OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 03:59:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What translation of the Holy Bible do/did you use?  (Read 7454 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« on: January 01, 2010, 05:44:23 AM »

what translation was most commen among Eastern Orthodox Christians before the Eastern Orthodox Study bible came out?
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2010, 11:03:06 AM »

what translation was most commen among Eastern Orthodox Christians before the Eastern Orthodox Study bible came out?

KJV & NKJV, and to a lesser extent the RSV.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,235


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2010, 01:21:18 PM »

I still don't own a copy of the OSB Wink For me it's usually the KJV--my trusty Thompson chain-reference Bible--though I will consult other versions from time to time just to get a different perspective (NIV, NAB for deuterocanonicals, etc.)  If I think that a passage might differ in the Septuagint version, I just Google for it.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2010, 01:36:53 PM »

I have a question for you all.  Has anyone come across this translation of the NT? Also, if anyone owns it, one commentor said that it was heavily annoted, although I can't find anything about that in the description. Is this true?

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-New-Testament-Translated-Leatherette/dp/0944359256/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2010, 01:50:17 PM »

I have a question for you all.  Has anyone come across this translation of the NT? Also, if anyone owns it, one commentor said that it was heavily annoted, although I can't find anything about that in the description. Is this true?

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-New-Testament-Translated-Leatherette/dp/0944359256/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Yes I've heard of this one. I've heard complaints that the translation is too literal and eccentric so it makes for rather cringeworthy reading. Though this doesn't bother everyone and it is very accurate. It's great for indepth study but not great for hearing it read in Church.

Deciding on a Bible transaltion largely depends on what you're going to use it for.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 01:53:04 PM by Nazarene » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2010, 08:16:10 PM »

I have a question for you all.  Has anyone come across this translation of the NT? Also, if anyone owns it, one commentor said that it was heavily annoted, although I can't find anything about that in the description. Is this true?

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-New-Testament-Translated-Leatherette/dp/0944359256/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Yes I've heard of this one. I've heard complaints that the translation is too literal and eccentric so it makes for rather cringeworthy reading. Though this doesn't bother everyone and it is very accurate. It's great for indepth study but not great for hearing it read in Church.


Personally, I think it's a horrible translation to read, light on natural language flow and heavy on eccentric literalness; though perhaps the notes are worthwhile.

As an aside, is it true that the group that published it is schismatic?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2010, 08:28:29 PM »

I have a question for you all.  Has anyone come across this translation of the NT? Also, if anyone owns it, one commentor said that it was heavily annoted, although I can't find anything about that in the description. Is this true?

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-New-Testament-Translated-Leatherette/dp/0944359256/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Yes I've heard of this one. I've heard complaints that the translation is too literal and eccentric so it makes for rather cringeworthy reading. Though this doesn't bother everyone and it is very accurate. It's great for indepth study but not great for hearing it read in Church.


Personally, I think it's a horrible translation to read, light on natural language flow and heavy on eccentric literalness; though perhaps the notes are worthwhile.

As an aside, is it true that the group that published it is schismatic?

Greek Old Calendarist.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2010, 08:36:32 PM »

I have a question for you all.  Has anyone come across this translation of the NT? Also, if anyone owns it, one commentor said that it was heavily annoted, although I can't find anything about that in the description. Is this true?

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-New-Testament-Translated-Leatherette/dp/0944359256/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Yes I've heard of this one. I've heard complaints that the translation is too literal and eccentric so it makes for rather cringeworthy reading. Though this doesn't bother everyone and it is very accurate. It's great for indepth study but not great for hearing it read in Church.


Personally, I think it's a horrible translation to read, light on natural language flow and heavy on eccentric literalness; though perhaps the notes are worthwhile.

As an aside, is it true that the group that published it is schismatic?

Greek Old Calendarist.

That's a schismatic group?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2010, 08:42:59 PM »

I own several bibles. I have the OSB but I am reluctant to use it much; I don't like the KJV and the footnotes and commentaries seem heavily underpinned with Biblical-literalist Protestant theological undertones. I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible, which has some excellent historical-critical/analytical commentary. I also read the New Translation of the English Septuagint.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2010, 08:45:50 PM »

That's a schismatic group?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Old_Calendarists
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2010, 08:52:01 PM »

I own several bibles. I have the OSB but I am reluctant to use it much; I don't like the KJV and the footnotes and commentaries seem heavily underpinned with Biblical-literalist Protestant theological undertones. I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible, which has some excellent historical-critical/analytical commentary. I also read the New Translation of the English Septuagint.

I have copies of the KJV (Cambridge), the NASB (with commentary) the NLT (with commentary) the ESV (NT), the RSV (Apocrypha), TLB (The Living Bible), the NIV, and the ALT (Analytical-literal Translation of the New Testament). I'm probably missing one. Most are left over from my protestant days.
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2010, 09:20:55 PM »

That's a schismatic group?

Depends on who you ask.
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2010, 09:25:19 PM »

I actually like the Orthodox New Testament since it is a more literal translation. I do like the Douay Rheims Bible and I also have the Brenton translation of the Septuagint. I'm not the biggest fan of the OSB since its NKJV and I don't really like the whole "study Bible" thing. I wish someone would just release a full Bible with all the books in it (including the other two Maccabees that were left out of the OSB) and with a more KJV like translation and without the footnotes and all that.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2010, 09:55:38 PM »

I actually like the Orthodox New Testament since it is a more literal translation. I do like the Douay Rheims Bible and I also have the Brenton translation of the Septuagint. I'm not the biggest fan of the OSB since its NKJV and I don't really like the whole "study Bible" thing. I wish someone would just release a full Bible with all the books in it (including the other two Maccabees that were left out of the OSB) and with a more KJV like translation and without the footnotes and all that.

The OSB is only missing one Maccabbees, the Fourth. A big objection on my part (I'd rather fond of the book), but can't complain too much, as many Orthodox Bibles in Orthodox countries (e.g. Romania) lack it too.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,758



« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2010, 10:00:33 PM »

I actually like the Orthodox New Testament since it is a more literal translation. I do like the Douay Rheims Bible and I also have the Brenton translation of the Septuagint. I'm not the biggest fan of the OSB since its NKJV and I don't really like the whole "study Bible" thing. I wish someone would just release a full Bible with all the books in it (including the other two Maccabees that were left out of the OSB) and with a more KJV like translation and without the footnotes and all that.

Ditto on all points, except that I like the NKJV.  I do, however, wish for an Orthodox Bible with all the books and without the commentary.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #15 on: January 01, 2010, 10:06:03 PM »

I actually like the Orthodox New Testament since it is a more literal translation. I do like the Douay Rheims Bible and I also have the Brenton translation of the Septuagint. I'm not the biggest fan of the OSB since its NKJV and I don't really like the whole "study Bible" thing. I wish someone would just release a full Bible with all the books in it (including the other two Maccabees that were left out of the OSB) and with a more KJV like translation and without the footnotes and all that.

Ditto on all points, except that I like the NKJV.  I do, however, wish for an Orthodox Bible with all the books and without the commentary.

I much prefer the NKJV to the KJV with all the thees and thous and archaic terminology. Elizabethan/Jacobean English is great when enjoying Shakespeare, but I think more easily understood English is better, especially when encouraging young people to read the Bible. However, don't the comments in the OSB help to understand an Orthodox pov, especially for converts?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 10:06:52 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,235


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #16 on: January 01, 2010, 10:07:11 PM »

Greek Old Calendarist.

It's probably be more accurate just to call them old calendarist. I mean, the leader of the group was Antiochian, then Greek, then Russian, and now I'm not sure what he is (except for being the Archbishop of a handful of parishes in America, and quite a few more people he is duping in other countries).

As for the Bible in question, we used to own it, and I would agree with Riddikulus about the translation... the saving grace of it is that they include patristic quotes for the passages, but that's not enough to justify buying it IMO.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2010, 11:48:18 PM »

I actually like the Orthodox New Testament since it is a more literal translation. I do like the Douay Rheims Bible and I also have the Brenton translation of the Septuagint. I'm not the biggest fan of the OSB since its NKJV and I don't really like the whole "study Bible" thing. I wish someone would just release a full Bible with all the books in it (including the other two Maccabees that were left out of the OSB) and with a more KJV like translation and without the footnotes and all that.

The OSB is only missing one Maccabbees, the Fourth. A big objection on my part (I'd rather fond of the book), but can't complain too much, as many Orthodox Bibles in Orthodox countries (e.g. Romania) lack it too.

Ah, yes your right.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2010, 12:18:32 AM »

Greek Old Calendarist.

It's probably be more accurate just to call them old calendarist. I mean, the leader of the group was Antiochian, then Greek, then Russian, and now I'm not sure what he is (except for being the Archbishop of a handful of parishes in America, and quite a few more people he is duping in other countries).



I didn't know they had a monastery in the states. Interesting. Hey, maybe they have a legitimate claim.  I don't have an option, so I stick with the "new calendarists" Cheesy
Logged
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,758



« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2010, 01:00:57 AM »


I much prefer the NKJV to the KJV with all the thees and thous and archaic terminology. Elizabethan/Jacobean English is great when enjoying Shakespeare, but I think more easily understood English is better, especially when encouraging young people to read the Bible. However, don't the comments in the OSB help to understand an Orthodox pov, especially for converts?

Very good question.  For me, it is a matter of preference.  I am quite used to Commentaries, and prefer a more in depth discussion over the snippets in the bottom of a "Study Bible".  I am not sure that one could really call the snippets an "Orthodox" point of view, since two thousand years of history have left several points of view on many subjects.  The OSB is representative of the SCOBA point of view, and seems to me to have more in common with modern Protestant textual criticism (the subject of a former thread) than the strictly traditional view of what I normally read.  This is simply my opinion and a comment as to why I do not feel the need for the commentary contained in the OSB and would like a copy of just the Biblical text.  However, your last statement finds me very much in agreement.  The same things that I do not like about the commentary of the OSB would, however, make it VERY useful for a person seeking a bridge between Protestantism and Orthodoxy.  Probably as much use for a seeker as a convert.  I believe that there is also some use for the OSB since the average convert (or Orthodox Christian for that matter) probably does not have a history of extensive comparative reading of Protestant, Latin, and Patristic commentaries of the Scriptures.  When I run into a question regarding the meaning of a passage in the Scriptures, I usually look at as many patristic writings as I can to get an idea of the consensus of the Church on the matter (if, indeed, there is one).  Not everyone may have the luxury of having a library of these at home, or the desire to search the writings out for themselves (I was shocked to find that many Orthodox Churches do not have much of a library, and the Priest may or may not have a collection himself.  Quite the opposite of my experience in the Lutheran Church).  This could make a "Study Bible" useful, so I am not against the OSB.  Again, it is a matter of preference on my part.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2010, 02:28:24 AM »

I started with the New International Version as a teenager, which I still find to be a wonderful translation by faithful Christians, even if it is based on the Eclectic Text.  

For a while I was all about the New Revised Standard Version, but then I figured out that it comes from the hands of cancerous, spiritually dead critics of Christ.  Also, all of the poetry and beauty is lost for the sake of a literal rendition that points away from an "imposed" Trinitarianism.

These days I am using the Orthodox Study Bible, so basically the New King James Version.  

It's nice.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2010, 02:29:21 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2010, 12:53:49 AM »

I started with the New International Version as a teenager, which I still find to be a wonderful translation by faithful Christians, even if it is based on the Eclectic Text.  

For a while I was all about the New Revised Standard Version, but then I figured out that it comes from the hands of cancerous, spiritually dead critics of Christ.  Also, all of the poetry and beauty is lost for the sake of a literal rendition that points away from an "imposed" Trinitarianism.

These days I am using the Orthodox Study Bible, so basically the New King James Version.  

It's nice.



this has nothing to do with the topic but where did you get that wondeful picture?  or, rather, where is it from?   Smiley
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
That person
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 1,158


Long live Commie Superman


« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2010, 08:10:25 PM »

what translation was most commen among Eastern Orthodox Christians before the Eastern Orthodox Study bible came out?

KJV & NKJV, and to a lesser extent the RSV.
I know this is slightly off topic, but was the KJV ever published with the complete deuterocanon?
Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

Movie reviews you can trust.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2010, 08:35:45 PM »

what translation was most commen among Eastern Orthodox Christians before the Eastern Orthodox Study bible came out?

KJV & NKJV, and to a lesser extent the RSV.
I know this is slightly off topic, but was the KJV ever published with the complete deuterocanon?

To my the best of knowledge it was published in it's present form with a third section between the OT and the NT for the OT books that Protestants didn't recognize as inspired. This middle section labeled "apocrypha" was excluded by most publishers later on but was originally in a section seperate from the rest of the OT. If you do a search, you can find publishers that still sell the "1611 KJV with Apocrypha". You can also find an online version at www.htmlbible.com.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
That person
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 1,158


Long live Commie Superman


« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2010, 09:04:49 PM »

what translation was most commen among Eastern Orthodox Christians before the Eastern Orthodox Study bible came out?

KJV & NKJV, and to a lesser extent the RSV.
I know this is slightly off topic, but was the KJV ever published with the complete deuterocanon?

To my the best of knowledge it was published in it's present form with a third section between the OT and the NT for the OT books that Protestants didn't recognize as inspired. This middle section labeled "apocrypha" was excluded by most publishers later on but was originally in a section seperate from the rest of the OT. If you do a search, you can find publishers that still sell the "1611 KJV with Apocrypha". You can also find an online version at www.htmlbible.com.
As far as I can tell, it doesn't contain the 151st Psalm or the later books of Maccabees.
Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

Movie reviews you can trust.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2010, 09:44:19 PM »

what translation was most commen among Eastern Orthodox Christians before the Eastern Orthodox Study bible came out?

KJV & NKJV, and to a lesser extent the RSV.
I know this is slightly off topic, but was the KJV ever published with the complete deuterocanon?

To my the best of knowledge it was published in it's present form with a third section between the OT and the NT for the OT books that Protestants didn't recognize as inspired. This middle section labeled "apocrypha" was excluded by most publishers later on but was originally in a section seperate from the rest of the OT. If you do a search, you can find publishers that still sell the "1611 KJV with Apocrypha". You can also find an online version at www.htmlbible.com.
As far as I can tell, it doesn't contain the 151st Psalm or the later books of Maccabees.

I think that might have something to do with the Vulgate translation which did not include Psalm 151, 3rd or 4th Maccabees, had Jeremiah in the same order as the Masoretic Text and not the LXX order. The Vulgate was the official and most widely used translation in western Europe at that time so the translators were probably most familiar with that canon. They were probably trying to conform the OT to the Masoretic Text while setting aside the "extras" that everyone was familiar with. In Luther's quest to "restore the Scriptures corrupted by Rome" to what the Jews had "preserved", I don't think he was conerned about what had actually been faithfully preserved within Christianity. It was more about "getting rid of extra stuff" than it was about building a complete collection of what Christians had always recognized as Scripture and preserved.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Get_Behind_Me_Satan
2Cor. 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Julian Calender
Posts: 160



« Reply #26 on: February 17, 2010, 07:11:15 PM »



A reasonably understandable bible is the 'Third Millenium Bible' its also a complete Bible.
Its a bible that is for true believing Orthodox Christians, because it includes the Apocrypha.
http://www.tmbible.com/
Logged

“The testimonies of the western teachers I neither recognize or accept. I surmise that they are corrupted.
There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”

St Mark Of Ephesus, Doctor of the church. (True Church)

Down with ecumenism!
SoleRedemption
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 32


towerofdavid77
« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2010, 04:26:47 AM »

I enjoy my old Douay-Rheims Bible, despite Bishop Challoner's occasional footnote promoting purgatory or papal infallibility, and its over-reliance on the Vulgate as opposed to other ancient sources. When I'm confused on a phrase's meaning, I usually go for the OSB.
Logged
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2010, 06:45:28 AM »

I actually like the Orthodox New Testament since it is a more literal translation. I do like the Douay Rheims Bible and I also have the Brenton translation of the Septuagint. I'm not the biggest fan of the OSB since its NKJV and I don't really like the whole "study Bible" thing. I wish someone would just release a full Bible with all the books in it (including the other two Maccabees that were left out of the OSB) and with a more KJV like translation and without the footnotes and all that.

Ditto on all points, except that I like the NKJV.  I do, however, wish for an Orthodox Bible with all the books and without the commentary.

I much prefer the NKJV to the KJV with all the thees and thous and archaic terminology. Elizabethan/Jacobean English is great when enjoying Shakespeare, but I think more easily understood English is better, especially when encouraging young people to read the Bible. However, don't the comments in the OSB help to understand an Orthodox pov, especially for converts?

Don't you Greeks use the original Septuagint? (wish, I was born Greek) BTW.. I like NKJV -- old-style but not too old-style.  Grin
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2010, 06:46:22 AM »

I enjoy my old Douay-Rheims Bible, despite Bishop Challoner's occasional footnote promoting purgatory or papal infallibility, and its over-reliance on the Vulgate as opposed to other ancient sources. When I'm confused on a phrase's meaning, I usually go for the OSB.

Douay-Rheims is a Catholic Bible? I thought it was Protestant!
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #30 on: March 23, 2010, 09:48:51 AM »

I actually like the Orthodox New Testament since it is a more literal translation. I do like the Douay Rheims Bible and I also have the Brenton translation of the Septuagint. I'm not the biggest fan of the OSB since its NKJV and I don't really like the whole "study Bible" thing. I wish someone would just release a full Bible with all the books in it (including the other two Maccabees that were left out of the OSB) and with a more KJV like translation and without the footnotes and all that.

Ditto on all points, except that I like the NKJV.  I do, however, wish for an Orthodox Bible with all the books and without the commentary.

I much prefer the NKJV to the KJV with all the thees and thous and archaic terminology. Elizabethan/Jacobean English is great when enjoying Shakespeare, but I think more easily understood English is better, especially when encouraging young people to read the Bible. However, don't the comments in the OSB help to understand an Orthodox pov, especially for converts?

Don't you Greeks use the original Septuagint? (wish, I was born Greek) BTW.. I like NKJV -- old-style but not too old-style.  Grin

The Greek of the LXX and NT is quite different from modern Greek, so even modern Greek speakers need translations in their own vernacular.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2010, 10:08:40 AM »

Douay-Rheims is a Catholic Bible? I thought it was Protestant!

I still find myself using the Confraternity update of the Challoner-Rheims NT. Trivial note: the Douay-Rheims Psalms is based on the Gallican Psalter, St. Jerome's translation of the LXX Psalms. It is, in effect, the oldest known English translation of the Septuagint Psalms (by way of Latin).
Logged
basilthefool
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston (HOCNA)
Posts: 84


htfulcher@comcast.net
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2010, 10:33:28 AM »

Regarding the question about a complete KJV, I don't know about that, but there is an RSV Common Bible that includes the entire OT Cannon, including the appendix texts found solely in the Russian Canon. I believe it is used in the Oxford Annotated RSV, which is still available.

Personally, I am using the Orthodox New Testament in conjunction with the RSV Catholic edition and the New English Translation of the Septuagint while awaiting the Fathers of Holy Transfiguration to complete their work on the Old Testament.
Logged
SoleRedemption
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 32


towerofdavid77
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2010, 05:09:56 PM »

I enjoy my old Douay-Rheims Bible, despite Bishop Challoner's occasional footnote promoting purgatory or papal infallibility, and its over-reliance on the Vulgate as opposed to other ancient sources. When I'm confused on a phrase's meaning, I usually go for the OSB.

Douay-Rheims is a Catholic Bible? I thought it was Protestant!

Nope! Its the first Roman Catholic English bible, which was originally a direct (and rather poor) translation of Bl. Jerome's Vulgate. Bishop Richard Challoner heavily revised it in 1742 and basically copied a good chunk of the 1611 KJV in doing so (subsequent revisions of the KJV, in turn, borrowed heavily from the DRV).
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,990


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2010, 08:21:45 PM »


As for the Bible in question, (http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-New-Testament-Translated-Leatherette/dp/0944359256/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) we used to own it, and I would agree with Riddikulus about the translation... the saving grace of it is that they include patristic quotes for the passages, but that's not enough to justify buying it IMO.

 I own both volumes, 1 & 2, and tend to agree with you and Riddikulus regarding the translation in that it doesn't have 'flow'.  The saving grace, as you put it, the patristic quotes for the passages, IMO is a good reason to own it.  Often times I won't understand a certain text and I want additional notes than the OSB provides.  What to do?  Well, I now have a wonderful Patristic reference bible.
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2010, 03:13:47 AM »

I actually like the Orthodox New Testament since it is a more literal translation. I do like the Douay Rheims Bible and I also have the Brenton translation of the Septuagint. I'm not the biggest fan of the OSB since its NKJV and I don't really like the whole "study Bible" thing. I wish someone would just release a full Bible with all the books in it (including the other two Maccabees that were left out of the OSB) and with a more KJV like translation and without the footnotes and all that.

Ditto on all points, except that I like the NKJV.  I do, however, wish for an Orthodox Bible with all the books and without the commentary.

I much prefer the NKJV to the KJV with all the thees and thous and archaic terminology. Elizabethan/Jacobean English is great when enjoying Shakespeare, but I think more easily understood English is better, especially when encouraging young people to read the Bible. However, don't the comments in the OSB help to understand an Orthodox pov, especially for converts?

Don't you Greeks use the original Septuagint? (wish, I was born Greek) BTW.. I like NKJV -- old-style but not too old-style.  Grin

The Greek of the LXX and NT is quite different from modern Greek, so even modern Greek speakers need translations in their own vernacular.


That's interesting. Our Filipino dialect also has an 'old style' and we can't understand most of it.
Is Koine Greek is substantially different to Modern Greek?
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2010, 03:15:18 AM »

I enjoy my old Douay-Rheims Bible, despite Bishop Challoner's occasional footnote promoting purgatory or papal infallibility, and its over-reliance on the Vulgate as opposed to other ancient sources. When I'm confused on a phrase's meaning, I usually go for the OSB.

Douay-Rheims is a Catholic Bible? I thought it was Protestant!

Nope! Its the first Roman Catholic English bible, which was originally a direct (and rather poor) translation of Bl. Jerome's Vulgate. Bishop Richard Challoner heavily revised it in 1742 and basically copied a good chunk of the 1611 KJV in doing so (subsequent revisions of the KJV, in turn, borrowed heavily from the DRV).

Wow! That's amazing. I thought Douay and Rheims were Protestants (LOL). When was this Bible made?
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2010, 03:50:21 AM »

The Douay was crafted in exile in France. At the time Catholicism was still outlawed in England. The translators of the KJV never saw the Old Testament version, but it is generally acknowledged (after the fact) that it was one of the older versions consulted (along with Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, etc...) when they were translating the New Testament and an influence on the text. (The Tyndale influence appears the strongest). The English of the original Douay (which you can find online) was very "Latin" and formal-equivalent to the Vulgate. Bishop Challoner came along and made many changes to the text, largely grammatical in the direction of the KJV.

As a translation, it has its closest parallels to the KJV, although the names in the OT conform to the LXX used in the Vulgate - Nabuchodonosor and Noe for example. The textual base of the Vulgate (the Gallican Psalter aside) is similar to what the KJV translators used, which are Hebrew, not Greek, in the OT "proto" canonicals, and a Western-Text/Majority-Text hybrid in the NT. The Challoner version of the text is unique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible
http://bible-researcher.com/romcath.html

« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 03:53:04 AM by John Larocque » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 24, 2010, 08:08:36 AM »

Don't you Greeks use the original Septuagint?
Riddikulus is not Greek.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #39 on: March 24, 2010, 11:06:48 AM »

RSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, OSB.
Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #40 on: March 24, 2010, 03:20:43 PM »

That's interesting. Our Filipino dialect also has an 'old style' and we can't understand most of it.
Is Koine Greek is substantially different to Modern Greek?

Yes, which is why most of them don't understand most of their liturgy, as it is in an archaic form of Greek which is unintelligible to the masses.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,091


"My god is greater."


« Reply #41 on: March 24, 2010, 06:15:30 PM »

That's interesting. Our Filipino dialect also has an 'old style' and we can't understand most of it.
Is Koine Greek is substantially different to Modern Greek?

Yes, which is why most of them don't understand most of their liturgy, as it is in an archaic form of Greek which is unintelligible to the masses.

I've heard different opinions from different Greeks. Some say, yes, it is hard to understand, but others say that only lazy Greeks complain about Koine and it can be understood by the average Greek-speaker with a little effort.

As for early modern English, I think it's ridiculous to treat it as an archaic tongue- it really isn't that different from what we speak today. People who can't get past "thou" and "thee" must have been sleeping through the grade school lessons on subjective/objective pronouns.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #42 on: March 24, 2010, 07:08:10 PM »

As for early modern English, I think it's ridiculous to treat it as an archaic tongue- it really isn't that different from what we speak today. People who can't get past "thou" and "thee" must have been sleeping through the grade school lessons on subjective/objective pronouns.

There are people at my parish who can barely write a full sentence, let alone deal with archaic or even advanced language. I'm not arguing for a "street-slang liturgy" or anything, but just letting you know that many people at my parish honestly are unfamiliar with plenty of the words in the services.  Of course the English service books in the Serbian diocese might be a bit more abstruse than whatever the OCA uses.

As an aside, I don't like how the OCA uses the informal "you" in reference to the Mother of God. It seems almost like a Protestant denigration of sorts.
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,990


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #43 on: March 24, 2010, 07:11:03 PM »


As an aside, I don't like how the OCA uses the informal "you" in reference to the Mother of God. It seems almost like a Protestant denigration of sorts.

That makes two of us, brother.  Smiley 

« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 07:14:07 PM by GabrieltheCelt » Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #44 on: March 24, 2010, 07:16:26 PM »

Quote
s an aside, I don't like how the OCA uses the informal "you" in reference to the Mother of God. It seems almost like a Protestant denigration of sorts.

But "thou" would be the informal, since it's the second person singular pronoun; all european languages reserve the plural second person as the polite form of addressing somebody . That, in English would be "you", or no? It's just that the polite plural form became general and displaced the familiar, singular "thou", "thee".
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 07:16:53 PM by augustin717 » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #45 on: March 24, 2010, 07:22:38 PM »

But "thou" would be the informal, since it's the second person singular pronoun; all european languages reserve the plural second person as the polite form of addressing somebody . That, in English would be "you", or no? It's just that the polite plural form became general and displaced the familiar, singular "thou", "thee".

If this is true, then my hat is off to you sir. You possess a superior knowledge of English and its history than I do. My rationale was simply: outdated archaism = increased reverence.  Cheesy
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,091


"My god is greater."


« Reply #46 on: March 24, 2010, 07:22:44 PM »

As an aside, I don't like how the OCA uses the informal "you" in reference to the Mother of God. It seems almost like a Protestant denigration of sorts.

Actually, in Elizabethan times, "you" was more formal than "thou", because "you" is plural while "thou" is singular, just like in French you might still say "vous" to a respectable person instead of "tu." "Thou" is informal and intimate, whereas "you" is polite.

The reason why "you" completely supplanted "thou" in contemporary speech is because nobody wanted to appear disrespectful of anyone. This is why the early Quakers insisted on addressing everyone as "thou" to indicate equality... It didn't catch on, obviously.  We only think of "thou" as formal today because of its association with classic literature.

When it comes to the liturgy and scripture translations, the difference between thou and you is important, not so much for retaining a sense of formality but in making clear the distinction between plural and singular. There are, for instance, in the Gospels where it is unclear whom Jesus is addressing unless you have a clear distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns. One might also argue that addressing God as "thou" expresses intimacy/ familiarity, though I don't think this was the original intention.

As for the OCA practice, I don't like it either. I think they inherited this silly practice from the RSV Bible. I would have rather have a consistent contemporary translation than this inconsistent "Revised Liturgical English" (as the people of St. Tikhon's are calling it).

I think ROCOR and the Antiochians have the best texts at the moment.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 07:29:35 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2010, 08:05:25 PM »

As an aside, I don't like how the OCA uses the informal "you" in reference to the Mother of God. It seems almost like a Protestant denigration of sorts.

Actually, in Elizabethan times, "you" was more formal than "thou", because "you" is plural while "thou" is singular, just like in French you might still say "vous" to a respectable person instead of "tu." "Thou" is informal and intimate, whereas "you" is polite.

The reason why "you" completely supplanted "thou" in contemporary speech is because nobody wanted to appear disrespectful of anyone. This is why the early Quakers insisted on addressing everyone as "thou" to indicate equality... It didn't catch on, obviously.  We only think of "thou" as formal today because of its association with classic literature.

When it comes to the liturgy and scripture translations, the difference between thou and you is important, not so much for retaining a sense of formality but in making clear the distinction between plural and singular. There are, for instance, in the Gospels where it is unclear whom Jesus is addressing unless you have a clear distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns. One might also argue that addressing God as "thou" expresses intimacy/ familiarity, though I don't think this was the original intention.

As for the OCA practice, I don't like it either. I think they inherited this silly practice from the RSV Bible. I would have rather have a consistent contemporary translation than this inconsistent "Revised Liturgical English" (as the people of St. Tikhon's are calling it).

I think ROCOR and the Antiochians have the best texts at the moment.
Indeed. Perhaps it would be better to use the Southern practice of y'all (singular) and all y'all (plural). I'm awaiting the new translation.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #48 on: June 18, 2010, 07:40:14 PM »

I much prefer the NKJV to the KJV with all the thees and thous and archaic terminology. Elizabethan/Jacobean English is great when enjoying Shakespeare, but I think more easily understood English is better, especially when encouraging young people to read the Bible. However, don't the comments in the OSB help to understand an Orthodox pov, especially for converts?

Personally, I like KJV the best. Originally I did not because my evangelical school required it, and that seemed extreme. However, now I think it is very good when I learn about some technical meanings of Hebrew and compare them with the Jewish Publication Society's translation and with other Bibles. The JPS version is interesting to get another point of view, but I think KJV is best.

The THEES and THOUS sound goofy, but are actually better because they are used in the other languages and help to understand who is being referred to. Also, apparently the KJV language was not completely normal English when the book was made- the authors changed words to make them closer to the Latin sources, but after many years it appears the made-up words became accepted in our language.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #49 on: June 21, 2010, 12:02:14 PM »

I prefer the Revised Standard Version. I'm still waiting for an acceptable Orthodox all-purpose translation. The OSB is, IMO, a hastily-done job. I question the value and, in some cases, the Orthodoxy, of much of the annotations. The translation also leaves much to be desired. Anyway, there is not yet an official Orthodox translation of the Scriptures. Not even the OSB has any kind of episcopal blessing.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 21, 2010, 12:26:54 PM »

The New Jerusalem Bible. Un-surpassed.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #51 on: June 21, 2010, 02:14:37 PM »

The New Jerusalem Bible. Un-surpassed.
What about the original Jeruslam Bible, before the update? I have heard that it was much better, though very hard to aquire.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,091


"My god is greater."


« Reply #52 on: June 24, 2010, 01:16:47 PM »

Michael Asser's complete translation of the Septuagint, in the style of the KJV, is now available online:

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #53 on: June 24, 2010, 01:33:54 PM »

The New Jerusalem Bible. Un-surpassed.

Except by the Revised English Bible. The British just know how to get the right combination of formality and understandability.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #54 on: June 24, 2010, 01:34:13 PM »

Asser's translation doesn't have 3/4 Esdras, unfortunately.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
thetraditionalfrog
Traditional Frog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 197



« Reply #55 on: June 24, 2010, 04:44:50 PM »

I use the Authorised (KJV), and the Douay-Rheims.
Logged

“For the honorable Cross and golden freedom!” -Sv Lazar

 “Give up everything for Christ, but Christ for nothing!” -Sv Sava
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #56 on: June 24, 2010, 06:59:51 PM »

I just found this gem: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Parallel-Bible-Apocryphal-Deuterocanonical/dp/019528318X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277420128&sr=1-8
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #57 on: August 15, 2010, 11:41:41 PM »

As an aside, I don't like how the OCA uses the informal "you" in reference to the Mother of God. It seems almost like a Protestant denigration of sorts.

Actually, in Elizabethan times, "you" was more formal than "thou", because "you" is plural while "thou" is singular, just like in French you might still say "vous" to a respectable person instead of "tu." "Thou" is informal and intimate, whereas "you" is polite.

The reason why "you" completely supplanted "thou" in contemporary speech is because nobody wanted to appear disrespectful of anyone. This is why the early Quakers insisted on addressing everyone as "thou" to indicate equality... It didn't catch on, obviously.

When it comes to the liturgy and scripture translations, the difference between thou and you is important, not so much for retaining a sense of formality but in making clear the distinction between plural and singular. There are, for instance, in the Gospels where it is unclear whom Jesus is addressing unless you have a clear distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns. One might also argue that addressing God as "thou" expresses intimacy/ familiarity, though I don't think this was the original intention.

King James Version is best

Yes, I prefer the King James Version as more accurate, the words thou and you being one reason. The KJV was intentionally made with rare words, invented by the translators to find a closer meaning to the Latin. Now these invented words are part of English and we understand what they mean. But these 10+ newer translations of the Bible don't understand this and just pick the most often used English meaning, and in doing so lose or confuse the Bible's meaning.

Russian Language and English Language
Yes in Russian language they still have you and thou like in America a few centuries ago.

Quote
The reason why "you" completely supplanted "thou" in contemporary speech is because nobody wanted to appear disrespectful of anyone.

Are you sure this is the reason?? In Russia actually I say "you" to acquaintances sometimes by accident, and they can be confused. Sometimes they ask "Why do you say you to me? We are friends!"
They get upset as if I am now putting distance between us as strangers.

Perhaps in modern, more independent and prosperous America, friends are often not as close in relations as centuries before, when they had to rely on eachother, and this explains it? How else to explain that the Quaker method of friendly egalitarian informality (which I like) lost out to the more formal way of expression?
Logged
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 501


Transfiguration


« Reply #58 on: August 16, 2010, 10:47:05 AM »

Yes, I prefer the King James Version as more accurate, the words thou and you being one reason. The KJV was intentionally made with rare words, invented by the translators to find a closer meaning to the Latin. Now these invented words are part of English and we understand what they mean. But these 10+ newer translations of the Bible don't understand this and just pick the most often used English meaning, and in doing so lose or confuse the Bible's meaning.

Interesting. Can you give some examples?
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #59 on: August 16, 2010, 01:40:38 PM »

Quote
The reason why "you" completely supplanted "thou" in contemporary speech is because nobody wanted to appear disrespectful of anyone.

Are you sure this is the reason?? In Russia actually I say "you" to acquaintances sometimes by accident, and they can be confused. Sometimes they ask "Why do you say you to me? We are friends!"
They get upset as if I am now putting distance between us as strangers.

Perhaps in modern, more independent and prosperous America, friends are often not as close in relations as centuries before, when they had to rely on eachother, and this explains it? How else to explain that the Quaker method of friendly egalitarian informality (which I like) lost out to the more formal way of expression?

This linguistic tendency has nothing to do with modern America. It developed many centuries ago in England.

Even in Old English, "Thou" could be used in a pejorative sense by placing it in apposition to a noun in the vocative. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has the first such attestation in King Ælfred's Old English translation of Boethius' De consolatione philosophiae. So, things start in that direction in the year 888 A.D.

There are other such examples throughout the centuries, especially after the French influence on English, until 1530 A.D., when the OED records this great line, which turns thou into a verb: "Avaunt, caitiff, dost thou thou me! I am come of good kin I tell thee!" So, by the 1530s, calling someone "thou," or "thouing" them, could be seen as disparaging their lineage.

That's why Sir Edward Coke in 1603 could mock Sir Walter Raleigh in court by saying: "All that Lord Cobham did was by thy instigation, thou viper; for I thou thee, thou Traitor!"

After the KJV, one doesn't find many uses of "thou" in the OED that aren't from poetry or in some work that is imitating the speech of ill bred/uneducated folk. The Quakers, of course, had to make an intentional practice of saying "thou." In other words, even in the 1650s, it was not normal speech to do so.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 01:50:13 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #60 on: August 16, 2010, 04:30:08 PM »

Quote
The reason why "you" completely supplanted "thou" in contemporary speech is because nobody wanted to appear disrespectful of anyone.

Are you sure this is the reason?? In Russia actually I say "you" to acquaintances sometimes by accident, and they can be confused. Sometimes they ask "Why do you say you to me? We are friends!"
They get upset as if I am now putting distance between us as strangers.

Perhaps in modern, more independent and prosperous America, friends are often not as close in relations as centuries before, when they had to rely on eachother, and this explains it? How else to explain that the Quaker method of friendly egalitarian informality (which I like) lost out to the more formal way of expression?

This linguistic tendency has nothing to do with modern America. It developed many centuries ago in England.

Even in Old English, "Thou" could be used in a pejorative sense by placing it in apposition to a noun in the vocative. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has the first such attestation in King Ælfred's Old English translation of Boethius' De consolatione philosophiae. So, things start in that direction in the year 888 A.D.

There are other such examples throughout the centuries, especially after the French influence on English, until 1530 A.D., when the OED records this great line, which turns thou into a verb: "Avaunt, caitiff, dost thou thou me! I am come of good kin I tell thee!" So, by the 1530s, calling someone "thou," or "thouing" them, could be seen as disparaging their lineage.

That's why Sir Edward Coke in 1603 could mock Sir Walter Raleigh in court by saying: "All that Lord Cobham did was by thy instigation, thou viper; for I thou thee, thou Traitor!"

After the KJV, one doesn't find many uses of "thou" in the OED that aren't from poetry or in some work that is imitating the speech of ill bred/uneducated folk. The Quakers, of course, had to make an intentional practice of saying "thou." In other words, even in the 1650s, it was not normal speech to do so.

In Russian, if you refer to someone in a work environment, or a person of authority as "thou", they find it disparaging too. It's not like in English it is pejorative and informal for family members, but only family-informal in other languages.

The difference is that for some reason around the Quaker period it was in decline in English, while remains in other languages. I am curious what the reason is, but it seems to me what I said earlier about English culture being more commercial, consumerist, independent, prosper, and more distance therefore coming between people than in more "backwards", "illbred" people. I don't agree with calling the lower classes "ill-bred", and don't think they would use "thee" just because they are uneducated.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 04:33:14 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 16, 2010, 04:39:21 PM »

Yes, I prefer the King James Version as more accurate, the words thou and you being one reason. The KJV was intentionally made with rare words, invented by the translators to find a closer meaning to the Latin. Now these invented words are part of English and we understand what they mean. But these 10+ newer translations of the Bible don't understand this and just pick the most often used English meaning, and in doing so lose or confuse the Bible's meaning.

Interesting. Can you give some examples?

I came across this for example when learning about passages that are key in differences between Judaic and Christian ideas of OT Messianic prophecies. I was surprised to see that the KJV turned out to be more technically correct when it came to analyzing the exact meaning of the Hebrew words in the passage.

I think Zechariah's passage about a holy one(s) being killed and people mourning about it as for a son, and Isaiah 53 (the Suffering servant passage) turned out to be better than the Jewish Publication Society version (which adds that the servant was stricken "with sickness") or other American versions.

The KJV even seems better than our Russian Synodal version sometimes, which says for example "May God Resurrect, May His enemies be Scattered", rather than the KJV's "May God Arise, May His enemies be scattered." (Unless I am wrong and the Hebrew, which I can't read, actually says "Resurrect")
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 04:40:57 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 25, 2010, 12:51:12 AM »

I use the Authorised (KJV), and the Douay-Rheims.

It's kind of weird. The English Protestants and Catholics made their two Bible translations, the King James and Douay-Rheims at about the same time, with the KJV drawing from the Douay-Rheims in terms of translation.

Traditional protestants use the KJV, and traditional Catholics still use the Douay-Rheims version.

Is one really better than the other?

The Orthodox Church in America I think traditionally used the KJV, but its most recent translation is now based on the New King James Version. I suspect that the main reason is because America is a protestant country. If the Douay Rheims version was the main version in use, I assume they would use that.

What do you think?

Two Bible versions made by two competing sects at the same time with closely-related styles and translation methods.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,091


"My god is greater."


« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2010, 09:31:47 AM »

I use the Authorised (KJV), and the Douay-Rheims.

It's kind of weird. The English Protestants and Catholics made their two Bible translations, the King James and Douay-Rheims at about the same time, with the KJV drawing from the Douay-Rheims in terms of translation.

Traditional protestants use the KJV, and traditional Catholics still use the Douay-Rheims version.

Is one really better than the other?

The Orthodox Church in America I think traditionally used the KJV, but its most recent translation is now based on the New King James Version. I suspect that the main reason is because America is a protestant country. If the Douay Rheims version was the main version in use, I assume they would use that.

What do you think?

Two Bible versions made by two competing sects at the same time with closely-related styles and translation methods.

I think the KJV translation overall reads better than the Douay-Rheims, poetically speaking. If we ever have an "official translation", I think it should be Michael Asser's LXX revision of the KJV (http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm). The Douay Rheims may have been preferable to the old KJV insofar as it was translated from the Latin Vulgate rather than the Masoretic, but now that there is an LXX based KJV it's a moot point.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,293



« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2010, 10:34:33 AM »

People shouldn't get too hung up on translations.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,448


fleem
WWW
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2010, 10:46:22 AM »

I'm now using the Orthodox Study Bible.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.223 seconds with 92 queries.