Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to The Bible and the Koran, Part II
Naut Re: Part II
Understood abouty translations. I'm sure they had to have a much different view of the world back then. How could they not? I think of the, 'thinkers' of old like Aristotle, etc., and wonder sometimes about our modern-day 'thinkers'. Who are they now?
posted by
FoliageGold
on April 29, 2007 at 2:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Foliage
Translations are always a bit of a problem, theoretically and practically. And your question about how people thought back than are also relevant. Neurologically, I don't think there was a difference, but I am convinced that enerally people had a different view of the world, a different way of understanding the world.
And yes, at first Mohammed wrote (or others wrote) bits and pieces down a bit haphazardly, as they occurred to him. He probably had hallucinations, and he may have been an epileptic. In any case, the Koran was not cast in its final form until after his death.
posted by
Nautikos
on April 29, 2007 at 5:56 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut
I'm in two here....... This is interesting. I've often wondered about translations. One of my favourite writers is Gabrial Garcia Marquez and I've read all the English translations. People who read Spanish tell me they pale compared to the original language. Makes me so wonder. Now when I think of the original languages the Bible and the Koran were written in, I also think about the everday 'man' and what thinking processes were like back then. Obviously very different from today. So what I'm asking I guess, is your thoughts on this. Is it possible for 'modern day man' to understand the original premise of the work as seen through the eyes of 2007? And are you saying that the Koran was originally told verbally and not written down until 632 AD? Did I understand that correctly? --Joy!Mary
posted by
FoliageGold
on April 28, 2007 at 6:52 AM
| link to this | reply
OTA
the Cotton Patch Version??? Sounds like a hoot...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 11, 2007 at 8:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Wiley
well, I agree, the promise of an afterlife is a very strong motivation here...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 11, 2007 at 8:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
I smiled when you talked of the dumbing down of the Bible with the Good News version.. a friend gave me a copy of The Cotton Patch Version of Paul's Epistles by Clarence Jordan. It includes such things as the first and second letters to the christians at Atlanta.
~I am really enjoying your work here!
posted by
Blue_feathers
on March 11, 2007 at 10:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Well, to me both books are for man to be controlled and manipulated by guilt, so he could escape his natural inborn fear of death.
Of course, some parts are very poetic and enlightened by honest scribes, but there are so many conflicting statements in the Bible anyway, it's best to be very selective in what one takes to heart.
Good post my friend but of course you can't write a bad one.
posted by
WileyJohn
on March 9, 2007 at 11:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel
was that one of those notorious
Freudian slips?
posted by
Nautikos
on March 8, 2007 at 7:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin
I wish
I was certain where I am heading with this...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 8, 2007 at 7:32 PM
| link to this | reply
strat
you have absolutely nailed it, it is actually
boring to read...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 8, 2007 at 7:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Pat B
the KJV soars, the Good News thing is a stumbling pedestrian...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 8, 2007 at 7:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Muser
Thanks! I did take a look, and indeed, it's interesting. Of course, I'm not really concerned here with that kind of analysis, and the example I have given was chosen merely to show how different a text can be in translation. Of course, getting in a swipe against the Good News thing was a bonus, since I detest it on purely aesthetic grounds, lol.
posted by
Nautikos
on March 8, 2007 at 7:23 PM
| link to this | reply
rich
thanks!
posted by
Nautikos
on March 8, 2007 at 7:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Bhaskar
I'm sure you know it better than I do, but regardless...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 8, 2007 at 7:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
I have never deleted anyone's comments, and I ain't gonna start with yours...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 8, 2007 at 7:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Oopss! Here of course, not her
posted by
ariel70
on March 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Only in her for a little while tonight, but I'll catch up with soon.
be well
posted by
ariel70
on March 8, 2007 at 1:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut....I am looking forwrd to seeing
where you going with this.....
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on March 8, 2007 at 1:11 PM
| link to this | reply
The Good News is pretty hard to read, precisely because it is so boring.
Dumbing down something always takes away the intrinsic beauty of anything.
posted by
strat
on March 8, 2007 at 7:00 AM
| link to this | reply
There's a different rhythm in the new translation...
the King James' version seems to me more poetic. I once read over a copy of the Koran, given to me by a Muslim friend who had memorized it. At first I was amazed by his ability to memorize so much. And then I remembered how certain quotations and verses I learned as a child come back to me at odd moments - as bits of poetry. In the beginning was the Word. This is a powerful statement for a writer. I am enjoying your discourse... :)
posted by
Pat_B
on March 8, 2007 at 6:52 AM
| link to this | reply
I agree, Nautikos, that for the pure beauty of language there is no
substitute for the KJV Bible. For studying the Bible, I now go to
www.biblegateway.com. I love having so many contemporary versions for studying some of the more archaic passages in the KJV. This website makes it so easy to compare several versions of the same passage on one page. I thought a scholar such as yourself would find this website most interesting.
posted by
muser
on March 8, 2007 at 6:01 AM
| link to this | reply
naut
interesting.
posted by
richinstore
on March 8, 2007 at 5:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I've found it very interesting, and these should be explored. It'll help me learn more about Koran. Qur'an, the latest version, however, may not necessarily be take to mean "superior".
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on March 7, 2007 at 11:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Please delete both of these comments. I looks like I am contesting rather than commenting I am not. I should not have said that - that is not your objective. I apologize.
posted by
Justi
on March 7, 2007 at 10:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
No I didn't mean that at all. My husband loves the Old King James, it has some errors. I look to it for the tapestry of truth that runs from Genesis to Revelation. The tiem between the first and second verses may be millions of years. i.e. The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. You can not take them apart and expect to get the message at all. Most of the New Testament are quotations from the old testament. I'm not being nit picky just trying to explain that it is much deeper than my faith.
posted by
Justi
on March 7, 2007 at 6:42 PM
| link to this | reply
1Time
you're welcome!
posted by
Nautikos
on March 7, 2007 at 3:40 PM
| link to this | reply
TAPS
thanks!
posted by
Nautikos
on March 7, 2007 at 3:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
I understand, of course, that to a Christian the language is less important than the message. To a non-believer like myself, the aesthetics loom much larger...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 7, 2007 at 3:38 PM
| link to this | reply
thank you for sharing this.
posted by
1TimeSoldier
on March 7, 2007 at 2:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I'm staying with you.
posted by
TAPS.
on March 7, 2007 at 2:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
You just keep going it is okay! I have no problem with any version of the Bible. Jesus didn't speak Old English either. You have to go back to the Hebrew and Greek. The best Translation I have found because it carries no foot notes, makes no changes except word translations is the New Living Translation by Nelson. When it has to change a single word from the original as nearly as is known an asterisk appears and the original in English is noted.
I have heard Muslims who are very learned say the latest version of the Koran is the accepted one in all cases. Of course don't know about Sects versions.
Keep goint good start.
posted by
Justi
on March 7, 2007 at 12:30 PM
| link to this | reply