Of all the stupid things I've ever heard...

[woodface]

You have got to be kidding me. The dutch and the belgians (catholics, protestants and jews) put their heads together and brought out a new bible translation. Okay, so what?

Apparently now it is no longer the virgin Mary but the girl Mary. WTF?

Yes, apparently someone decided that the bible isn't selling enough in the Netherlands. So they need to make it easier to read and more of our time. And let's hope more people will buy it again!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I should hope so but sadly enough this is true. I am dumbstruck. Bibles aren't about selling them and they shouldn't be easy to read literature for everyone. It doesn't have to be of our time. That's hardly the point of a bible. Have those dimwits even stood still and considered the consequences of changing virgin to girl?

*knocks on heads* HELLO? Anybody in there?

And what idiot decided to do this only for Belgium and the Netherlands? If you're gonna change the bible, you might want to make sure the entire christian world agrees. (Or is this an international thing and has this whole thing managed to pass me by unnoticed and mock free?)

Bloody hell. Who's negative IQ came up with this?

Comments

[scarlet1983.livejournal.com]

What's wrong about making it more accessible? If it's not accessible, no one will read it and the meaning will be lost.

Statenvertaling (uitgave Gereformeerde Bijbelstichting)

Zou zich de stoel der schadelijkheden met U vergezelschappen, die moeite verdicht bij inzetting? (Psalm 94:20)


De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling:

Staat u aan de zijde van verdorven rechters, die onheil stichten in naam van de wet? (Psalm 94:20)

I mean, I don't have a clue what that first sentence means, and I'm probably not the only one.

[woodface]

What's wrong with it is that they have been changing meanings too. And a bible is not about selling and being popular. It's not a novel you're trying to sell, it's a religious book. They don't make law books more accessible either by changing the way it is written down.

[scarlet1983.livejournal.com]

They haven't been changing meanings, they've been trying to create a translation that has meaning to nowadays readers, because the old translations don't have any meaning anymore to most readers.

[woodface]

That's a bit of a contradiction.

[scarlet1983.livejournal.com]

I can't really think of a good example, but take the two different translations I posted earlier. People won't understand the first one, but they will understand the second one. That does not mean that they don't mean the same thing (denotation).

Take for example the word 'mof'. It used to be a muff, but since WWII it has come to mean German (pej.). Language changes, you can't expect the same signifiers to refer to the same signified in every cultures/place/time. And in that way, sticking to old signifiers means that the meaning changes BECAUSE you don't change the language. If you want meaning to be preserved, you have to 'update' the signifiers.

One example from the Bible is the change from 'herberg' to 'nachtverblijf'. Most people will associate the word 'herberg' with a backpackers hostel or think of an inn or a tavern, which isn't exactly where they spent the night. (And this is also a bad example, because 'herberg' is only one of many possible translations for the word in the original, and could also be a sort of 'binnenplaats' which is actually why they changed it. but it's the only example I could think of now).