Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Google)   Best-selling bible to be edited and re-released, will feature deleted commandments, digitally enhanced plagues, and Han casts the first stone   (google.com) divider line 309
    More: Obvious, teachings, Han, revisions, North American, English speakers, translators, son of God, Colorado Springs  
•       •       •

8533 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Sep 2009 at 5:02 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



309 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-09-01 02:36:29 PM  
WIN
 
2009-09-01 02:42:27 PM  
will be revised to reflect changes in English usage and advances in Biblical scholarship, it was announced Tuesday.

knowyourmeme.com
 
2009-09-01 02:49:08 PM  
Why does the true word of God need revising?
 
2009-09-01 02:49:22 PM  
Can I read it on a Mac?
 
2009-09-01 02:50:54 PM  
Until they eliminate the system of chapter/verse numbering, it'll still be the same old crap.

Chapter/verse numbering encourages the out-of-context quoting of scripture, with all of the intended consequences of that act of deception.
 
2009-09-01 02:54:31 PM  
GAT_00: Why does the true word of God need revising?

WIN
WIN
WIN
WIN
WIN
WIN
 
2009-09-01 03:17:53 PM  
Doesn't the book of Revelation say that anybody who tries to change the Bible will be brutally killed by Jesus?
 
2009-09-01 03:18:14 PM  
fatimcgee: GAT_00: Why does the true word of God need revising?

WIN
WIN
WIN
WIN
WIN
WIN


well, to put it simply... because language changes over time.

/thou doth protest too much.
 
2009-09-01 03:26:43 PM  
radiumsoup: well, to put it simply... because language changes over time.

That would be editing. But revising is changing the actual content. Why would they need to do that to the perfect word of God?
 
2009-09-01 03:37:33 PM  
GAT_00: radiumsoup: well, to put it simply... because language changes over time.

That would be editing. But revising is changing the actual content. Why would they need to do that to the perfect word of God?


A lot of it is just how the original language, being Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, was translated into English. A lot of nuance and meaning is lost if you don't translate accurately and don't have an intimate understanding of the language, especially from ancient languages. The KJV translation is especially bad. Since this is fark, the discussion won't extend beyond LOL THE BIBEL IS DUM, but it's actually an interesting study for language nerds like myself.
 
2009-09-01 03:41:47 PM  
GAT_00: Why does the true word of God need revising?

Yeah! Muslims haven't revised a single word of their Qu'ran to reflect changing language use for 1200 years and insist that it's the complete and perfect word of God and that only the version written in Arabic dialect circa 600 CE is authentic and if you disagree they will saw your head off.
 
2009-09-01 03:43:21 PM  
^correction: Only in Saudi Arabia. And Iran. And Afghanistan. And Somalia. And maybe Egypt and Pakistan.
 
2009-09-01 03:55:00 PM  
MasterThief: Yeah! Muslims haven't revised a single word of their Qu'ran to reflect changing language use for 1200 years and insist that it's the complete and perfect word of God and that only the version written in Arabic dialect circa 600 CE is authentic and if you disagree they will saw your head off.

To be fair, the inerrancy of the Qu'ran in Islam is equivalent to the Resurrection in Christianity.

/Neither makes sense or is particularly miraculous and I don't believe in either. But if we're going to claim that one of the books is inerrant then the Qu'ran's self advanced claim is a little bit more forceful than the Bible's.
 
2009-09-01 04:08:53 PM  
So the bible is the word of god, god is infallible, moral men now are changing the bible to reflect current beliefs. Isn't changing it like smacking god in the face? We need to get back to the good ol' days when men were men and women were property.
 
2009-09-01 04:13:05 PM  
25% more crew cuts
 
2009-09-01 04:19:55 PM  
kunochan.com

What does God need with a starship?
 
2009-09-01 04:21:14 PM  
The bible has been changed and edited by the wealthy and the literate to keep the masses quiet, complacent, and poor. To the point where the original text has no meaning.
 
2009-09-01 04:28:59 PM  
Greedo casts first in the revised version, subtard.
 
2009-09-01 04:31:55 PM  
swaniefrmreddeer: So the bible is the word of god, god is infallible, moral men now are changing the bible to reflect current beliefs. Isn't changing it like smacking god in the face?

The scholars working on the new edition of the NIV aren't 'changing to to reflect their beliefs', they are changing it to reflect modern scientific discoveries. They compare ancient documents through a variety of developed methods in order to determine the most accurate text, make note of which passages are conflations, scribal additions, marginalia, copyist errors, etc.

The people doing these revisions are far and away not fundamentalists or literalists, because they can actually read the languages the texts are written in, and well - aren't stupid.
 
2009-09-01 04:40:22 PM  
Pope Michael of Discordia: The bible has been changed and edited by the wealthy and the literate to keep the masses quiet, complacent, and poor. To the point where the original text has no meaning.

Did you ever hear about Judas and the Purple Monkey Dishwasher? Of COURSE YOU DIDN'T! They didn't have words for those things. ZOMG CATHOLICS 9/11!
 
2009-09-01 04:40:56 PM  
"reflect changes in English usage" = dumbed down for stupid people

/they should throw in the Apocrypha
 
2009-09-01 04:59:31 PM  
Oooo! I hope they put a surprise twist ending in!
 
2009-09-01 05:03:21 PM  
Still full of fairy tales and all kinds of other impossible tripe. But hey, it's the best selling book in the world!
 
2009-09-01 05:05:15 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Disapproves.

/Don't bring a stone to a gun fight.
 
2009-09-01 05:08:37 PM  
B-b-but the King James Version is perfect and inerrant!

/"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
 
2009-09-01 05:08:40 PM  
Keep Han out of it

Hokey religions and ancient weaponry are no match for a good blaster at your side, kids
 
2009-09-01 05:09:17 PM  
Danielsan: The KJV translation is especially bad.

Is there an especially good translation? I don't happen to have a Bible, and might get around to making another attempt at it sometime.
 
2009-09-01 05:10:28 PM  
Diogenes: Oooo! I hope they put a surprise twist ending in!

GAH! Came here to say this!
 
2009-09-01 05:10:31 PM  
ninjakirby: The scholars working on the new edition of the NIV aren't 'changing to to reflect their beliefs', they are changing it to reflect modern scientific discoveries.

Genesis is going to be tough reading if it spans 4.5 billion years or so.

"And lo, He did bring forth Orthrozanclus reburrus and Anomalocaris canadensis. And lo His work was good. But then He thought is was maybe not that Good. So lo, He in his infinite mercy and infallibility decided that the previous effort was sort of a draft version, and he smote them but good, and decided to bring forth maybe some things with fewer whatsits hanging off of them. Quoth Him, 'Meh, they had a good run.'"

upload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.org
 
2009-09-01 05:10:51 PM  
Korovyov: Danielsan: The KJV translation is especially bad.

Is there an especially good translation? I don't happen to have a Bible, and might get around to making another attempt at it sometime.


The New Oxford Annotated is pretty decent in terms of balancing scholarly merit with readability and cost.
 
2009-09-01 05:11:00 PM  
MasterThief: GAT_00: Why does the true word of God need revising?

Yeah! Muslims haven't revised a single word of their Qu'ran to reflect changing language use for 1200 years and insist that it's the complete and perfect word of God and that only the version written in Arabic dialect circa 600 CE is authentic and if you disagree they will saw your head off.


and shiat down your neck...

wait, first they'll manipulate the corpse to ensure they face away from Mecca..

and THEN shiat down your neck
 
2009-09-01 05:11:28 PM  
this headline made my afternoon
 
2009-09-01 05:11:35 PM  
The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals, will be revised to reflect changes in English usage

Jesus: omg
Romans: stfu gtfo
Jesus: brb lol
 
2009-09-01 05:12:11 PM  
lennavan: Disapproves.

/Don't bring a stone to a gun fight.


Fail. See the following example of WIN:

japlemon: Keep Han out of it

Hokey religions and ancient weaponry are no match for a good blaster at your side, kids


Move along, move along...
 
2009-09-01 05:12:35 PM  
img20.imageshack.us
 
2009-09-01 05:12:52 PM  
FuturePastNow: "reflect changes in English usage" = dumbed down for stupid people

/they should throw in the Apocrypha


Yeah I like the Apocrypha, and even though I like their original stuff, I really prefer their four-cellos-playing-your-favorite- metal-hits.
 
2009-09-01 05:13:07 PM  
Korovyov: Danielsan: The KJV translation is especially bad.

Is there an especially good translation? I don't happen to have a Bible, and might get around to making another attempt at it sometime.


I was always fond of the Black Bible. I think it's out of print now; more's the pity. It's what the two black guys in Airplane! would have read. (new window)
 
2009-09-01 05:13:49 PM  
Maybe in this version, God won't be such a dickhead.
 
2009-09-01 05:14:12 PM  
Whoopdeefarkindoo! I'll still never read it.
 
2009-09-01 05:14:39 PM  
Pope Michael of Discordia: The bible has been changed and edited by the wealthy and the literate to keep the masses quiet, complacent, and poor. To the point where the original text has no meaning.

Or to the point that the current translation has no meaning?

Cause I would think that the original would have just as much meaning as before since the original is not being changed. Then again, what would one consider the original?
 
2009-09-01 05:15:14 PM  
Hmmm, is the NIV "the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals," as noted? My limited experience is that they're pretty equally torn between KJV, NIV and NASB.
 
2009-09-01 05:15:25 PM  
TNIV was an improvement on the NIV; the NIV had a nasty tendency to drop imperative commands, converting sentences to declarative. The gender inclusiveness also made sense- when referring to a group of people in Greek, you'd use masculine pronouns even if it included women.

Unfortunately, folks who didn't understand any of this got crosswise and spoke out of their ignorance and biases- saying "children of God" instead of "sons of God" isn't exactly a half step from referring to "mother God." So the TNIV never went anywhere, and the completely updated language (such as TFA states, with the use of "pregnant"), while accurate, isn't quite what most folks are shooting for.

ESV is better in every respect anyway.
 
2009-09-01 05:16:07 PM  
spoiler: snape kills jesus
 
2009-09-01 05:16:09 PM  
Pope Michael of Discordia: The bible has been changed and edited by the wealthy and the literate to keep the masses quiet, complacent, and poor. To the point where the original text has no meaning.

THIS>

Organized religion was implemented to control the masses.

When they have the original teachings of Jesus being published, wake me up.
 
2009-09-01 05:18:21 PM  
GAT_00: Why does the true word of God need revising?

Because they translated wrong.Plus, it was written by man to begin with. Assuming their is a God, it didn't just fart a book out.

Just curious, but what do denominations that believe in a literal interpretations think about Bible scholarship and books left out at the Synod of Hippo?
 
2009-09-01 05:18:49 PM  
Pope Michael of Discordia: The bible has been changed and edited by the wealthy and the literate to keep the masses quiet, complacent, and poor. To the point where the original text has no meaning.

Pretty much this. So much of religion is so damn convenient, from the perspective that it's meant to benefit a few and ensure the continuation of the religion over time.
 
2009-09-01 05:19:11 PM  
phlegmmo: The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals, will be revised to reflect changes in English usage

Jesus: omg
Romans: stfu gtfo
Jesus: brb lol


Thread over!
 
2009-09-01 05:19:22 PM  
chimp_ninja: ninjakirby: The scholars working on the new edition of the NIV aren't 'changing to to reflect their beliefs', they are changing it to reflect modern scientific discoveries.

Genesis is going to be tough reading if it spans 4.5 billion years or so.

"And lo, He did bring forth Orthrozanclus reburrus and Anomalocaris canadensis. And lo His work was good. But then He thought is was maybe not that Good. So lo, He in his infinite mercy and infallibility decided that the previous effort was sort of a draft version, and he smote them but good, and decided to bring forth maybe some things with fewer whatsits hanging off of them. Quoth Him, 'Meh, they had a good run.'"


You know, sometimes I'm scrolling through threads like this and facepalming the entire way through. This time, I stopped to perform a standing ovation.
 
2009-09-01 05:19:31 PM  
Are they including the formerly missing page that starts "To my darling Candy"?
 
2009-09-01 05:19:41 PM  
Showeth thine titties
 
Displayed 50 of 309 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report