The last translation of a great work of literature which was made by a large committee of men who were both meticulous scholars of the language(s)--autistic about pious precision, even going so far as to italicize words that had to be inserted for English grammar and giving alternative translation in the margins--and steeped in literature and poetry and rhetoric as much as the air they breathedAnd it has a queer king's name forever emblazoned on it
>>24998720So why did they invent the battle of Carchemish?
>>24998720Literal heresy written to confuse the original Greek.
And why did they take Moses' horns off after meeting with God? And why does the Canaanite women get called a Greek instead of being a semitic Canaanite? The passage doesn't make any sense with that change.
>>24998728Jeremiah?>>24998730ESL>>24998737If the word refers to horns, how exactly does Moses veil them by covering his face?The woman is called a Canaanite
>>24998869>ESL...This doesn't even apply here. Good god, the IQ of this place is rock bottom. Is it just one guy?
>>24998869>how exactly does Moses veil them by covering his faceThe word face is general, it means something like 'visage'. Entire heads are sometimes called faces. In other cases, the Latin word imago or image seems to be more akin. The word in Phoenician, QRN, literally means horn, and it is not used in any other Aramaic work as far as I can find.
lebron???
>>24998885>heresyThat doesn't even apply hereGood gracious, the IQ of Papists is rock bottomIs it just the Pope?
>>24998869>The woman is called a CanaaniteThe implication in the Vulgate is that the woman Jesus calls a gentile dog is a Hebrew speaking semitic woman. In the KJV, the woman becomes a Greek living in the Levant, which the verse anachronistically defines as Canaanite, even though the term would have been incorrect since the time before the Achaemenids six centuries earlier.
>>24998893>Rewriting the bible isn't a heretical offense Well as an Anglican, I guess you'd be fine with it. But I am not an Anglican. >The Pope>Is English nowOh dear.
>>24998902Canaanite means Greek to approximately no one, ever, at any time
>>24998917Exactly. But newer copies of the Bible say both Greek and Canaanite while the old translations only say Canaanite.
>>24998937The King James doesn't call her a Gayreek and is hardly a newer translation
>>24998947It does, right here:> The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.Why are you lying about something we can all read for ourselves instantly? You're rebbe has poisoned your mind and deluded you soul. You are in grave danger.
>>24998947>is hardly a newer translationThe translations I use generally have their roots between 800 and 1600s years ago, so yes one from 400 years ago is relatively new.
>a 1600 translation using Greek and Latin versions is a philological referenceWhy does this even have any reply?
>>24998969The OT was originally Greek, the NT was originally Latin. Modern Hebrew is misspelled Aramaic without direct parentage so the context is lost.
Note that rabbinicalism does not emerge until the medieval period. The neo-rabbinicalists are completely without classical precedence or parentage.
>>24998972I actually think the fact that Moses was Greek is strong support for the claim by Philo that Plato took his ideas from Moses
>>24998969The KJ used Hebrew. They consulted the Greek version but Robert Alter, a professor of Hebrew literature, also consulted the Greek for his translation and sometimes opts for it.
>>24998982>The KJ used HebrewAnd the problem with that is the masoretic texts are medieval.
>>24998978>According to the most learned among the Scots, if any one desires to learn what I am now going to state, Ireland was a desert, and uninhabited, when the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea, in which, as we read in the Book of the Law, the Egyptians who followed them were drowned. At that period, there lived among this people, with a numerous family, a Scythian of noble birth, who had been banished from his country and did not go to pursue the people of God. The Egyptians who were left, seeing the destruction of the great men of their nation, and fearing lest he should possess himself of their territory, took counsel together, and expelled him. Thus reduced, he wandered forty-two years in Africa, and arrived, with his family, at the altars of the Philistines, by the Lake of Osiers. Then passing between Rusicada and the hilly country of Syria, they travelled by the river Malva through Mauritania as far as the Pillars of Hercules; and crossing the Tyrrhene Sea, landed in Spain, where they continued many years, having greatly increased and multiplied. Thence, a thousand and two years after the Egyptians were lost in the Red Sea, they passed into Ireland, and the district of Dalrieta. - Historia BrittonumOr he was copied from a Scythian figure. The story of the migrations to Ireland were copied over to the migrations of Israel. Migrating to the Levant doesn't even make sense, politically speaking, given that Egypt ruled the area at any time that Moses could have lived.
>>24998986The Masoretic, adding vowel notation, started in the Middle Ages because Muslims had the bright idea to add vowel notation to Qur'anic Arabic. Semetic languages unlike European languages don't have vowels. You can still get a Hebrew Bible without vowel notation but unless you're fluent in Hebrew it will be a major pain to read
>>24998997Egyptian territories outside Egypt paid them taxes but that's about it, it wasn't like the Roman Empire
>>24999005That doesn't make any sense. If the Egyptians were after Moses, then the Egyptians in the east would have capitulated him to the Egyptians. Furthermore, Egypt was not a satrapy, it directly ruled the Levant. They said so, the Greeks said so. You can even see where the Egyptian military had to fight the Sea Peoples in the Levant with their own military. If you don't know something, don't pretend to know.>>24998998>started in the Middle Ages because Muslims had the bright idea to add vowel notation to Qur'anic ArabicIncorrect, it was actually the Syriacs using a Greek derived vowel system called Estrangela. Having said that: kabbalah, mishnah, the earliest Talmud, the masoretic torah, halakah, and all of the sefarim are medieval even when they pretend to be classical.
>>24999019If the Pharaoh and his closest subordinates and followers were wiped out, I think Egypt would be more worried about sorting that out then trying to organize a war (remember that Moses lead the Hebrews into multiple victorious wars after leaving Egypt, he basically a reverse Xenophon, and that when Joseph got to Canaan war immediately started with everyone except for some settlements that made peace in exchange for servitude, which often leads to them being attacked by their rulers for allying with the Hebrews), especially when at that point the subordinate states are the most liable to break away. The Greek Alphabet has vowels and always had to because Greek uses vowels far more than semetic languages. Greeks added them after adopting the semetic alphabet
>>24998954Greek just means non-Jew here. It's not saying she's from Greece.
>>24998954The text literally says Greek in the original, stupid.
>>25000295It says HELLENE not Greek, schlomo. Why try to lie about something anyone can just Google?
>>25000295That's not correct. The tetrapla and the Vulgate don't say anything about Greek. She's just a Canaanite.
>>25000315Pretty sure you're just coping with the fact that a "Syrophoenician" could not have historically been a Canaanite at that time and the inconsistency between the Gospels bothers you.
>>24998720>The last worthy translation of a great work of literature...Emily Wilson says hi.
>>24998720>critical editionSurely they talk much about how the Bible was influenced by the Hellenes, and not the lie that it was the other way around
>>24998720New Challenger approaches.>The Complete Sagas of Icelandersfrom Leifur Eiriksson Publishing are the first English translation of the entire corpus of the Sagas of Icelanders together with the forty-nine Tales connected with them.Thirty translators were carefully selected for the project, including leading international scholars and university teachers from seven countries who have studied and written on Nordic medieval literature and culture. All the translators are native English speakers and writers.Careful editorial planning and coordination ensured that translators followed the same translation policy and produced the same high level of accuracy and readability. Coordination work included use of consistent English terms for key words and concepts, recurrent proverbs and phrases, and other cultural realia. Spelling conventions for personal and place names were normalised, as were translations of nicknames occurring in more than one Saga. Eleven Icelandic medieval specialists then carefully checked the translations against the original Icelandic texts to ensure accurate renderings and returned them to the translators for revision. A further revision stage concentrated on the English style, when fourteen native English-speaking scholars read through the translations before the translators gave them a final polish.The publishers are confident that these extensive editorial efforts have produced sound, quality translations. While they reflect the expertise of scholars in this specialist field, a prime concern was to produce a text in smooth and readable modern English. There are probably few examples of comparable coordinated translations of an entire literary corpus into another language.
>autisticstopped reading there and this is an inert post. i just wanted to make a point about the importance of defying this verbiage.
>>24998890>The word in Phoenician, QRN, literally means horn, and it is not used in any other Aramaic work as far as I can find.Koehler & Baumgartner's HALOT has a long entry for the root. Cognates in Ugaratic, Babylonian Akkadian, Aramaic, etc. It is literally "horn," but it can also figuratively mean "strength" or "power" and it's sometimes the word used fr what we would describe as the hem of a fabric.
>>25000334>a "Syrophoenician" could not have historically been a CanaaniteMark says she's a "Syrophoenician by nation", Matthew calls her "a woman of Canaan" . Why are the two mutually exclusive?
>>25000334Not at all. The reason Carchemish got made up for the KJV is because talmudists insisted there was a great battle there and inserted it into the OT. As for the Jesus' gentile dog, KJV says this:>And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.So Syrophoenician doesn't even appear in all KJV versions.>A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon possessed and suffering terribly.’Even the New International Version has Canaanite.>>et ecce mulier chananea a finibus illis egressa clamavit dicens ei miserere mei Domine Fili David filia mea male a daemonio vexaturVulgate has her only as a Canaanite.And funny enough, here is what neo-rabs read:>And behold, a Canaanite woman from that district came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, O Master, Ben-David!Which does have her being from the region, and not culturally a Canaanite.And then there's weird-ass neo-rab version here:>And a woman from Canaan came out from those regions, and was shouting, Have mercy on me, Adoni, Ben Dovid! My bat is in torment possessed by shedim.It's not even the same story at that point.
>>25001059>Syrophoenician by nationBecause some versions has instead this:>"a Canaanite woman from that district"And at least one of my Bibles has Matthew still putting her a Greek Syrophoenician, the implication being that she's not even semitic but Greek, and therefore Greeks are gentile dogs. But if you make here a Canaanite it's obvious that modern day hebrew speakers with their language being a post-Canaanite derivative would be the dogs. Basically if she's a Canaanite it undermines everything Israel has been doing for the last 80 years and neo-rabs have to admit they've been LARPing as the wrong ethnicity since the medieval ages.
>>25001059Because Canaanite no longer existed as an ethnicity or a state. Unless it means anyone from the region of historical Canaan. Which would mean Jesus is also a Canaanite.
>>25000994But who gives a shit about the tales of autistic mudhut dwellers?
>>25001083>Because Canaanite no longer existed as an ethnicityThere's conflicting data on that point. St. Augustine goes to north Africa and there are people calling themselves K'naan, so the ethnicity might still have existed, and actually the languages we're calling Hebrew and Aramaic were probably referred to as Canaanite by the speakers, but the Greeks just termed most people Syrians if they weren't sure if they were Canaanites, and labeled them Canaanites when they knew.
>>25001086People who walk on the moon and fund the protection racket of so-called "chosen peoples" when they're not getting dabbed on by third hand partisans with toy rockets.
>>25001079>>25001083Yes, let me clarify: I was talking in terms of the King James Bible (OP's post), so specifically these definitions:1) woman of Canaan, i.e. not "Canaanite"2) Syrophoenician by nationI don't see how these are mutually exclusive.
if you havent invested the time to read the original texts, untranslated. can you even call your self a Christian? its the word of god and you cant even invest the time to learn the language? this is why all religion of the 21st century is indistinguishable from atheism and is purely performative.
>>25001224We're not Muslims Achmed
>>24998720You realize you're using the 1769 revision and that the original was in blackletter right
>>25001874Norton revised the formatting in numerous ways including breaking up by paragraph rather than verse, despite keeping the verse markings still there in superscript, and vomiting italics for words not in Hebrew but required for grammar. But I have indeed read from the facsimile because I find the margin annotations interesting
>>24998720someone needs to go through and replace the italics with brackets
>>25002253Brackets are so obstructive, the Hilali Khan translation of the Quran used them and it's too distracting. Anyway in the original King James it wasn't italics, it was bolded
>>25001086>But who gives a shit about the tales of autistic mudhut dwellers?You realize that you're in a thread full of christcucks, right?
>>25002333>n the original King James it wasn't italics, it was boldedBolded? Any evidence of that?
>>25002684Or not bolded, rather the rest of the writing was in bold blackface and the inserts were in regular font
>>24998720>Intense study of the Bible will keep any writer from being vulgar, in point of style.
>>25002723I see. I had a different image in my mind and that would have looked weird. Thanks for posting.
>>25002745He wrote that before they came out with The Message or the Passion "translation"
>>25002053>breaking up by paragraph rather than verse99% of Bible websites cant figure this out. walltext is only for shitposting>keeping the verse markings still there in superscript,this is the right way to do it> italics for [interpolation]its the logical descent of blackletter/normal but the ichthyosaur gets replaced with the dolphin> I find the margin annotations interestingwhy is it that no Bible website has turned those into hyperlinks
>>25003302>blackletter/normalThe normal type in the 1600s was blackletter, the "normal" type we have is Roman type.
