr.Answer']still a great deal[/quote]
I still wouldn't call it a deal ... you can get a free bible just about anywhere.
I still wouldn't call it a deal ... you can get a free bible just about anywhere.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='Mr.Answer']still a great deal[/quote]
I still wouldn't call it a deal ... you can get a free bible just about anywhere.[/quote]
Yeah, but you would either have to pay for a night at a hotel,
or go looking for a Gideon to give you a miniscule, New Testement NIV.
Why do either of those when you can have a spiffy new translation delivered right to your door for free?
I still wouldn't call it a deal ... you can get a free bible just about anywhere.[/quote]
Yeah, but you would either have to pay for a night at a hotel,
or go looking for a Gideon to give you a miniscule, New Testement NIV.
Why do either of those when you can have a spiffy new translation delivered right to your door for free?
Mr.Answer
CAGiversary!
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='Mr.Answer']still a great deal[/quote]
I still wouldn't call it a deal ... you can get a free bible just about anywhere.[/quote]\
The deal is a new translation that may be better for some. The best bible for me is the original greek and hebrew, but the best bible for nearly everyone else is a translation. If you want it, great, if not, oh well.
I still wouldn't call it a deal ... you can get a free bible just about anywhere.[/quote]\
The deal is a new translation that may be better for some. The best bible for me is the original greek and hebrew, but the best bible for nearly everyone else is a translation. If you want it, great, if not, oh well.
tdphillips
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (100%)
Thanks to the OP. I'll pass though, and let someone who might need it pick it up. I have quite a few Bibles at my home.
KingSpike
CAGiversary!
Alright, the question asked is a little old, but I'll see what I can do to answer it. Don't take this as a definitive answer though 
First, this question assumes that the Bible appeared all at once. It didn't at all. Scholars are not sure whether the law (such as the Holiness Code or the Ten Commandments) came first or if the 8th century BCE prophets came first. We honestly just don't know. Perhaps the prophets spoke of morality and social justice that later was used to form the Law, or perhaps the Law came in some form and then the prophets would point to it as an example for what people should follow.
Furthermore, there is proof that entire books were not written by the same author. The book of Isaiah is usually separated in to two (more often three) parts.
Other books in the Bible (like the letters of Paul) were not intended to be collected in to a book. Paul wrote them to a specific church for a specific reason. Later they were collected and used and became part of canon.
The Torah/Pentateuch (also known as the Old Testament to Christians) is written in Hebrew. The New Testament is written in Greek. Of course, there is the Septuagint which is the OT translated in to Greek. Interesting fact: there are parts of the Greek version of a book that are not in the Hebrew, and vice versa. So which one is the most accurate portrayal of the original book?
Only 7 of Paul's letters are considered "uncontested." This means that pretty much all scholars agree that Paul wrote those letters. The other ones scholars are unsure of. While this doesn't have much to do with the translation, it shows that one cannot easily say with absolute certainty what the Bible is talking about. But I'm not done yet :lol:
Here's one example of an actual translation issue. In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 specifically, you will see a vice list. Two words, arsenokoitai and malakoi are often translated as "homosexual perverts," "homosexuals," "male prostitutes," or "sodomites." These are just a couple examples.
Well, first we have no idea what arsenokoitai actually means. Another vice list uses the word but does not contain any other sexual vices. So why would it mean something purely sexual? Other suggestions that it means "homosexual" or something along those lines is the etymology of the word. Arsen means "male" and koitai means "bedroom" or the active partner in sexual intercourse. So often the terms have been translated as the dominant and passive participators in a homosexual act.
But etymology is the history of a word, not its meaning. Do I have to be located underneath a stand to understand something? No.
Malakoi can mean all sorts of things, from the richness of food to the gentle breeze to a coward or someone who is afraid to commit suicide. So why is it translated as something related to homosexuality?
The King James Version is a very beautiful translation. But it often isn't very accurate when it comes to translations. The above is one such example.
Well, that's all I have for now. I'll see if I can think of some other stuff (my brain kind of fried halfway through). I'll post it if I can think of it.
First, this question assumes that the Bible appeared all at once. It didn't at all. Scholars are not sure whether the law (such as the Holiness Code or the Ten Commandments) came first or if the 8th century BCE prophets came first. We honestly just don't know. Perhaps the prophets spoke of morality and social justice that later was used to form the Law, or perhaps the Law came in some form and then the prophets would point to it as an example for what people should follow.
Furthermore, there is proof that entire books were not written by the same author. The book of Isaiah is usually separated in to two (more often three) parts.
Other books in the Bible (like the letters of Paul) were not intended to be collected in to a book. Paul wrote them to a specific church for a specific reason. Later they were collected and used and became part of canon.
The Torah/Pentateuch (also known as the Old Testament to Christians) is written in Hebrew. The New Testament is written in Greek. Of course, there is the Septuagint which is the OT translated in to Greek. Interesting fact: there are parts of the Greek version of a book that are not in the Hebrew, and vice versa. So which one is the most accurate portrayal of the original book?
Only 7 of Paul's letters are considered "uncontested." This means that pretty much all scholars agree that Paul wrote those letters. The other ones scholars are unsure of. While this doesn't have much to do with the translation, it shows that one cannot easily say with absolute certainty what the Bible is talking about. But I'm not done yet :lol:
Here's one example of an actual translation issue. In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 specifically, you will see a vice list. Two words, arsenokoitai and malakoi are often translated as "homosexual perverts," "homosexuals," "male prostitutes," or "sodomites." These are just a couple examples.
Well, first we have no idea what arsenokoitai actually means. Another vice list uses the word but does not contain any other sexual vices. So why would it mean something purely sexual? Other suggestions that it means "homosexual" or something along those lines is the etymology of the word. Arsen means "male" and koitai means "bedroom" or the active partner in sexual intercourse. So often the terms have been translated as the dominant and passive participators in a homosexual act.
But etymology is the history of a word, not its meaning. Do I have to be located underneath a stand to understand something? No.
Malakoi can mean all sorts of things, from the richness of food to the gentle breeze to a coward or someone who is afraid to commit suicide. So why is it translated as something related to homosexuality?
The King James Version is a very beautiful translation. But it often isn't very accurate when it comes to translations. The above is one such example.
Well, that's all I have for now. I'll see if I can think of some other stuff (my brain kind of fried halfway through). I'll post it if I can think of it.
I badly want to argue with all of the people who have recently run out of toilet paper and firewood. But alas, their minds are made up.
I just hope that the next time one of you posts about something, it gets it's fair share of thread crapping.
Just shut up! No one asked to hear your opinion on the Bible or it's uses. Go over to gamefaqs with that junk.
On a personal note:
I can't stand games like Suikoden or TOS. Yet, have you ever seen me crap in someone's Suikoden or TOS thread? No. Learn some self restraint, and please grow up.
Mr.Answer
CAGiversary!
[quote name='eldad9']I don't think Suikoden or TOS fans have ever killed people because of differences of opinion over the games, or because the games told them to.[/QUOTE]
Probably be safer for you if you never owned land either since a whole lot of wars were about natural resources. I find it strange that people through out this 'well there have been wars fought over religion so religion is bad' argument. There have been lots of wars and murders over countless things, religion-yes, want/desire for more natural resources and land-yes, different political views-yes (see US civil war) just to keep the peasants busy and a ruler in power-yes, because of a woman-yes (See Helen of Troy the face that launched a thousand ships).
I'm not sure about Suikoden but there have been murders about nearly everything, so according to some here everything must be bad because everything leads to murder.
Probably be safer for you if you never owned land either since a whole lot of wars were about natural resources. I find it strange that people through out this 'well there have been wars fought over religion so religion is bad' argument. There have been lots of wars and murders over countless things, religion-yes, want/desire for more natural resources and land-yes, different political views-yes (see US civil war) just to keep the peasants busy and a ruler in power-yes, because of a woman-yes (See Helen of Troy the face that launched a thousand ships).
I'm not sure about Suikoden but there have been murders about nearly everything, so according to some here everything must be bad because everything leads to murder.
[quote name='RaekwonThaChef']out of curiosity, (and assuming someone here actually knows the answer to this question, which probably isn't the case) does anyone know what the oldest, most true to the original, least mangled in translation version of the bible is?[/QUOTE]
Your question is somewhat conflicting because you are asking three different things with three different answers.
The oldest english translation is probably the King James version (although there may be one earlier than this, but I'm not sure if it is a complete translation or just part), however, it certainly isn't the most true to the original or the least mangled. You have to remember that new archeological finds as well as better understanding of ancient languages and cultures have developed over the years. In other words, we know more now about the best way to translate than they knew when the King James translation was first made. For example, in the last 100 years the "dead sea scrolls" were discovered, which contain manuscripts that have been untouched for thousands of years (including parts of the bible). Some of this newly discovered, but older, information allows us to do a better job translating thousand year old documents than they could have done 200 years ago.
Next you ask which is most true to the original and which is the least mangled. These are really tough questions because translation is tricky business. It is always difficult to decide which is the "best" way to translate something. If you know anything about languages then you know that languages are full of idioms.
What I mean is you have ideas like "I caught the guy red handed". Now if I wanted to translate that phrase I could translate it literally and word for word. This is probably what you mean by "most true to the original". However, if I were translating to japanese then the result, while an exact translation, would be nonsense. Do you understand? "Caught red handed" doesn't mean the same thing in japanese that it does in english. You can also imagine other phrases like "let the cat out of the bag" or "pwned". You probably don't even realize it, but most of what you say you don't mean literally, rather you are using phrases and ideas that have a common understanding between you and the person you're communicating with. This is probably even more exaggerated with ancient languagings which lacked a central authority on the "correct" language. You have to remember that dictionaries are a relatively modern phenomenon and for much of history (even in many places in the world today, such as china) language is not standardized.
Obviously if we want to understand what was written then translating word for word is probably a bad idea. For example, you might read a literal translation from spanish that says "I'm pulling your hair", but a good translator would instead translate to english "I'm pulling your leg". I'm sure you can see that in this situation the first translation is nonsense, but the second conveys the appropriate meaning (that is "I'm joking"). You could even go an extra step and try to make it even more clear by just translating "I'm joking". So you see, in this case the translation that is the "most true to the original" is the one that is "the most mangled" and vice versa.
Of course, translating ancient greek is much more subtle and complicated than this (it doesn't even have punctuation!), but you get the idea about the kinds of problems that arise and the kinds of compromises that need to be made.
Another alternative is to just give both translations and let the reader figure it out. However, this can often lead to misunderstanding as the reader tends to just pick whichever words they want (for example you might end up with something like, "I'm pulling your jokes"). This is the approach that the "Amplified Bible" takes.
Anyway, to answer your question, in my experience the "New American Standard Bible"(NASB) and the "New Kings James Bible"(NKJB) are more exact translations ("more true to the original") while the "New International Version"(NIV) and "The Message" are the least mangled. But even that is debateable.
The good thing is that there is a lot of redundancy in the bible. The same ideas are presented over and over again, in many different forms. So having the best translation isn't as important as you might expect.
Your question is somewhat conflicting because you are asking three different things with three different answers.
The oldest english translation is probably the King James version (although there may be one earlier than this, but I'm not sure if it is a complete translation or just part), however, it certainly isn't the most true to the original or the least mangled. You have to remember that new archeological finds as well as better understanding of ancient languages and cultures have developed over the years. In other words, we know more now about the best way to translate than they knew when the King James translation was first made. For example, in the last 100 years the "dead sea scrolls" were discovered, which contain manuscripts that have been untouched for thousands of years (including parts of the bible). Some of this newly discovered, but older, information allows us to do a better job translating thousand year old documents than they could have done 200 years ago.
Next you ask which is most true to the original and which is the least mangled. These are really tough questions because translation is tricky business. It is always difficult to decide which is the "best" way to translate something. If you know anything about languages then you know that languages are full of idioms.
What I mean is you have ideas like "I caught the guy red handed". Now if I wanted to translate that phrase I could translate it literally and word for word. This is probably what you mean by "most true to the original". However, if I were translating to japanese then the result, while an exact translation, would be nonsense. Do you understand? "Caught red handed" doesn't mean the same thing in japanese that it does in english. You can also imagine other phrases like "let the cat out of the bag" or "pwned". You probably don't even realize it, but most of what you say you don't mean literally, rather you are using phrases and ideas that have a common understanding between you and the person you're communicating with. This is probably even more exaggerated with ancient languagings which lacked a central authority on the "correct" language. You have to remember that dictionaries are a relatively modern phenomenon and for much of history (even in many places in the world today, such as china) language is not standardized.
Obviously if we want to understand what was written then translating word for word is probably a bad idea. For example, you might read a literal translation from spanish that says "I'm pulling your hair", but a good translator would instead translate to english "I'm pulling your leg". I'm sure you can see that in this situation the first translation is nonsense, but the second conveys the appropriate meaning (that is "I'm joking"). You could even go an extra step and try to make it even more clear by just translating "I'm joking". So you see, in this case the translation that is the "most true to the original" is the one that is "the most mangled" and vice versa.
Of course, translating ancient greek is much more subtle and complicated than this (it doesn't even have punctuation!), but you get the idea about the kinds of problems that arise and the kinds of compromises that need to be made.
Another alternative is to just give both translations and let the reader figure it out. However, this can often lead to misunderstanding as the reader tends to just pick whichever words they want (for example you might end up with something like, "I'm pulling your jokes"). This is the approach that the "Amplified Bible" takes.
Anyway, to answer your question, in my experience the "New American Standard Bible"(NASB) and the "New Kings James Bible"(NKJB) are more exact translations ("more true to the original") while the "New International Version"(NIV) and "The Message" are the least mangled. But even that is debateable.
The good thing is that there is a lot of redundancy in the bible. The same ideas are presented over and over again, in many different forms. So having the best translation isn't as important as you might expect.
[quote name='eldad9']I don't think Suikoden or TOS fans have ever killed people because of differences of opinion over the games, or because the games told them to.[/QUOTE]
So who placed the burden of the "religion police" on some select CAG's? I don't Cheapy is handing out that position.
I just love to see all the people who think they've got it ALL figured out. Their thoughts and beliefs are infallible. If they don't want to hear anyone else talk about their beliefs, why in the hell would we want to hear their disbelief???
Now, to comment on your statement eldad9. You're missing the point I'm trying to convey. I have not said that religion is right or wrong. I'm merely stating that just because you don't believe in something, that does not give you the right to denegrate someone who does believe in it.
How big of jerk would I be if I walked into someone's Suikoden thread and started telling the OP that the game was junk? Likewise, that I was going to use it for firewood or toilet paper. I would most likely be reported to Cheapy or a mod for thread crapping and trolling. Is this making any sense?
So who placed the burden of the "religion police" on some select CAG's? I don't Cheapy is handing out that position.
I just love to see all the people who think they've got it ALL figured out. Their thoughts and beliefs are infallible. If they don't want to hear anyone else talk about their beliefs, why in the hell would we want to hear their disbelief???
Now, to comment on your statement eldad9. You're missing the point I'm trying to convey. I have not said that religion is right or wrong. I'm merely stating that just because you don't believe in something, that does not give you the right to denegrate someone who does believe in it.
How big of jerk would I be if I walked into someone's Suikoden thread and started telling the OP that the game was junk? Likewise, that I was going to use it for firewood or toilet paper. I would most likely be reported to Cheapy or a mod for thread crapping and trolling. Is this making any sense?
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='KingSpike']Alright, the question asked is a little old, but I'll see what I can do to answer it. Don't take this as a definitive answer though
First, this question assumes that the Bible appeared all at once. It didn't at all. Scholars are not sure whether the law (such as the Holiness Code or the Ten Commandments) came first or if the 8th century BCE prophets came first. We honestly just don't know. Perhaps the prophets spoke of morality and social justice that later was used to form the Law, or perhaps the Law came in some form and then the prophets would point to it as an example for what people should follow.
Furthermore, there is proof that entire books were not written by the same author. The book of Isaiah is usually separated in to two (more often three) parts.
Other books in the Bible (like the letters of Paul) were not intended to be collected in to a book. Paul wrote them to a specific church for a specific reason. Later they were collected and used and became part of canon.
The Torah/Pentateuch (also known as the Old Testament to Christians) is written in Hebrew. The New Testament is written in Greek. Of course, there is the Septuagint which is the OT translated in to Greek. Interesting fact: there are parts of the Greek version of a book that are not in the Hebrew, and vice versa. So which one is the most accurate portrayal of the original book?
Only 7 of Paul's letters are considered "uncontested." This means that pretty much all scholars agree that Paul wrote those letters. The other ones scholars are unsure of. While this doesn't have much to do with the translation, it shows that one cannot easily say with absolute certainty what the Bible is talking about. But I'm not done yet :lol:
Here's one example of an actual translation issue. In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 specifically, you will see a vice list. Two words, arsenokoitai and malakoi are often translated as "homosexual perverts," "homosexuals," "male prostitutes," or "sodomites." These are just a couple examples.
Well, first we have no idea what arsenokoitai actually means. Another vice list uses the word but does not contain any other sexual vices. So why would it mean something purely sexual? Other suggestions that it means "homosexual" or something along those lines is the etymology of the word. Arsen means "male" and koitai means "bedroom" or the active partner in sexual intercourse. So often the terms have been translated as the dominant and passive participators in a homosexual act.
But etymology is the history of a word, not its meaning. Do I have to be located underneath a stand to understand something? No.
Malakoi can mean all sorts of things, from the richness of food to the gentle breeze to a coward or someone who is afraid to commit suicide. So why is it translated as something related to homosexuality?
The King James Version is a very beautiful translation. But it often isn't very accurate when it comes to translations. The above is one such example.
Well, that's all I have for now. I'll see if I can think of some other stuff (my brain kind of fried halfway through). I'll post it if I can think of it.[/QUOTE]
Nice post.
First, this question assumes that the Bible appeared all at once. It didn't at all. Scholars are not sure whether the law (such as the Holiness Code or the Ten Commandments) came first or if the 8th century BCE prophets came first. We honestly just don't know. Perhaps the prophets spoke of morality and social justice that later was used to form the Law, or perhaps the Law came in some form and then the prophets would point to it as an example for what people should follow.
Furthermore, there is proof that entire books were not written by the same author. The book of Isaiah is usually separated in to two (more often three) parts.
Other books in the Bible (like the letters of Paul) were not intended to be collected in to a book. Paul wrote them to a specific church for a specific reason. Later they were collected and used and became part of canon.
The Torah/Pentateuch (also known as the Old Testament to Christians) is written in Hebrew. The New Testament is written in Greek. Of course, there is the Septuagint which is the OT translated in to Greek. Interesting fact: there are parts of the Greek version of a book that are not in the Hebrew, and vice versa. So which one is the most accurate portrayal of the original book?
Only 7 of Paul's letters are considered "uncontested." This means that pretty much all scholars agree that Paul wrote those letters. The other ones scholars are unsure of. While this doesn't have much to do with the translation, it shows that one cannot easily say with absolute certainty what the Bible is talking about. But I'm not done yet :lol:
Here's one example of an actual translation issue. In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 specifically, you will see a vice list. Two words, arsenokoitai and malakoi are often translated as "homosexual perverts," "homosexuals," "male prostitutes," or "sodomites." These are just a couple examples.
Well, first we have no idea what arsenokoitai actually means. Another vice list uses the word but does not contain any other sexual vices. So why would it mean something purely sexual? Other suggestions that it means "homosexual" or something along those lines is the etymology of the word. Arsen means "male" and koitai means "bedroom" or the active partner in sexual intercourse. So often the terms have been translated as the dominant and passive participators in a homosexual act.
But etymology is the history of a word, not its meaning. Do I have to be located underneath a stand to understand something? No.
Malakoi can mean all sorts of things, from the richness of food to the gentle breeze to a coward or someone who is afraid to commit suicide. So why is it translated as something related to homosexuality?
The King James Version is a very beautiful translation. But it often isn't very accurate when it comes to translations. The above is one such example.
Well, that's all I have for now. I'll see if I can think of some other stuff (my brain kind of fried halfway through). I'll post it if I can think of it.[/QUOTE]
Nice post.
[quote name='Derwood43']How big of jerk would I be if I walked into someone's Suikoden thread and started telling the OP that the game was junk? Likewise, that I was going to use it for firewood or toilet paper. I would most likely be reported to Cheapy or a mod for thread crapping and trolling. Is this making any sense?[/QUOTE]
If copies of the Suikoden games were known to explode and kill thousands, I could totally understand anybody hating the game and even trying to prevent others from going near it.
But you're right, there's no need to be rude about it.
If copies of the Suikoden games were known to explode and kill thousands, I could totally understand anybody hating the game and even trying to prevent others from going near it.
But you're right, there's no need to be rude about it.
Mr.Answer
CAGiversary!
[quote name='eldad9']If copies of the Suikoden games were known to explode and kill thousands, I could totally understand anybody hating the game and even trying to prevent others from going near it.
But you're right, there's no need to be rude about it.[/QUOTE]
Hmm such negativity,
but what if copies of the Suikoden games were known to bring joy and peace to millions, I could totally understand anybody loving the game and even trying to bring others close to it.
But you're right, there's no need to be rude about it.[/QUOTE]
Hmm such negativity,
but what if copies of the Suikoden games were known to bring joy and peace to millions, I could totally understand anybody loving the game and even trying to bring others close to it.
cheapass Gundam
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Kaijufan']I love getting stuff in the mail, especially if it's free.[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling that you'll get more than just a free Bible in your mailbox. For the foreseeable future, your mailbox will be stuffed with religious themed come-ons asking you to donate or buy stuff.
Someone should translate the Bible into l33t.
I have a feeling that you'll get more than just a free Bible in your mailbox. For the foreseeable future, your mailbox will be stuffed with religious themed come-ons asking you to donate or buy stuff.
Someone should translate the Bible into l33t.
I wish they had free copies of the Aeneid, or the Iliad, or Metamorphoses.
good god, to get a good translation is ridiculously expensive.
I'm not a Christian, but i thought the "mythology" (using that in a scholarly not derrogotive way) was really interesting. It was great to read side by side with Dante's Inferno, especially in the canto with Brunetto Latini.
Thanks for the e-sword link. I'm pretty excited to use that!
good god, to get a good translation is ridiculously expensive.
I'm not a Christian, but i thought the "mythology" (using that in a scholarly not derrogotive way) was really interesting. It was great to read side by side with Dante's Inferno, especially in the canto with Brunetto Latini.
Thanks for the e-sword link. I'm pretty excited to use that!
bread's done