Path: ultra.sonic.net!uunet!in5.uu.net!wnfeed!worldnet.att.net!194.162.162.196!newsfeed.nacamar.de!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!aslan.demon.co.uk!andrew From: Andrew Rilstone Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis Subject: Re: Mormons... Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:28:18 +0100 Organization: The Small Carrot Shop Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <6174u0$f9i@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> <1997100512354572756@zetnet.co.uk> <618cda$iah@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> <618opk$1q6@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <619689$l2v@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> <619dtj$4nk@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <619g7f$m67@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> <619h3k$fv0@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: This@Left.Blank.To.Discourage.Junk.Mail NNTP-Posting-Host: aslan.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aslan.demon.co.uk [158.152.30.126] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.03 <3aYeJUWAsGS1FwPCwFgLAUIQiZ> Lines: 56 Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.books.cs-lewis:9215 In article <619h3k$fv0@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Joseph Malik writes >Hopefully God transcends laguage, and so all translations of the Hebrew >done in earnest come through OK. The trouble is, there is no such thing as neutral translation. The New International Version of the Bible sometimes uses "Elect" where other translations say "Chosen People." I assume that both are legitmate glosses on the original word; but it has the effect of making the passages sound more, well, Calvinist. The translators believed that God was a Calvinist and therefore assumed that this was what he meant. I think they were sincere and in earnest. I also think that the New English Bible's translators were sincere and in earnest when they wrote "ecstatic utterance" rather than "speaking in tongues." That's what they sincerely and earnestly think that the word meant. I don't think that one set were good translators and the other set were bad translators. I think that this is true of all translations, by definition. Who visited Jesus as a baby? Was it "wise men", or "men who study the stars" or "astrologers"? Moffatt says "wizards". Isn't that a perfectly good translation of "magi"? Doesn't that put an interesting spin on the text? (At the end of the Cook's Tale, Chaucer wrote "And kept for appearaunce a shoppe, but swyved for hir sustenaunce." "Swyved" means something like "shagged" or "bonked". Lewis's friend Neville Coghill rendered that into modern English "She kept a shop to save her good repute; but made her living as a prostitutue." He has translated the exact literal meaning of the words...but changed the tone considerable. "Poetry is that which gets lost in translation.) (Is that the most desperate OB C.S Lewis reference you've read this week?) You may very well be right that "The Word of God" comes through when you read the Bible, irrespective of the merits of the translation. If your claim is "The Bible functions supernaturally. The process by which God commicates with me through the pages of the Bible is quite different from the process by which Ian Fleming communicates with me through the pages of Goldfinger" then I am not going to argue with you. But you have then made the Bible immune from normal textual discussion. When a Jew hears you saying "Psalm 22 fortells the crucifixion" he naturally assumes that you mean "The WORDS of Pslam 22 foretell this historical event", and can legetimately say "But if you look at what the words actually say, you'll find they don't do any such thing." It is cheating for you to say "What I meant was that while I was reading a 16th Century poem based on Pslam 22, God spoke to me supernaturally and told me that Jesus was the Messiah." It is far more blessed to be spoken to by God while reading the A.V than to have a good scholarly understanding of the original text, of course. -- Andrew Rilstone andrew@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/ *************************************************************************** "Why can't I be a non-conformist like everybody else?" ***************************************************************************