Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

>The King James Version was my first Bible, and the Bible that is imprinted  
>on my mind.  It's full of archaic English and terms difficult to  
>understand.  
>Does that make it "bad English"?

In a word, Yes!

-----Original Message-----
From: Awohili AT aol.com [mailto:Awohili AT aol.com]
Sent: Fri 11/18/2005 3:06 PM
To: Read, James C; rob AT designceramics.co.uk; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Cc: Awohili AT aol.com
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
 
 
If memory serves me, one purpose of the NWT was to help its readers  
appreciate something of the Hebrew flavor of the text.  _The Five Books of  
Moses_ by 
Everett Fox attempts the same thing.  Is Fox's translation "good  English"?  
Many think so, it has become quite popular in some circles,  though it takes 
some getting used to if one is unfamiliar with Hebrew style and  syntax.
 
I find nothing hard to understand about "time indefinite."  It takes  more 
effort to wrap the mind around the philosophical concept of  "forever."  If 
by 
"good English," what is meant is English that can be  generally understood, I 
think one rendition is as "good" as another.
 
I possess and read scads of different English Bible translations, Jewish,  
Catholic, and Protestant.  They all have their different ways of expressing  
things in English.  Not everyone will be as enlightened by one translation  
as by 
another.
 
The King James Version was my first Bible, and the Bible that is imprinted  
on my mind.  It's full of archaic English and terms difficult to  understand. 
 
Does that make it "bad English"?
 
I do not purport to speak for "the rest of the English speaking  world,"  but 
I am aware that many, many English-speaking people  read the NWT without 
stumbling over "time indefinite."  It's really a  non-issue with them, as it 
is 
with me.
 
Solomon Landers
 
In a message dated 11/18/2005 6:26:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk writes:

As someone  who has studied the bible with JW's and has spent a number of 
years  
frequenting their meetings but had not grown up in the religion I have to  
say 
that when I first read the NWT I really did not understand the use of  the 
term 
'time indefinite' as I had never ever heard this combination of  words before 
in 
my 21 years of life as a native English speaker previous.  It took me quite 
some 
time to get used to this funny sounding phrase and  only finally accepted its 
usage (against my instincts) because the reason  for its use was explained to 
me.

Considering all the evidence we would  really be fighting a losing battle to 
convince 
the world at large that  this is good English because the well accepted fact 
for 
the rest of the  English speaking world is that it isn't, plain and simple.

I think that  we would only bring discredit on ourselves to insist that it 
was 
good  English. 






This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From Awohili AT aol.com  Fri Nov 18 12:25:17 2005
Return-Path: <Awohili AT aol.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from imo-m17.mx.aol.com (imo-m17.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.207])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F834C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:25:16 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from Awohili AT aol.com
        by imo-m17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id j.239.1b7acb8 (24895);
        Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:25:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Awohili AT aol.com
Message-ID: <239.1b7acb8.30af6872 AT aol.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:25:06 EST
To: K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk, rob AT designceramics.co.uk,
        b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5301
X-Spam-Flag: NO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Cc: Awohili AT aol.com
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:25:17 -0000


Don't tell the KJV-Only folks that.  :-)

Solomon Landers

In a message dated 11/18/2005 9:15:59 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk writes:

>The King James Version was my first Bible, and the Bible that is  imprinted
>on my mind.  It's full of archaic English and  terms difficult to
understand.
>Does that make it "bad  English"?

In a word, Yes!