MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
King James Bible: How it changed the way we speak
By EmmaZahn on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 11:01am |...a recent book by the linguist David Crystal, appropriately called Begat: The King James Bible and the English language, counts 257 phrases from the King James Bible in contemporary English idiom.
...
David Crystal in Begat, however, set out to counter exaggerated claims for the influence of the King James Bible. "I wanted to put a precise number on it," he explains, "because some people have said there are thousands of phrases from the King James Bible in our language, that it is the DNA of the English language. I found 257 examples."
URL:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12205084
- Add new comment
- 3599 reads
Comments
What an odd story this is.
A linquist sets out to prove the King James Bible was not as influential on the English language as many others thought then ends up publishing a book disproving his theory even though at 257 the number of idioms in use was substantially less than the the thousands he claims others claimed.
Publish or perish I guess even for those so very intent on negating anything good that may have come from Britain or Christianity, Protestants especially.
I would also guess that the idioms recognized by the devout daily readers of the KJV from days gone by would recognize many more than contemporary Bible readers who have scores of different translations available to them.
The language of the King James Bible like that of Shakespeare is beautiful and poetic even though at times the stories conveyed are not. Those stories are. by the way, mostly Hebraic and as the article points out are as close to literal translations as the scholars could make them.
by EmmaZahn on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 11:19am
An interesting aside is the misuse of thine, thee, thy, and thou that the KJV has introduced into our language. KJV got it right, mind you, but many not fluent in the Bible (which is the vast majority of Christians and non-Christians alike) don't understand the KJV use of those words.
For those who aren't familiar with it, here's an excellent primer:
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3329/difference-between-thee-...
by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 11:31am
Here's one shocking (to me, at least) tidbit from the article:
I'm constantly amazed at how little many of my otherwise well-educated friends know about the Bible. These fellow atheists often sneer at the Bible, but most of them hold Shakespeare in high regard. I'm constantly "preaching" to them that they should, in fact, read this book as it is a foundation of much of Western civilization (painting, sculpture, poetry, prose, and yes, laws). Of course, there are many things I should read that I haven't as well (e.g., the Quran), so I do understand my own hypocrisy there. (Of course, it should be pointed out that, according to a recent survey, the average atheist knows slightly more about the Bible than the average Christian, but I take that as more a damning of the average Christian than praise of the average atheist.)
by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 12:57pm
I agree with your observation, how many so-called Christians have failed to question they're teachers. Why aren't the people questioning their preachers, to keep the false prophets out?
Matthew 7:15-16 (King James Version) 15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Luke 6:27-31 (King James Version) 27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. 30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Matthew 5:43-44 (King James Version) 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
So what is the rationale, that tells them to only be Christians in time of peace, but forget it when the Nation is at war?
Even the Buddhist monks burned themselves to the death, rather than fight in the Vietnam War
Rewriting the King James, sounds like something fishy going on It sounds like one of those Texas School Board shenanigans; who'll be the next victim of dumb down Christians.
Is the reason because, the false prophets are afraid of getting caught in their lies? The prejudices they used to get their parishioners to commit atrocities, in the name of God.
by Resistance on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 2:49pm
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your intentions are good but honestly when I see, hear or read people who quote scripture as extensively and as specifically as you do what comes to my mind are the verses about the Pharisees and their public professions and the ones where the devil cites scripture for his own purposes. It's a defensive thing.
I would have looked up the specific chapters and verses but my guess is you already know them. If not let me know and I will find them.
by EmmaZahn on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 3:03pm
This should have been under a reply to atheist' observation about his well educated friends knowing little about it. I was pointing out; even so called Christians don’t either.
Sorry for the mix up
To respond to my misplaced comments response by you.
You should stay defensive, making sure if someone comes to you claiming to be a Christian, you can ask the right questions. The scriptures I included have just given you that edge.
Anyone that fails to give you a satisfactory answer, then you’ll know by their fruits, they don’t have love. It’s easy to love your neighbor. It’s harder to accept your enemies,
by Resistance on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 3:49pm
Reading that article reminded me of how much I like the Revised Standard Version. In many places, it is straightforward and complete.
The Psalms are particularly beautiful in the Revised and maybe an advance upon the King James Version.
by moat on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 7:18pm
We used the Good News for Modern Man bible in HS religion class. It was supposed to be more accessible, but I found it rather dull.
by Donal on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 7:42am
My adult Bible is the Revised Standard Version. It is good and retains the beauty of the language while making it more contemporary and so more understandable. And yet, sometimes the changes subtly alter the the sense conveyed by a passage: For example the verses on my father's grave marker, Romans 8:38-39:
In one sense being sure and being persuaded mean essentially the same thing but in another being persuaded conveys a sense of consideration of evidence or reasoning that simply being sure does not.
JMO
by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:32am
Here's the Good News translation, and the NIV which AIUI is the RSV for some Protestants.
by Donal on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:45am
'Convinced' is closer to 'persuade' as is 'certain' to 'sure'.
Looks like translators really struggle over that passage. Wonder what is their problem is with 'persuade'.
Of all the choices I think the one that reads out loud better is the KJV. Imagine saying 'persuade' with a Scots burr [King James was Scots]. It rolls off the tongue better than the others as does the meter of the original blank verse.
Were Bible verses the original sound bites?
by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 12:49pm
In matters of Biblical "truth", to be "persuaded" would seem to imply that reason or effective argument brought about "belief" where it had not resided before. That would leave a person's belief open to change if stronger logic were to be heard. Religion relies on faith which is depended upon to reject reason.
A "conviction" may come about through persuasion or through revelation, but either way it is a stronger word which indicates more surety, just as "certainty" is a stronger word than "sure".
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 1:14pm
by Obey on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 2:02pm
Does that translate to meaning all of the words (persuaded, convinced, sure, certain) are approximately correct but none of them are exactly correct?
by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 2:09pm
by Obey on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 3:47pm
I am convinced,” …………. Convinced of what? That nothing can “separate us from God’s love
by Resistance on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 4:11pm
Thank you, Obey
That adds yet another dimension, one that pleases me and, I think, would have pleased my father. It is so consistent with at least one of Paul's other and better known writings, 1 Corinthians 13.
by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 2:18pm
Nice passage. I should read the Bible more often...
;0)
by Obey on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 4:09pm
I looked up the history of the word persuade with respect to the KJV, and found nothing that convinced me which of those was closer to the original Greek. The NIV, FWIW uses "convinced". Here's the best source (IMO) on the use of the word persuade in general, but it does not address the question in particular: http://refbible.com/p/persuade.htm
The biggest problem with the KJV, IMO, are not the passages that seem difficult to read, because that can be overcome with study, but the passages that seem easy to read, but are misunderstood due to the meanings of the words changing between then and now, e.g., counselor.
by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:54am
That's true. Counselor used to mean an older person at camp, whereas now it means Marina Sirtis.
by Donal on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 12:27pm
Actually, Martina Sirtis was my camp counselor. I just assumed that was true for everyone else, as well.
In all seriousness, counselor used to have a meaning similar to advisor, i.e., one that provides counsel. Now, it has more of the feeling of someone who provides comfort. That's not exactly correct, as there's still the aspect of providing advice, but the nuance of the type of advice and the degree it is expected the advice will be followed are rather different now than then.
by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 3:56pm
You remind me of a story. My stepson and I were watching Star Trek TNG one night, and there was this new character named Leah Brahms. His mother walked in to glare at us for watching TV and said, "Oh that's Susan Gibney!" She had been best friends with Gibney's older sister, and had a childhood picture of herself with both sisters. We later met the older sister, a neat lady, but meeting the actress was too hard to arrange.
by Donal on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 4:11pm
I'm enough of a nerd that I can think of at least two ST:TNG episodes with Leah Brahms. I'm not enough of a nerd to assert that there were only two such episodes.
by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 4:18pm
Well there was the holo-Leah episode, then the real Leah episode, then Gibney played another character altogether.
by Donal on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 4:28pm
And so it should.
by quinn esq on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 4:21pm
I think Tyndale used 'convinced' but I do not know for sure. For some reason, biblegateway.com doe not have Tyndale's Bible as a selection. Wycliffe's is there. He used 'certain'.
by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 12:47pm
It is important to understand also the complete Bible to get to the truth
Example:
How can these scripture be made true? Where should the punctuation be?
The Scripture is in reply to the evildoer who defended Jesus and he asked to be remembered when he ‘got into his kingdom.’ Jesus’ reply was
“Truly I tell you today you will be with me in paradise.”
Was it?
Luke 23:43 (New International Version, ©2010)
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
or
Luke 23:43 (King James Version)
43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Neither is correct, Jesus didn’t go to paradise that DAY, he was in the grave for three days, he didn’t ascend to the heaven until 40 days later.
So how could he promise the evil doer, that he would be with Jesus in Paradise that DAY?
Many translations place a comma before the word “today” There is nothing to support this placement, in the rest of the Scriptures.
Any translation’s that followed that Jesus went to Paradise that day is based on a dogma of man’s contrivance.
The King James Version is based on supporting that dogma. Any new attempt to modernize the language will still contain this error.
So based upon the entire supporting undertanding of the entire Bible, IMHO I believe the scripture should read “Truly I tell you today,,,,,,,,,,,, you will be with me in paradise.”
When he returns and the promise to the evil doer will be fulfilled, when the resurrection occurs.He will be in paradise
by Resistance on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 1:24pm
Well, this is certainly getting out of hand.
by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 1:53pm
Upstream you are all discussing meanings of words.
Depending on how you want the concept of the text, choosing the right words is a signifant.
I pointed out, how just changing the punctuation, changes the meaning and if one has an agenda; to change the words in order to change the concept.
The Title of your post was about how it changed the way we speak; the insidousness of a work being done, (to change the words to modernize) has an agenda.
That's not good.
If the attempt is to support Dogma.
Maybe someone can twist turning ones cheek, to really mean you should slap your enemy so as to turn his cheek
Who knows what mischief is a foot?
As to how it changed the way we speak? .
How do we speak; Truth or lies? I guess that too depends upon the agenda
Sorry to have pointed out the facts, just as punctuation can change the entire thought of a sentence, words can too.
Just give the Christian right the opportunity to rewrite the book "to modernize it" in their precieved agenda, and you'll wish you had stood up against them,
Then you'll say its gettin out of hand.
by Resistance on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 3:16pm
From what I read, King James was hanging around when KJV was being translated. I have to assume he had some influence on that translation.
by Donal on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 3:37pm
Donal you are correct.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
Could you imagine Glenn Beck or Rush, giving money to a project to "modernize" the Bible, just as the money from King James backed an effort to "modernize" in his day In opposition to the Pope
I meant you no disrespect Donal on your funny observations of trolls, I enjoy having a lite battle with you. Your wit is something else.
One has to get up early and prepare when they face you. I don't say that to curry favor. i really enjoy some of work, just as long as I'm not the target
by Resistance on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 3:54pm
I've been assuming that you're aware of this (and/or similar projects): http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/building-more-conservative-bible
However, I should know better than to not verify my assumptions.
by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 3:59pm
My out-of-hand comment was not directed at you specifically else I would have replied directly to you.
FWIW, language is already at Babelical proportions but that thought is best left for another post.
by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 5:50pm
Nice play on words, so true
by Resistance on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 5:54pm