Translate the Bible for the Zackwini language

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JRG39402, Oct 23, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JRG39402

    JRG39402
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's say there is a remote South American tribe that speaks a laguage called Zackwini. The Bible has never been translated into the Zackwini language. You are in charge of translating the Bible for them. Are you going to translate the Bible into the way this tribe spoke in 1611 or the way they speak today? You would translate it into the way they speak today of coarse, because languages change.
    Now back into our world. Sure, we spoke English in 1611 and we speak "English" today, but they are different languages. They just have the same name. You might as well call them English 1.0 and English 2.0. Or for the sake of my example, let's call 1611 English Bobobian and 2006 English Larrian. They are completely different languages and could benifit from a different version. The KJV is a wonderful Bible and perfect for the Bobobian language, but Americans do not speak Bobobian. They speak Larrian. Sure, their are simmularities. Languages often borrow from other languages. But they are different. It is possible to have an inerrant, infallible Bible in more than one language, wouldn't you agree? You can have a perfect Bible in Spanish and a perfect Bible in French. Then why not a perfect Bible in Bobobian and a perfect Bible in Larrian? Shouldn't the people of 2006 get a chance to experience the word of God in their own tongue?
     
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    well, it depends.

    if u believe that the 1611 (or 1769) KJB was "purified 7 times," u'll not want the Larrian cos it's OVER-purified. seven's as much as one can take.

    why do u have to make so much sense?!
    :BangHead:
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I would translate the Bible in 1611 Zackwini because it was the only time before or since that Zackwini vernacular had achieved perfection. Of course, I would then obligated to launch a comprehensive educational program to teach this entire South American tribe the grammar and syntax of 1611 Zackwini. (this answer would have been humorous if the consequences were not so tragic)
     
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said. I'm sure New Tribes and Wycliffe Bible Translators would love to have half the energy spent and half the people who are arging for or against this at their disposal for the hundreds of languages and dialects (Yes, there are hundreds, still!) that do not have ANY Bible translations in these tongues! AND I'd even bet that most would not care at all, whether or not (in English) one was KJBO, NASBO, or even had way too much B.O., as long as they could and would translate into these languages.

    Ed
     
  5. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a huge difference in your analogy. We didn't translate the Bible in 2006 to 1611 KJ english. It was translated in 1611. We simply continue to use that version.
     
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Maybe you'll prefer this version... Let's say there is a remote South American tribe that speaks a laguage called Zackwini. The Bible was translated into the Zackwini language in 1611. Their society is falling apart: crime is up, fewer than half go to church, and almost no one reads the Bible anymore. Are you going to continue to use the Bible this tribe has had since 1611 or try a new one in the way they speak today?
     
  7. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since the 1611 version exist and the todays version don't, it's initially a no brainer. Later I would give them a choice and resources to compare each version with the original transcripts. My hopes would be they use both. This is all after trying to rebuild their spiritual fire so they will seek to know the truth.

    Without that fire, it won't really matter...
     
  8. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,635
    Likes Received:
    45
    Is 2006 English so much a different language than 2001 English or 1996 English or 1990 English or 1982 English, etc. that we can justify dedicating resources to yet another retranslation rather than to providing the Zackwinians and so many others with just one translation?
     
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have heard this type of comment several times on this board. It is important that translations be made for all, but I don't think that many resources are being diverted from the 'Zackwini' to English projects... most folks working on English versions have no expertise in 'Zackwini'.
     
    #9 franklinmonroe, Oct 24, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2006
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Jerome. Get your best bang for the buck here:

    http://www.wycliffe.net/

    Yep, they are working on 1700 different Zackwinian-like
    languages yet some 2300 more remain.
    These are reliable and I've supported several for a few years
    donating each month. These are a very good place to
    support Zackqinian translations. Look them up unless you
    are already giving 10% of your income to a
    translation/missionary.
     
  11. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course the high crime rate has NOTHING to do with the AGE of the Bible translation which your imaginary people have or do not have does it? We have had the Geneva Bible in this country since the pilgrims came over here. And since that time there have been at least 200 other English translations of the Bible in English. According to your logic, then, WHAT? Our crime rate is the Geneva Bible's fault 'cuz no one can read it and understand?

    It isn't about the translation!!!!!

    This is what it is about...."Yea, hath God said?" ...., "Oh yeah? How do YOU know? There's so many Bibles out there and it's been changed so much, who's to say WHAT He said?"

    I have heard it said EXACTLY that way so many times my ears ache thinking about it. People in THIS land do NOT believe we have any authority anymore to speak God's words because they do not know WHO to trust to tell them, "Thus saith the LORD." And that's a fact!

    Cute story but lousy logic you got there friend...
     
    #11 av1611jim, Oct 28, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2006
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    But it DOES have plenty to do with the fact that GOD keeps His word before the people in the languages HE'S chosen for them to use. The various versions are frozen in time, same as Shakespeare's works, but unlike him, GOD is alive and in charge, and He keeps His word alive for all generations. God did NOT retire in 1611.

    If the ancient tribesmen spoke proto-Zackwini, which has changed greatly 'tween now and then, what sense would it make to give them the Bible in the old language? Their ancestors are now dead, but GOD is alive, and has seen ALL their generations. And it's HE who determined what language form they spoke, both then and now. Thus, He causes His word to be translated into CURRENT Zackwini.

    Some people may be stuck in the past, but GOD isn't, and doesn't intend for US to be.
     
  13. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting.
    Therefore it follows that God is currently giving further revelation since He is not stuck in the past and the 'originals" were ancient and dead languages. Koine Greek is not spoken by any people group, nor is 'original' Hebrew for that matter. So according to your logic, God is STILL speaking Scripture and in modern American English to boot!!!
    :rolleyes:
    I guess the Mormons are right after all. (sarcasm)
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Jim, I think you DELIBERATELY missed the point entirely, and that point is...SAME SCRIPTURES, DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, DIFFERENT LANGUAGE STYLES.

    If the Bible was to be translated into a Zackwini language, it would be far better to make a translation from the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES than it would be to make it from an existing TRANSLATION.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...