/lit/ - Literature

(repost: sorry my writing was mangled)
reading Leviticus...
KJV says
>When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean.
Knox, who's sposed to be doing this modern-but-timeless English rendition writes:
>The man who has a running of the reins is unclean.
the Douay–Rheims puts it more clearly:
>The man that hath an issue of seed, shall be unclean.
Though it isn't immediately obvious what the difference is between as "issue of seed" (15:1) and "the seed of copulation" (15:16)
Why Knox was such a prude here i've no idea. Esp. since in his pamphlet On Englishing the Bible, he chides Challoner specifically for using:
>the obsolete word 'reins', hoping that his readers would not look it up in the dictionary
Knox is great for the narrative sections because it's a smoother less cumbrous read than more archaic translations with their awkward unnatural-to-us sentences but his instincts I sometimes find questionable considering his stated aim that his translation wouldn't appear dated 200 years after its publication. Even the way he writes "shew" annoys me a little
Meanwhile the despised paraphrase The Message has it as:
>When a man has a discharge from his genitals, the discharge is unclean.
and
>When a man has an emission of semen
and the Hawaii Pidgin translation, Da Jesus Book declares:
>Wen any guy get no good kine stuff come out from dea penis dat not piss an not semen, dat make um so dey no can come in front me.
and
>Wen one guy get one wet dream, he gotta bafe his whole body in watta, an he no can come in front me till da sun go down
In the following chapter, the Message mentions the goat offered to *checks notes* the demon Azazel, the others speak only of scapegoats but say not whom its for. Rashi comments that:
>Azazel... is a strong and hard mountain, [with] a high cliff, as the Scripture says [in describing Azazel] (verse 22 below),“a precipitous land (אֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה),” meaning a cut-off land [i.e., a sheer drop].

reading Leviticus...
KJV says
>When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean.
Knox, who's sposed to be doing this modern-but-timeless English rendition writes:
The man who has a running of the reins is unclean.
when the Douay–Rheims puts it more clearly:
>The man that hath an issue of seed, shall be unclean.
Though it isn't immediately obvious what the difference is between as "issue of seed" (15:1) and "the seed of copulation" (15:16) isn't necessarily obvious
Why Knox was such a prude here i've no idea. Esp. since in his pamphlet On Englishing the Bible, he teases Challoner particularly for using "the obsolete word 'reins', hoping that his readers would not look it up in the dictionary". Knox is great for the narrative sections because it's a smoother less cumbrous read than more archaic translations with their awkward unnatural sentences but his instincts I sometimes find questionable considering his stated aim that his translation wouldn't appear dated 200 years after its publication.
Meanwhile the despised paraphrase The Message has it as:
>When a man has a discharge from his genitals, the discharge is unclean.
and the Hawaii Pidgin translation, Da Jesus Book states:
>Wen any guy get no good kine stuff come out from dea penis dat not piss an not semen, dat make um so dey no can come in front me.
In the following chapter, the Message mentions the goat offered to *checks notes* the demon Azazel, the others speak only of scapegoats but say not whom its for. Rashi comments that:
>Azazel... is a strong and hard mountain, [with] a high cliff, as the Scripture says [in describing Azazel] (verse 22 below),“a precipitous land (אֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה),” meaning a cut-off land [i.e., a sheer drop].

Christmas miracles really do happen<span class="fortune" style="color:#d0aa01">

Your fortune: Krampus is coming to your house![/spoiler]

>>16645108
I can't read

who needs frens when you have a cute gf like me

>>16317797
We're in this together.

>>15621511
But a problem here arises with respect to natural science
While empirical in method, on pure thought it lays reliant.
although for Newton's findings, we to Newton give the glory...
Newton never could have found them if they weren't known a priori!

>>14171964
thats the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me