anita's*thoughts
Friday, October 07, 2005
The Bible society has recently published the bible in text form. It would read something like this: In da Bginnin God cre8d da heavens & da earth. Interesting.
Apparently it took one person four week to translate. If it gets that bible into the hearts and hands of the younger mobile phone generation then it can't be a bad thing. I think that it would drive me a bit nutty having to read Da all the time instead of the. But maybe I am an old fuddy duddy.

19 Comments:

Christianity is supposed to be a thinking religion (for lack of a better word).

Not a Bro' Town conversation.

I'm always telling people to learn new words rather than to accept a version of scripture that's watered down for their lazy minds.

I'm all for outreach... but maintain the integrity of scripture at all costs. Precision of language is required for a proper understanding of the Gospel of redemption by the imputed merits of Christ made over to unroghteous sinners. Not "dude gave us da stuffs to go to heaven cause he thinks we a'ight".

I'd actually rather read the greek... if I could. It's more precise in it's meanings.

By Anonymous Allan, at 12:25 AM, October 08, 2005  


mind the typos lol

By Anonymous Allan, at 12:26 AM, October 08, 2005  


Hi, check out my blog for the bible in 50 words - covering the whole thing

By Blogger Dave, at 10:00 AM, October 09, 2005  


Are you saying that people who talk like a Bro Town conversation can't discuss the bible in that way? Or they can't read the bible in that way?

By Blogger Anita, at 10:56 AM, October 10, 2005  


That the Bible can't be reduced to such simple terms and still maintain it's full message. Simple language can get the general idea across, but the Bible is more than just the simple message.

Bro speak as I understand it lacks as many words as people can get away with.

That it took only 4 weeks says something about this also. The King James Bible took something like 7 years by dozens of schollars.

By Anonymous Allan, at 12:16 PM, October 10, 2005  


Yeah i totally agree with ya Allan. I thought the Message Bible was bad...but this 'txt Bible language' has just gone way way too far...

By Blogger Silla, at 10:31 AM, October 11, 2005  


Also, have you guys seen the 'Kiwi Bible'?

i think thats stupid as well

By Blogger Silla, at 10:31 AM, October 11, 2005  


Man... people are so serious!

It's not actually a translation. It's simply an existing translation (CEV) in txt language! So I have no idea where "dude gave us da stuffs to go to heaven cause he thinks we a'ight" came from!! The CEV Bible was developed over a period of approx 10 years! so the txt bible was not developed over a period of 4 weeks but actually took approx 10 years and 4 weeks (and i understand it was actually 6 weeks). So if you got a problem, it should be with the CEV not with the TXT bible.

The Message Bible is not even a translation it's a paraphrase. You can't even compare them.

By Blogger Jonathan, at 12:39 PM, October 11, 2005  


I agree in principle. Early KJV versions have different spelling to those we have now days.

However, there are other languages which don't even have a Bible in one version let alone the many we have. Perhaps more energy could go into these?

But on the CEV - a little research indicates it is not such an accurate translation.

Attempts at being gender-neutral have made it innacurate of the orignal intentions in places.

There are also some serious translation flaws (hopefully not deliberate!!) in regards to some verses on the deity of Christ, and the Trinity.

By Blogger Scotty, at 12:54 PM, October 11, 2005  


However, there are other languages which don't even have a Bible in one version let alone the many we have. Perhaps more energy could go into these?

A valid point. But really can we knock someone for translating a bible into txt language for this reason?

I wouldn't! For you would bring judgment on yourself. There's far bigger time wasters than spending your time converting a bible into txt. Such as the internet, computer games, movies, TV, etc, etc, where your time could be used for translating the bible into other languages.

To critize this guy saying he could have spent his time more wisely is just condeming yourself. For who uses their own time wisely?

(look for the logs we have in our own eyes)

By Blogger Jonathan, at 1:24 PM, October 11, 2005  


I didn't criticise the guy. I just mentioned a side issue that I've been thinking about recently - that there are so many scholars spending so many hours translating so many versions from the original languages into only one language.

I want to see the Bible in every hand. Maybe the church as a whole especially in English countries needs to focus money - and those who have aptitude for languages into new translation works.

By Blogger Scotty, at 2:51 PM, October 11, 2005  


Sorry, just in the context of this thread you came it did come across that way. It wasn't clear it was a side issue. but yeah tis a good point

By Blogger Jonathan, at 9:54 AM, October 12, 2005  


Jono i never said the Message Bible was a translation...i simply said it was stupid. how you connect those two i have no idea.

Question: would you use this txt bible over whatever other bible versions you already have?

At any rate i dont think these 2 particular versions would be helpful to read all or even most of the time...

and btw the Kiwi Bible is just a NZ version of the Message...and if thats the only version of a Bible someone has...then that's just not good.

By Blogger Silla, at 1:09 PM, October 12, 2005  


Priscilla, I never said that you said that The Message was a translation! and The Message is not stupid! Paraphrasing the Scriptures is not stupid! It can potentially be misleading but I wouldn't call it stupid.

Would I use this txt bible over whatever other bible versions I already have?
This txt bible is just the CEV bible... so No... I wouldn't use it over the NIV or NKJV versions I have. If this txt bible was taken from the NIV then I would have no problem using it as it is just an NIV bible. However like Anita said I think I would find it frustrating.

and btw the Kiwi Bible is just a NZ version of the Message...and if thats the only version of a Bible someone has...then that's just not good.

That's a pretty bold statement Priscilla! What you're saying implies that you would much rather someone not have a copy of the scriptures at all than have them in a paraphrase which holds a slightly different view than you hold of who God is?

I hope that's not what you're saying!

By Blogger Jonathan, at 1:50 PM, October 12, 2005  


I guess shes working from the idea that a flawed version is worse than no version. ? :)

Try a car manual parallel. Would you be better off working without a manual (lets say replacing gearbox) or with one for the wrong model car? Would you rather use a BMW manual to fix an alfa, or no manual at all? (lol couldn't resist).

That of course brings the argument back to whether it's a good translation or not. JW's argue that their Bible is a "good" translation.

By Anonymous Allan, at 5:30 PM, October 12, 2005  


Dispite the fact that the car analogy is really quite incomparable with scripture - I would say that most definately any manual to do with car gearboxes would not hinder and therefore be of at least some assistance whether they are the exact manual needed or not.

So to answer your question I would say that I would rather have a BMW manual than no manual when trying to fix my alfas gearbox.

By Blogger Jonathan, at 6:49 PM, October 12, 2005  


All this discussion and we miss anita's blog birthday!

By Anonymous Nato, at 9:51 AM, October 13, 2005  


Jono,Ok maybe i should have been more specific. first off i did not mean to imply that they would be better off with no bible than the Kiwi/Message/Txt bible versions. Yes, its good that these versions will draw people in b/c of its modern language, but i PERSONALLY think it would be more helpful for them - nonchristians and christians - to also read it alongside say NIV or NKJV bibles.

Just outta curiosity, do u think the Gideon ministry people should be handing out these paraphrase bible versions such as the Kiwi or Message Bibles in future?

By Blogger Silla, at 11:12 PM, October 13, 2005  


In my experience the Gideon ministry is inefective. Sure others may have a different story, but all I remember of Gideons is people being handed a bible and walking 5 metres out the door and throwing it in the nearest bin or tearing it up. I don't think the form which the bible takes would make any difference to that.

To answer your question I would prefer an actual translation be used rather than a paraphrase. paraphrasing allows the author too much influence on the meaning of the text.

however;
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The Gospel is what's need for salvation. Women in leadership, Modes of baptism, The creation of the earth, What hell is like, etc, these things, while important in understanding more of the true character of God, are not needed for salvation.

By Blogger Jonathan, at 3:14 PM, October 14, 2005  


Post a Comment

Anita posted at 4:43 PM

Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com