[Vision2020] Public Prayer

[Joan Opyr]

On Aug 23, 2005, at 3:42 AM, Donovan Arnold wrote:

> I am sorry that you are unable to comprehend Pat or my
> point that context and wording plays a big part in
> understand the nature and meaning a verse written two
> thousand years ago in a different language, and some
> Bibles just have it plain wrong. Which Bible you use
> can play a big part in understanding and interpreting
> a verse properly.
>

Forgive him, Chas; he knows not what he writes.  Donovan, I realize 
that attempting to explain anything to you is like trying to angle a 
worm up a wildcat's ass, but what the hell?  I've got twenty minutes to 
kill before I go into to town for a blood draw.  (My physician is Count 
Dracula.)   You have, once again, missed the point.  The Bible Wayne 
cites is not "Catholic" or "Protestant" but one of the best and most 
scholarly attempts at an accurate translation of those gospels that 
considered essential by most of the world's Christians and Christian 
academics.

Understanding the context in which something was written?  Very 
important.  Accuracy in translation?  Essential.  Anyone using the King 
James Version is using a very beautifully written Bible, but a woefully 
inaccurate translation.  Here at the Bible-mad Opyr-Huskey compound, we 
have at least seven translations and a couple of concordances hanging 
around.  Melynda likes to use "The Oxford Study Bible: A Revised 
English Bible with the Apocrypha."  I prefer "The New Oxford Annotated 
Bible: An Ecumenical Study Bible."  I am not, as I've mentioned before, 
a Christian.  I'm a Reform Jew, but I do attempt to understand (in 
historical context) Christian doctrine.  Obviously, I have a more 
vested interest in the Torah.  Rose gave me a copy of Robert Alter's 
brilliant "The Five Books of Moses: A Translation With Commentary" last 
year for my birthday.  Reading that has been a life-changing 
experience.

If you know anyone who is still using the King James, and you think 
that means that they're into context, language, and accuracy, then you 
are speaking a different language than Wayne and Chasuk.  You're 
talking about faith, Donovan; not scholarly translation.  For the sake 
of comparison, it's like the difference between Seamus Heaney's poetic 
translation of Beowulf and Talbot Donaldson's prose translation.  The 
former is lovely, but the latter is far more accurate; Heaney, a poet, 
takes a good deal of poetic license with the original text.  He's 
trying to give his readers a feel for the rhythm and beauty of Beowulf. 
  Professor Donaldson wants his readers to understand exactly what the 
words of the poem mean in context.

Get it?  No, of course not.  Oh, well, nevermind.  I'm off to get it -- 
right in a bulging vein.  Here's hoping they don't take too many pints.

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.auntie-establishment.com