[when asked if it's ok to read the Bible in French]
Unless you can find a trustworthy person to help you choose, I would avoid it. Just as there are many versions in English, there are different versions in French (and other languages). If you are not VERY careful, you'll end up in a bad version.
If English is your primary language, stick with the KJV.
By the way, there are people out there who are translating the KJV into other languages. Though the KJV is a perfect translation, translating the KJV into other languages (second generation translations) creates imperfect (in fact, flawed) translations.
79 comments
God, I'm starting to wonder if Fundies think the Bible was originally written in English. Just how stupid can these people get ?
I still don't get what the big deal is with the king james version of the bible. Wouldn't these nutjobs prefer to read it in the original hebrew and greek?
You'd think so; but most of them think that English is "God's Lanugage" and therefore, any Bible that isn't in English is for Heathens.
Mange de la merde, toi baquet de saindoux anglophone. Naturellement vous ne pouvez pas comprendre celle, peut vous ? Non, parce que l'anglais est le seul maudit langage qui est intéressant à étude. Va te faire foutre.(Hope that translates properly.)
Is this man, apart from idiot, so ethnocentric as to think that Jacobean English is the only acceptable language?. Can this person speak another language apart of English to certify that it's the best translation?
Les bibles sont remplies d'autant de merde en Français qu'en anglais.
Un éphebophile comme ce trou-de-cul de Randy croit surement que "Dieu" en est un different, de la meme maniere que tant de trisomiques religieux essaient de faire croire qu'"Allah" n'est pas "Dieu" n'est pas "God".
Le fait que "biscuit" et "cookie" sont des mots differents pour la même exacte chose les dépassent de plusieurs kilomètres d'altitude.
If the King James Bible was good enough for the Apostle Paul... Oh wait...
As far as translations go, I'm fairly sure the KJV is widely regarded by Bible scholars as one of the worst if not the worst of all English translations. They had a tendency to just make things up when they weren't exactly sure what the text meant. And the KJV is useful for a cult because the text is kind of confusing to speakers of modern English, so when you aren't quite sure what something means, you too can just make shit up in the fine KJV tradition.
Of course, if you want some real redefinition fun, you can always claim to know what the original Hebrew/Greek REALLY meant.
By the way, there are people out there who are translating the KJV into other languages. Though the KJV is an imperfect translation, translating the KJV into other languages (umpteenth generation translations) creates even more imperfect (as such, even more flawed) translations."
Fixed.
Fundies like the KJV because it's hard to read and has existed for more thaqn 300 years, as opposed to the "secular" translations that are usualleh less than 100 years old.
And from what other stoof Randy's said, I tihnk he thinks the KJVB is the original version.....*sighs*
The irony is, he's REALLY pissed off about Peter Ruckman, who actually has even crazier KJV claims than the Brother ever had.
Anyone lurking at T4C can go to The Board > Bible > Cults and false teachers > Ruckmanites / Peter Ruckman to learn more.
O_O He's joking, right? I mean, please tell me that "Brother" Randy is the most elaborate, insane troll ever created and he doesn't really believe this junk. Please.
IMO the KJV is actually one of the worst (i.e., least faithful to original) translations. I have no idea why fundies are so damned obsessed with it (do they know what King James was really like? Do they ever study the books in the original languages to see what has changed?).
As I've said many times before, fundie "Christians" worship the Bible and not God.
Though Bro.Randy is a perfect asshat, there are other asshats in other languages (some creating second generation asshats) who are flawed asshats. If English is your primary language, stick with the Bro.Randy version of asshattery.
Meh, I wanted to edit my last comment but for some reason it won't let me. here's my revised/elaborated version:
O_O He's joking, right? I mean, please tell me that "Brother" Randy is the most elaborate, insane troll ever created and he doesn't really believe this junk. Please.
The KJV is actually one of the worst (i.e., least faithful to original) translations. Language scholarship and understanding have progressed much in the time since that translation was made. As well, the translators nowadays are usually much more objective and not inclined to add/edit passages to say what they think is "right", or because they're not knowledgable enough to figure out what it means.
I have no idea why fundies are so damned obsessed with the KJV (do they know what King James was really like? Do they ever study the books in the original languages to see what has changed?). As I've said many times before, fundie "Christians" worship the Bible and not God.
Oooh, I see the anonymous person above me has decided we are all assholes. Beg pardon, but a dishonest bigot who spends his time brainwashing susceptible kids deserves to be told to eat shit. The day he stops influencing kids with his warped mind is the day I will apologise for calling him names. Get over it.
P.S. it's pretty funny that you are reproaching us for cussing at someone in French, and then you proceed to call us "assholes". Pull the log out of your own eye before worrying about our splinters, eh?
I speculated once, and was seconded, that the reason the KJV is so steadfastly held on to is because, due to language evolution, all the fundies' favorite codewords (like, I dunno, "strong meat") aren't in any of the newer translations. Christianity has always been fond of its codewords.
There's also an aesthetic thing, I'm sure -- Joseph Smith deliberately wrote the Book of Mormon in his version of Jacobean English (I don't know how accurate it was, but he wasn't exactly a great writer, so I don't know if that would be easily known) to make it sound more "Biblical". I think the speech register it's written in makes a big difference; if you produce a translation in more modernized language, it's just going to sound wrong to some people. Fundies take that one step further and give aesthetics the status of dogma.
Honestly, I've heard a few atheists swear by the Richmond Lattimore New Testament (Lattimore having been non-religious, his work is thought to have been more objective due to a lack of doctrinal prejudice), and there's that Tanakh that was translated as literally as possible from the Hebrew not long ago which I presume would also be considered authoritative to a mainstream Biblical scholar (don't remember the translator's name).
The KJV is just another translation, a translation with several versions, a translation that was ordered by a king that was... oh who cares? Bro. Randy doesn't believe in facts.
The truth is that unless a person is very well versed in English literature and history, the KJV is hard to read and can be easily manipulated into meaning whatever an American fundie preacher wants it to say.
Does anyone else find it ironic, and highly amusing, that so many anti-gay fundies have a hard one the KJV? King James being a famous homosexual? Their Bible's have the name of a homosexual printed on the cover. It just gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.
Does anyone else find it ironic, and highly amusing, that so many anti-gay fundies have a hard one the KJV? King James being a famous homosexual? Their Bible's have the name of a homosexual printed on the cover. It just gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.
oh, I find that hilarious myself. But I'm sure the KJV-only crowd would respond with either
a) denial
-or-
b) "the Lord works in mysterious ways".
Seriously, how much did ole King James have to do with the translation? I'm sure he didn't do any translating it himself, but was he much involved with the order to have it done, or was it more the idea of his advisors, and he said "yeah, sure, go for it."
James was much involved in it. He was a learned man, and both instigated and was deeply involved in the project (though none of the translation work was his). Basically, the Authorised Version (to give it its proper name) was a (mostly succesful) attempt to head off the Puritans at the pass. One of the Puritan demands was for a new translation, as they objected to the Bishops' Bible of Matthew Parker, which was the current CofE standard. They preferred the Geneva Bible (translated by Coverdale, among others), but James most certainly didn't, given the remarks against kings and kingship that littered the footnotes. His Authorised Version was designed to placate the Puritan faction, uphold the authority of the CofE, and not give anybody any ideas about removing kings ... that last one didn't work too well.
Funny, if the KJV is the "perfect" translation, why are there so many words in it that didn't exist in the original Greek & Hebrew? And why are there huge sections that vary so much from the original, they don't even seem to be from the same book?
Anyone familiar with the original texts would give Randy an aneurysm with their analysis of the KJV.
---------------------------------
@Anonymous Fundie Coward #259628
think you're hot shit with your bad french, do ya? you only prove you can be assholes in two languages.
But you can only be an asshole in one - and you haven't even mastered that one, by the look of your capitalization & grammar skills.
"Mange de la merde, toi baquet de saindoux anglophone. Naturellement vous ne pouvez pas comprendre celle, peut vous ? Non, parce que l'anglais est le seul maudit langage qui est intéressant à étude. Va te faire foutre.(Hope that translates properly.)"
"Eat shit, you (hmmm) anglophone. Naturally you cannot understand this, can you? No, because English is the only (?) language which is interesting to study. Go fuck yourself."
I think that "toi" is the object form of "tu," the second person pronoun, and so I am not sure if it should be used in that first sentence. There are a couple words I'm not familiar with, and I think the third sentence does not mean what you meant it to mean. But your intent does come through.
Chan:
I think you're mostly correct, though a quick look indicates that the second part of the first sentence is probably something on the order of "you lard-assed anglophone", and "maudit" just means "damn".
@ Chan: Still learning French, I'm sometimes a little unsure of what word to use for what context. Still, so long as the gist gets across, I'm happy.
And all the translators that I've used tell "Va te faire foutre" is "Get stuffed" in French. I don't really mind the less swear-y version (if the translators aren't PG-ing the phrase).
@Brian X: "Baquet de saindoux anglophone" is supposed to be "Anglophone lard bucket", or something of that nature.
Oh well, I guess the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and other original versions are all flawed then. I never knew God spoke English, but not just any English, southern redneck to be exact from some of the fundies I've seen.
"I break wind in your general direction"! Idiot, Jesus spoke in Amurican fundie, not that Elizabethan English stuff, that's for sissys!
"If 16th century Early Modern English is your primary language and you're committed to ignoring any biblical scholarship, textual discoveries or improvements in the understanding of first-century koine Greek since 1611, stick with the KJV."
There. Fixed.
Seriously, why won't that man shut the fuck up?? Has he ever said anything remotely intelligent in his life?
Now he thinks English is the only "correct" way to read the bible? I can't believe this moron - he claims to know so much about the bible and has no fucking clue that the bible was NOT written in English! My brain hurts thinking about that!
L'imbécile...
Oui, aucune traduction n'est parfaite (je le sais, c'est mon métier)... et cela s'applique à TOUTES LES ASTI DE CRISSE DE CALVAIRE DE MAUDITES versions de la Bible qu'on peut trouver, mon câlisse de tata, car ce sont toutes des traductions, de l'hébreu, du grec ou de l'araméen. Toutefois, si tu crois que Jésus parlait dans un anglais élisabéthain impeccable, ton cas est sans espoir.
Et j'ai délibérément utilisé les jurons colorés et tous d'origine très religieuse de mon terroir.
...And just to save English-speakers the trouble of deciphering :)
The idiot...
Indeed, no translation is perfect (I know for it's my trade)... and this goes for EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN FUCKING version of the Bible too, you asswipe, because they're all translations too, from Hebrew, Greek or Aramean. If you believe Jayyyzus speaketh in flawless Elizabethan English, you're a hopeless case.
The use in French of the religion-themed cuss words from my native Quebec is wholly deliberate.
"They had a tendency to just make things up when they weren't exactly sure what the text meant."
Yeah, that's something bad translators still do today.
It makes me sick!
Dood, the KJV ITSELF is a flawed translation.
But what do we care? The damn KJV is Randy's waifu, amongst all the lolis he's harvesting.
From what I understand, the KJV isn't a very accurate translation. I can understand a preference for it in certain situations. If you want to understand the history and literature of the English-speaking world, you probably want to be familiar with the English translation of the Bible that's been the most commonly used for the past four hundred years. I can understand that the language of the KJV has a more archaic or poetic feel and for that alone might be preferred by some people. (I've heard it said before that poetic translations are rarely accurate and accurate translations are purely poetic).
I can understand a personal preference for the KJV in certain situations. But I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would try to enforce that preference upon others or think that one translation is perfect for all people in all situations.
All translations are going to be flawed simply because they happen to be translations. No matter what, you're never going to capture the complete feel and nuance of the original text. How on earth is the KJV a perfect translation?
@ Quantum Mechanic:
Um, King James VI/I didn't actually write the KJV. And King James didn't back the translation because he wanted a divorce. King James never had a divorce. However, the translation was meant to be in line with Anglican teachings and all of the translators would have been Anglican, and the Anglican Church was founded because the pope refused to allow King Henry VIII to get a divorce.
It's also not all "obviously crap". It's not necessarily faithful to the original source and some of it is pretty awful, but it's got some nice bits as well.
You realize that you are, by extension, implying that other languages are inferior. Fuck you, Bro. Randy.
edit: Alethe wins several internets
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.