ec2-35-172-164-32.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic You don't seem to like the NewLivingBible? - may I ask why? I've never used it but people I know say that it makes a good second Bible (i.e. since everyone has NIV, you need something else occasionally, and NLB is good for that something else). --Mjb67
Because it is utterly ridiculous, in a bad way. The only thing that religion has going for it as an advantage is pomp and ritual. Valid though it may be; "And Jesus walked on water, and Peter said 'Awesome!'" just sounds stupid. It brings the stories down to the level of mundane reality, at which point anyone can spot their ridiculousness. --Vitenka
Giggle. Vitenka, you're too genial to flamebait properly. This reminds me of a conversation I had with friends recently about a TV program where people tried to disprove Jesus' miracles using science... the point of the Bible is, yes, it is ridiculous for someone to walk on water. Or rise from the dead. But it happened. In other words, we're subject to the laws of science, but someOne else isn't. I think if a translation brings things down to the level of mundane reality to let you realise just how incredible the claims are, then it's doing its job... --AlexChurchill
Oh, I can be baited. It just takes a more subtle approach. As for your rejoinder; which is more likely to be believed "My cat grew wings" or a long rambling explanation of how this is possible (probably involving JapaneseCats?) of which you only understand about half the terms. Oh, and I also object on principle to catering to the semi-literate. Get them up to standard or drop them - don't MollyCoddle? them. (Having said that, we could do with a new edition of plenty of books in modern language - but not in the semi-rap debauched mangling of it that the nlb is) --Vitenka (I can bait back, too!)
(PeterTaylor) The original text could be argued to be addressed to the semi-literate. If it had been addressed to the cognoscenti, it would have been in Attic Greek. As as for "is more likely to believed" - are you implying that the Church maliciously aims to deceive?
Ok, this is, perhaps, true. I have not the information to argue it. The 'catering' part was a sideswipe at an entirely different argument. As to the deception - in strict terms, yes. I do not believe that the events recounted in that book are true. However, presumably (at least most of) those who push the book ''do' so believe. But that's beside the point. They want the reader to believe. Writing it in that way makes it less likely. --Vitenka
It's supposed to be the first translation aimed at adults using the "dynamic impact translation" method. This is apparently the method of using English language with equivalent emotional impact to the original. Are there any parts that people find really bad? The bits I've read seem fine --Mjb67
Whilst I agree that the phrasing was originally so, I do not think that this phrasing is terribly effective. Perhaps if they had concentrated on tranlsating the message rather than the literal events, it would work better. I do not think that the populous is as credulous as the original audience was - plus the modern audience already knows the basic facts about the religion being touted.
The bits I strongly disagree with are pretty much all of it - the jarring context of attempts to be 'hip'. This may be because certain bits of language which were mainstream when it was written are entirely naff now. And out-of-fashion language that was recently in fashion jars worse than language that hasn't been in fashion during my lifetime. --Vitenka
Now this AlexChurchill can agree with you on. "The Message" is a very interpretative translation of the New Testament into contemporary American phrasing. At times using modern-day idioms and cliches helps the text hit home. At times using Americanisms or out-of-fashion language makes it impossible to take seriously. I suspect my attitude to the NewLivingBible, were I exposed to a bit more of it, would be quite similar. --AC
MoonShadow can see both points of view. On the one hand, it's readable. On the other hand, it's very hard to take seriously.