Are all of these equivalent to “does”

doest, doeth, dost, doth?

Is cursedst the same as cursed?

Please don’t use the words “second-person singular simple present form” in your answer. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

I’m having a try at translating the Bible into atheist.

mollwollfumble said:

Are all of these equivalent to “does”

doest, doeth, dost, doth?

Is cursedst the same as cursed?

Please don’t use the words “second-person singular simple present form” in your answer. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

I’m having a try at translating the Bible into atheist.

yes

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Are all of these equivalent to “does”

doest, doeth, dost, doth?

Is cursedst the same as cursed?

Please don’t use the words “second-person singular simple present form” in your answer. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

I’m having a try at translating the Bible into atheist.

yes

Obvious question, though … Why would you use one of the older translations rather than a direct translation into modern English? KJV in particular is fraught with errors.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Are all of these equivalent to “does”

doest, doeth, dost, doth?

Is cursedst the same as cursed?

Please don’t use the words “second-person singular simple present form” in your answer. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

I’m having a try at translating the Bible into atheist.

yes

Is Atheist a language now?

dv said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Are all of these equivalent to “does”

doest, doeth, dost, doth?

Is cursedst the same as cursed?

Please don’t use the words “second-person singular simple present form” in your answer. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

I’m having a try at translating the Bible into atheist.

yes

Obvious question, though … Why would you use one of the older translations rather than a direct translation into modern English? KJV in particular is fraught with errors.

> yes

Thanks :-)

One thing that old versions do, and in particular the one I’m using does, is separate “elohim” from “Jehovah”. I can’t do a thing with the Good News version that translates both as “God”.

But really, I’m only using the old version (American Standard from 1901) because I can get it in text. Expired copyright. Most recent versions both testaments aren’t downloadable in large chunks as text from the web.

Oh dang it! I can get a text version that doesn’t have archaic English. Here. https://biblehub.com/isv/ from 2011.

Good. Start again.

roughbarked said:

Is Atheist a language now?

I’m beginning to think it is. There are many words in the English language that are completely missing from the atheist language, words like God, heaven, bishop, altar, messiah. Sort of like trying to translate the Bible into Pitjantjatjara, there are a lot fewer words to work with.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

dv said:

Obvious question, though … Why would you use one of the older translations rather than a direct translation into modern English? KJV in particular is fraught with errors.

> yes

Thanks :-)

One thing that old versions do, and in particular the one I’m using does, is separate “elohim” from “Jehovah”. I can’t do a thing with the Good News version that translates both as “God”.

But really, I’m only using the old version (American Standard from 1901) because I can get it in text. Expired copyright. Most recent versions both testaments aren’t downloadable in large chunks as text from the web.

Oh dang it! I can get a text version that doesn’t have archaic English. Here. https://biblehub.com/isv/ from 2011.

Good. Start again.

roughbarked said:

Is Atheist a language now?

I’m beginning to think it is. There are many words in the English language that are completely missing from the atheist language, words like God, heaven, bishop, altar, messiah. Sort of like trying to translate the Bible into Pitjantjatjara, there are a lot fewer words to work with.

There are problems with the latest ISV version.
First of all formatting problems, multitudinous blank lines, footnotes markings, verse markings attached to the fronts of words, headings that are not part of the original text, cross references within the text.

Then they take extreme liberties with the translation itself.
eg. the Hebrew says “cup-carrier”
The ISV writes “chief security advisor”
As I say, extreme liberties. And that’s far from being the only example. They muck up the start of Psalm 14 for example.

The earlier versions may in fact be more true to the original Hebrew and Greek.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

dv said:

Obvious question, though … Why would you use one of the older translations rather than a direct translation into modern English? KJV in particular is fraught with errors.

> yes

Thanks :-)

One thing that old versions do, and in particular the one I’m using does, is separate “elohim” from “Jehovah”. I can’t do a thing with the Good News version that translates both as “God”.

But really, I’m only using the old version (American Standard from 1901) because I can get it in text. Expired copyright. Most recent versions both testaments aren’t downloadable in large chunks as text from the web.

Oh dang it! I can get a text version that doesn’t have archaic English. Here. https://biblehub.com/isv/ from 2011.

Good. Start again.

roughbarked said:

Is Atheist a language now?

I’m beginning to think it is. There are many words in the English language that are completely missing from the atheist language, words like God, heaven, bishop, altar, messiah. Sort of like trying to translate the Bible into Pitjantjatjara, there are a lot fewer words to work with.

I am not sure that atheists want the bible?

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

> yes

Thanks :-)

One thing that old versions do, and in particular the one I’m using does, is separate “elohim” from “Jehovah”. I can’t do a thing with the Good News version that translates both as “God”.

But really, I’m only using the old version (American Standard from 1901) because I can get it in text. Expired copyright. Most recent versions both testaments aren’t downloadable in large chunks as text from the web.

Oh dang it! I can get a text version that doesn’t have archaic English. Here. https://biblehub.com/isv/ from 2011.

Good. Start again.

roughbarked said:

Is Atheist a language now?

I’m beginning to think it is. There are many words in the English language that are completely missing from the atheist language, words like God, heaven, bishop, altar, messiah. Sort of like trying to translate the Bible into Pitjantjatjara, there are a lot fewer words to work with.

I am not sure that atheists want the bible?

Apparently at least one does. Unless moll is a secret Christian evangelist that is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m beginning to think it is. There are many words in the English language that are completely missing from the atheist language, words like God, heaven, bishop, altar, messiah. Sort of like trying to translate the Bible into Pitjantjatjara, there are a lot fewer words to work with.

I am not sure that atheists want the bible?

Apparently at least one does. Unless moll is a secret Christian evangelist that is.

More than one.. Francesca Stavrakopoulou studies it.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

dv said:

Obvious question, though … Why would you use one of the older translations rather than a direct translation into modern English? KJV in particular is fraught with errors.

> yes

Thanks :-)

One thing that old versions do, and in particular the one I’m using does, is separate “elohim” from “Jehovah”. I can’t do a thing with the Good News version that translates both as “God”.

But really, I’m only using the old version (American Standard from 1901) because I can get it in text. Expired copyright. Most recent versions both testaments aren’t downloadable in large chunks as text from the web.

Oh dang it! I can get a text version that doesn’t have archaic English. Here. https://biblehub.com/isv/ from 2011.

Good. Start again.

roughbarked said:

Is Atheist a language now?

I’m beginning to think it is. There are many words in the English language that are completely missing from the atheist language, words like God, heaven, bishop, altar, messiah. Sort of like trying to translate the Bible into Pitjantjatjara, there are a lot fewer words to work with.

Good God man, how stupid. I am an atheist BTW. Your argument is thus falsified.

Obviously atheists are familiar with all the well-known religious terms. But we attach a more realistic meaning to them than the believers.

mollwollfumble said:

Are all of these equivalent to “does”

doest, doeth, dost, doth?

Is cursedst the same as cursed?

Please don’t use the words “second-person singular simple present form” in your answer. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

I’m having a try at translating the Bible into atheist.

Thou art madeth.

Boris said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

> yes

Thanks :-)

One thing that old versions do, and in particular the one I’m using does, is separate “elohim” from “Jehovah”. I can’t do a thing with the Good News version that translates both as “God”.

But really, I’m only using the old version (American Standard from 1901) because I can get it in text. Expired copyright. Most recent versions both testaments aren’t downloadable in large chunks as text from the web.

Oh dang it! I can get a text version that doesn’t have archaic English. Here. https://biblehub.com/isv/ from 2011.

Good. Start again.

roughbarked said:

Is Atheist a language now?

I’m beginning to think it is. There are many words in the English language that are completely missing from the atheist language, words like God, heaven, bishop, altar, messiah. Sort of like trying to translate the Bible into Pitjantjatjara, there are a lot fewer words to work with.

Good God man, how stupid. I am an atheist BTW. Your argument is thus falsified.

Ah, but you are no doubt using the atheist meaning of the word, not the Three True Christian meanings.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I am not sure that atheists want the bible?

Apparently at least one does. Unless moll is a secret Christian evangelist that is.

More than one.. Francesca Stavrakopoulou studies it.

is studies same as want

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Apparently at least one does. Unless moll is a secret Christian evangelist that is.

More than one.. Francesca Stavrakopoulou studies it.

is studies same as want

Presumably she studies it because she wants to study it and presumably if she wants to study it she wants to have a copy of it.

Bubblecar said:

Obviously atheists are familiar with all the well-known religious terms. But we attach a more realistic meaning to them than the believers.

All right then. My translation, if it ever gets finished, will have an absolute minimum of specifically religious words in it. Religious words are synonymed out.

But I’d better stop. I’m starting to identify Yahweh with Thor/Zeus. Definitely a weather god specialising in storms, according the Nahum and in many other places.

So “our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name” doesn’t translate as “nature is awesome” but as “storms are awesome”. No that doesn’t work either.

PS, the ISV written in the year 2015 is looking to be a major washout as a starting point. When choosing between authenticity and easy interpretation, it always opts for easy interpretation. For example, the word “Christ” never appears in the New Testament of the ISV. It doesn’t say “The Lord is my shepherd” but circumlocutes it to “The Lord is the one who shepherds me”. There are way too many non-authentic sentences.

mollwollfumble said:

For example, the word “Christ” never appears in the New Testament of the ISV. It doesn’t say “The Lord is my shepherd” but circumlocutes it to “The Lord is the one who shepherds me”. There are way too many non-authentic sentences.

Both of those seem a little strange.

Do they just call him Jesus, or what? If so, presumably it was the Australian on the Committee who asked for that one.

As for shepherd’s, I suppose the traditional wording could be interpreted as The Lord is the guy who looks after my sheep.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

For example, the word “Christ” never appears in the New Testament of the ISV. It doesn’t say “The Lord is my shepherd” but circumlocutes it to “The Lord is the one who shepherds me”. There are way too many non-authentic sentences.

Both of those seem a little strange.

Do they just call him Jesus, or what? If so, presumably it was the Australian on the Committee who asked for that one.

As for shepherd’s, I suppose the traditional wording could be interpreted as The Lord is the guy who looks after my sheep.

… and who put that bloody ‘ in there?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

For example, the word “Christ” never appears in the New Testament of the ISV. It doesn’t say “The Lord is my shepherd” but circumlocutes it to “The Lord is the one who shepherds me”. There are way too many non-authentic sentences.

Both of those seem a little strange.

Do they just call him Jesus, or what? If so, presumably it was the Australian on the Committee who asked for that one.

As for shepherd’s, I suppose the traditional wording could be interpreted as The Lord is the guy who looks after my sheep.

~The Lord is the guy bloke who looks after my sheep.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

For example, the word “Christ” never appears in the New Testament of the ISV. It doesn’t say “The Lord is my shepherd” but circumlocutes it to “The Lord is the one who shepherds me”. There are way too many non-authentic sentences.

Both of those seem a little strange.

Do they just call him Jesus, or what? If so, presumably it was the Australian on the Committee who asked for that one.

As for shepherd’s, I suppose the traditional wording could be interpreted as The Lord is the guy who looks after my sheep.

…or “the guy who looks after me”.

Dark Orange said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

For example, the word “Christ” never appears in the New Testament of the ISV. It doesn’t say “The Lord is my shepherd” but circumlocutes it to “The Lord is the one who shepherds me”. There are way too many non-authentic sentences.

Both of those seem a little strange.

Do they just call him Jesus, or what? If so, presumably it was the Australian on the Committee who asked for that one.

As for shepherd’s, I suppose the traditional wording could be interpreted as The Lord is the guy who looks after my sheep.

…or “the guy who looks after me”.

Looks after the sheeple.

Tamb said:

Dark Orange said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Both of those seem a little strange.

Do they just call him Jesus, or what? If so, presumably it was the Australian on the Committee who asked for that one.

As for shepherd’s, I suppose the traditional wording could be interpreted as The Lord is the guy who looks after my sheep.

…or “the guy who looks after me”.

Looks after the sheeple.

And layeth down in green pasture.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

Obviously atheists are familiar with all the well-known religious terms. But we attach a more realistic meaning to them than the believers.

All right then. My translation, if it ever gets finished, will have an absolute minimum of specifically religious words in it. Religious words are synonymed out.

Sounds about as pointless as a general science textbook which uses no scientific terms at all

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

Obviously atheists are familiar with all the well-known religious terms. But we attach a more realistic meaning to them than the believers.

All right then. My translation, if it ever gets finished, will have an absolute minimum of specifically religious words in it. Religious words are synonymed out.

Sounds about as pointless as a general science textbook which uses no scientific terms at all

a rose by any other name…

Well let us know when you have a few verses done so we can get more of an idea of how you are going to go about it. There are about 700000 words in the Bible so the whole task may take you some time to complete.

You may have heard of the Jefferson Bibles. Thomas Jefferson quite literally sliced up copies of the Bible to produce extracts that did not include any supernatural references.

dv said:

Well let us know when you have a few verses done so we can get more of an idea of how you are going to go about it. There are about 700000 words in the Bible so the whole task may take you some time to complete.

You may have heard of the Jefferson Bibles. Thomas Jefferson quite literally sliced up copies of the Bible to produce extracts that did not include any supernatural references.

Are they the same people who sell the Jefferson Airplanes?

dv said:

Well let us know when you have a few verses done so we can get more of an idea of how you are going to go about it. There are about 700000 words in the Bible so the whole task may take you some time to complete.

You may have heard of the Jefferson Bibles. Thomas Jefferson quite literally sliced up copies of the Bible to produce extracts that did not include any supernatural references.

You don’t hear much about that, I wonder why.

TATE on the Jefferson Bible

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Well let us know when you have a few verses done so we can get more of an idea of how you are going to go about it. There are about 700000 words in the Bible so the whole task may take you some time to complete.

You may have heard of the Jefferson Bibles. Thomas Jefferson quite literally sliced up copies of the Bible to produce extracts that did not include any supernatural references.

Are they the same people who sell the Jefferson Airplanes?

Amusing

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Well let us know when you have a few verses done so we can get more of an idea of how you are going to go about it. There are about 700000 words in the Bible so the whole task may take you some time to complete.

You may have heard of the Jefferson Bibles. Thomas Jefferson quite literally sliced up copies of the Bible to produce extracts that did not include any supernatural references.

Are they the same people who sell the Jefferson Airplanes?

I’ve seen plenty of Jefferson Airplanes, but I’ve not seen them sold anywhere

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Well let us know when you have a few verses done so we can get more of an idea of how you are going to go about it. There are about 700000 words in the Bible so the whole task may take you some time to complete.

You may have heard of the Jefferson Bibles. Thomas Jefferson quite literally sliced up copies of the Bible to produce extracts that did not include any supernatural references.

Are they the same people who sell the Jefferson Airplanes?

Oh, very slick.

esselte said:

Written by Phil Collins, hey what but.

Woodie said:

esselte said:

Written by Phil Collins, hey what but.

Ah loverly. I’d like a copy. But I can do better than that.

It’s dawned on me, that ‘Yahweh’ has two meanings, not one.
One is ‘thought’, which speaks to prophets.
The other is ‘nature’, which controls the weather.

Now the Bible starts to make more sense in a non-religious context.