Comments on: Super Smash Bible

By: Gab

Gab — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:38:22 +0000

Oh, yeah, and I totally feel the KJV, that specific one, was meant to fit James’ personal agenda- it was named after the guy, for crying out loud. No argument there.

By: Gab

Gab — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:34:58 +0000

@TheGryphon: Not to be nitpicky, but I *did* say “a few other ‘traditional’ translations,” indicating other translations with similarly archaic wording. I’ll admit that I can’t remember any of the names off the top of my head, but I do know the KJV isn’t the only one written so thickly. I also indicated an awareness of more easily understood versions in my mentioning of the New Living Translation- I’ve seen the NAS, and both do similar things (alternate translations, side-explanations, study questions, summaries, etc.).

By: TheGryphon

TheGryphon — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:05:02 +0000

@ Gab :
The real thing that makes the KJV so impenetrable is that is a very bad translation, designed more to support James’ prejudices than the the meaning of the text itself. Try the NAS (New American Standard) which is translated directly from the earliest surviving texts, and contains a large amount of multiple possible translations and sidebar explanations. The Bible is not thick, difficult, and literary, KJV is. In fact, one of the problems that early Christianity ran into when proselitizing to the Roman world, is that the style of the text was so plain and everyday, serious thinkers had trouble taking it seriously compared to the literate and high flying rhetoric of the Greek schools of philosophy.

By: Gab

Gab — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:15:12 +0000

I think what makes the King James (and a few other, “traditional” versions) Bible hard to access isn’t the themes or characters themselves, but the diction and archaic formula. This is why there are translations like New Living and such, ones that put it in modern English instead- and, to further make it more accessible, lots of Cliff’s Notes-type things come in these modernized translations.*

Also, there’s the form of media itself: print.

But I think one very successful way both setbacks have been overcome is _Veggie Tales_. I became exposed to the series as an adult, and in college, the place where I was “supposed” to be questioning faith and religion and stuff. And I liked it. I thought there was enough in there for adults to enjoy, whether they themselves knew the stories at first or not. And of course the kids would enjoy it, too. Sure, it’s indoctrination propaganda, but I don’t see how sitting around a TV to learn about David and Goliath is any less of a form of indoctrination than sitting around the table or going to Sunday School to do it. And if it’s a way to entertain the whole family, why not?

I have a question, though. If we’re always so busy trying to find religious allegory in popular culture, why can’t we do a reverse-analysis? Instead of trying to prove how The Hulk is a Christ-like figure, why not prove that Christ is a Hulk-like figure? (Does that make sense?)

*Other texts translated into “modern” English? Shakespeare. There is a whole line of books done similar to the Loeb Classical Library with the Elizabethan English on one side and modern English on the other:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_0_17?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=shakespeare+made+easy&x=0&y=0&sprefix=shakespeare+made+

By: fenzel

fenzel — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:41:42 +0000

In retrospect, one Biblical verse seems especially apt.

Jesus wept.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:48:08 +0000

You forgot one part:

And the falcon which was hanged railed on him, saying, “If thou be Player 1, save thyself and us.” But the fox rebuked the falcon, saying, “Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.” And he said unto Kirby, “Player 1, remember me when thou comest into your kingdom.” And Kirby said unto him, “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Green Greens.”