skip to the bottom of this post. don't mind the rest. (i'm not going to get into the debate over the new translation of the bible, except to say that people shouldn't be changing words in any book, and i see the bible as just another book - yes, one of historical importance - but my point is: don't change words in any book, historical documents, shakespeare, jon stewart's "america," or even julia child's cookbook. the authors put them there; don't mess. however, if the "new" version is closer to the old hebrew/greek texts, i'm all for it.)
anyway, i just think the ebonics version of the ten commandments is hysterical.
1. I am the cool mack daddy of the dope hype flow. Give me props and mad respect.
2. Don't be kneeling for some bling bling.
3. Don't be throwing my name around, be it J. Hovah or Yah Diddy.
4. Yo, Sunday is "funday", ya dig?
5. Respect your moms, your pops, or whoever it was raised you, unless they whack.
6. Thou shalt not bust a cap in someone's ass.
7. Don't be running around on people like they don't know.
8. No five-finger discounts.
9. Don't front.
10. If your neighbor's got a fly crib or a pimped-out set of wheels, that's they bidness, not yours.
6 comments:
The difference is that Shakespeare, Jon Stewart and Julia Child wrote specific words in a specific order - definitely shouldn't be changed. But the bible was written over hundreds of years by hundreds of different people.
There is no "the" bible. Right now there are more than 50 different version in English alone. The most popular is the King James version, written in the 1660's. Before (and since) then, there have been hundreds of versions.
So it's really not possible to "re-write" the bible. Any new version is just another in the pile.
Thanks for linking to me! This is the first I've seen your blog - it looks really interesting. I also qualify for the "homos we knowmos and fem-uh-nists" category, but unclassified political is cool, too.
Hope you're having a great day.
yep, i see your point. i guess i forget that, back in the day, they didn't have "track changes" in microsoft word. :) or microsoft word for that matter. well i guess i don't like the idea of all the 50 different versions, the ones from 1600's, now, whenever included. i dislike the version just published today the same as i dislike all the changes made over the centuries to the original text.
you seem to know more than i do about the subject, but here's what i'd do... i'd preserve the exact words transcribed by whoever wrote each part of the bible at whatever given time the first expression each particular part was put in a tangible format and published.
then if you want to interpret those words differently at a later date, then write a treatise on it. (i think this is what jews did with the talmud - it was a pretty good idea.) from what i hear, the talmud is a gargantuan collection of law review articles on the torah that was written over a really long period of time by many many people.
i'd also like to go back with a tape recorder and record homer, ya know.
i'm not one of those "dammit! look at those lefties changing the bible" people -- i just don't like changing the original words. i agree that meanings and "the spirit of the law" can change over time, but you should write treatises on it instead of changing the actual words in the original document.
the whole affair just bothers me a bit, that's all. the bible to me is a historical document (with a little bit of storytelling thrown in) - i just don't like to rewrite history or to change the expression of authors.
ah, interesting. our different takes come from different perspectives on religion and what the bible is.
to me, the bible is storytelling - mythology. no more or less so than myths of ancient greek, norse, etc. in that context, there can't be any correct or incorrect version, and there is no original text.
you're correct that that's what the talmud is. but at the same time, there are dozens of versions of the old testament around, different jewish congregations use different ones, and everyone (except the ultra-orthodox) is fine with that. especially since the whole thing is translation anyway, and translation is always open to interpretation.
but nah, i don't know more about it than you. it's just that i've thought about it from a completely areligious perspective, so it comes out differently.
umm... the problem with the whole biblical thing is that the old testament alone is written in highly archaic, oft corrupt and generally obscure forms of Hebrew and Aramaic - and that's just the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament is in a special form of Koine Greek.
this means that without translations, everyone would have to learn the languages in question. which isn't a problem, assuming you think people aren't complete frikkin' morons. which they are.
frankly, translations make sense. this one is funny as fuck, but still, translations are logical. languages change over time, and english is no different. this is why new translations are needed. this was the same for the latin translations of the early roman church; they retranslated the text over time as their understanding of the languages changed.
This makes total sense, whether you see the bible as a historical document, as Emily2 does, or as a collection of myths, as I do.
I do like those hip-hop 10 Commandments.
quick tweak: when i say "historical document" i mean that it preserves how people wrote, thought, believed back in the day, not that what they believed was necessarily completely factual.
[hrm, on a side note, sometimes i forget that people nowadays actually do get guidance from the bible, so maybe a translation is a good idea for them. heh.]
Post a Comment