On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:25:59 -0400 Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]> writes: > Yoon Ha Lee wrote: > > I have a Good News Bible, which is so colloquial sometimes it > worries > > me. I really should acquire a NSRV copy. > > I have both of those, as well as the New International Version and a > King James Version, which I love just for the beautiful 16th century > English. My NRSV is the New Oxford Annotated version, which my > pastor > jokingly calls the "Cheat Sheet Bible" in our Bible studies. :-) I had an NRSV once, but I had to "donate" it to the library when someone stole _The World's Major Languages_ when I checked it out. And I really need that dang book. All I have is a cheap paperback New American Bible (a bible with the Deuterocanonical books of the Catholic Church), but it's a looser translation than I care for. Online, you can download in HTML or .txt format a King James Version with the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha; you can also find the Revised Standard Version (which is probably my favorite, and it's the most ecumenical version out there). I have the Vulgate, a composite Greek New Testament (Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority Text, and a couple others), and the Douay-Rheims Version, which is to Catholics what the KJV is to Protestants. ObConlang: What approaches do you take (or plan to take) on translation of literature, secular or sacred? I ask because there are basically two ways of translating the Bible, the Qur'an, the Vedas and what not. You have *literal* translation, which preserves the text the most but can be confusing as it doesn't explain certain idiomatic expressions (especially if you're translating Hebrew, Sanskrit or Chinese into English or Spanish). Then you have *liberal* translations which are easier to read but are often tainted with the translator's (-s') interpretations of the text. And maybe someday I'll have a New Testament in Tech. > > I can imagine. I actually found the Old Testament more > interesting, > > because I read it more as history than theology. > > The books of Kings I found very intriguing. All that war and > political > intrigue. :-) Genesis interests me the most, since it does deal with ancient history and legend. One of my concultures in progress is the nation of Techia... about 10,000 years ago and in their original homeland, in and around modern Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya. According to native legend, Nimrod (the Cushite who conquered Mesopotamia and built the Tower of Babel) was a Techian. But bear in mind that Nimrod is the name of a Sumerian or Akkadian deity, and Cush may not have been Africa in this case -- could've been what would later be Elam (and today, southwestern Iran). Another thing: I've read that the Elamites became the Dravidians, the Hurrians the North Caucasians, and we all know about the Hittites being the first Indo-Europeans. Also, if I'm not mistaken, sons and grandsons of Japheth (again, in Genesis) include Gomer > Celts, Javan > Greeks, Madai > Medes and Persians, Ashkenaz > Scythians and maybe Germans, Meshech > Georgians, or maybe the original founders of Moscow... DaW.