Author Topic: Biblish Pseudoquotes (Read 16513 times)

roo_ster · « **on:** February 20, 2012, 12:40:42 PM »

I admit to preferring the KJV above all other versions of the Bible for my reading. Sort of like I prefer Shakespeare to Stephen King novels. Just reads better. OTOH, I have never felt the need to craft new verses, set them in that style, and claim Biblical origin.

What is it with these Hollywierdoes who feel the need to make up Bible quotes and hit them with the Biblish stick?

Examples:
SL Jackson in Pulp Fiction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czb4jn5y94g
FTR, Ezekiel 25:17, "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."
I don't see that Tarantino improved on the original.

Joss Whedon tries his hand at bullshinola Biblish in Firefly:
Our Mrs. Reynolds
Safe

I could go on...

Thing is, there are plenty of great verses for most any occasion. I suspect the likes of Tarantino and Whedon are just plain ignorant and expect their audiences to be ignorant, too.

Jocassee · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2012, 12:47:22 PM »

Quote

Joss Whedon tries his hand at bullshinola Biblish in Firefly:

"Good Bible."

lee n. field · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2012, 12:56:20 PM »

Quote

I don't see that Tarantino improved on the original.

The prophets are good at thundering.

Quote

Come behold the works of the LORD, how he has brought desolations on the earth.

Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2012, 02:09:43 PM »

I think "furious anger" sounds better than "furious rebukes." For film, anyway. The Pulp Fiction version is purposely manipulated to draw out the passage for dramatic effect.

Nick1911 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2012, 03:06:17 PM »

*shrugs* It's entertainment.

In Pulp Fiction; someone in development thought it would read better.

In firefly, it probably isn't Christianity they believe (at least not in any modern sense); as the scripture is obviously much, much more recent. They created a whole universe of the film with it's own intricacies; of course, none of it's real. I don't expect scripture quotes to be any more real then the rest of it.

gunsmith · « **Reply #5 on:** February 20, 2012, 04:17:31 PM »

After 9-11 Barbra Streisand told quoted some faked quote about "towers falling" or something.

Like Socrates said: "if they don't know the truth, they can only repeat lies"

OK, I made that up.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #6 on:** February 20, 2012, 04:34:24 PM »

I never make anything up. Ever. Except when I'm lying. But all my lies are absolutely true, I swear.

Brad

AJ Dual · « **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2012, 04:40:39 PM »

"For thee would be better to pluck thine eye out, than quoth from thy Internet, for the devil's lies are spun in the web therein."

- Jesus Christ

MechAg94 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 20, 2012, 05:48:28 PM »

Simple: The people that will know that the quote is BS are probably not their target audience anyway.

I thought the stuff in Firefly was Christianity, but with completely different traditions, etc. It seemed to me that they were centuries beyond original colonization at least.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #9 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:19:05 PM »

What annoys me is the "money is the root of all evil" misquote. Usually by some libtarded idjit trying to use the bible as justification for wealth redistribution.

Lee · « **Reply #10 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:19:40 PM »

I'd say that most people feel more comfortable with language from their own millennium....or century at least.

seeker_two · « **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:29:06 PM »

When in doubt, go to the source....

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #12 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:32:21 PM »

I'm actually glad that Firefly puts a little space in between Christianity, and whatever Shepherd Book believes. I don't really mind it from Pulp Fiction, either.

Quote from: roo_ster on February 20, 2012, 12:40:42 PM

I don't see that Tarantino improved on the original.

Oh, so you're one of those people who think Moses spoke the King's English, eh?

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #13 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:34:03 PM »

There are so many versions of the Bible out there, how can we even know if a line was quoted accurately? I haven't read them all. I can't even name them all. Heck, I got all messed up in Sunday school when our church switched the Lord's Prayer from the King James version to the Revised Standard version, and "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" became "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

How many versions ARE out there?

King James Version
Revised Standard Version
NEW Revised Standard Version
American Standard 1901
Amplified Bible
Contemporary English Version
English Standard Version
God's Word
Good News Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
International Childrens Bible
Jerusalem Bible
Living Bible
New American Bible
New American Standard
New Century Version
New International Readers Version
New International Version
New Jerusalem Bible
New King James Version [Where did THIS come from?]
21st Century King James Version
New Living Translation
Today's English Version
Today's New International

And I'm sure there are others.

seeker_two · « **Reply #14 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:45:12 PM »

Go with the ones that go back to the original sources.....

New American Standard
New International Version
The Amplified Bible
The Message (my favorite....modern language)

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #15 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:46:17 PM »

Quote from: Hawkmoon on February 20, 2012, 06:34:03 PM

New King James Version [Where did THIS come from?]

From the new King James, of course.

Yeesh, do we have to explain everything? Silly peeepils...

Brad

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #16 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:47:27 PM »

Quote from: Hawkmoon on February 20, 2012, 06:34:03 PM

New King James Version [Where did THIS come from?]

Thomas Nelson Publishers. It came out in the '80s, and has become extremely popular. Probably one of the top five English translations, if I had to guess.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #17 on:** February 20, 2012, 06:49:13 PM »

Quote from: seeker_two on February 20, 2012, 06:45:12 PM

Go with the ones that go back to the original sources.....

Uh, don't they all?

Ron · « **Reply #18 on:** February 20, 2012, 08:51:15 PM »

Lately I've been reading an OT translation and commentary by a gent named Robert Alter. His commentary is primarily about the Hebrew language and culture during the time the various books were written. In the NT I've been reading a translation by Richmond Lattimore.

My primary Bible has always been the KJV. I've tried to like the popular more modern translations to no avail.

So far I am happy with the work of the two above mentioned gentlemen.

I've never looked up the quote from Pulp Fiction, but I've always assumed it was some mishmash of what it really says :D

Tuco · « **Reply #19 on:** February 20, 2012, 09:32:32 PM »

Quote

Now… I been sayin’ that *expletive deleted* for years. And if you ever heard it, that meant your ass. You’d be dead right now.

I never gave much thought to what it meant. I just thought it was a cold-blooded thing to say to a mother*expletive deleted*er before I popped a cap in his ass.

But I saw some *expletive deleted* this mornin’ made me think twice. See, now I’m thinking: maybe it means you’re the evil man. And I’m the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here… he’s the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you’re the righteous man and I’m the shepherd and it’s the world that’s evil and selfish. And I’d like that. But that *expletive deleted* ain’t the truth. The truth is you’re the weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men. But I’m tryin’, Ringo. I’m tryin’ real hard to be the shepherd.

Cut the brother a little slack.

Quote

I’m tryin’, Ringo. I’m tryin’ real hard

roo_ster · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2012, 09:34:55 PM »

Quote from: fistful on February 20, 2012, 06:32:21 PM

Oh, so you're one of those people who think Moses spoke the King's English, eh?

I was wondering how you would misconstrue what I wrote to paint me with the KJV-only brush.

I can justifiably be painted with the KJV-preferred brush, though.

Though Moses didn;t speak the King's English, the Pulp Fiction pseudoquote was in KJV-ian Biblish. And it is evident Tarantino started with Ex 25:17 and went apey with it. So, the "original," as far as Tarantino is concerned, is the KJV Ez 25:17.

So there.

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #21 on:** February 20, 2012, 10:05:13 PM »

Quote from: fistful on February 20, 2012, 06:49:13 PM

Uh, don't they all?

No.

The King James version, for example, was based mostly on 6th century Greek texts that had been translated (often poorly) from the original Aramaic source documents. Aside from language shifts that have rendered some of the words in the KJV not meaning today what they meant in 1611, this is why the KJV is now not considered a particularly authoritative version. It's admired for its language, but not for its accuracy of content.

Looking up the NEW KJV, I guess that's the reason they revised it.

Just one cogent example: When I was in Sunday school and we learned the Ten Commandments, one of them (as it was taught to us) was, "Thou shalt not kill." In fact, at the height of the Vietnam unpleasantness, my own minister declined to support my attempt to register as a conscientious objector because I could not honestly say that I would not take a life in defense of my own. He based that on the old translation of the Commandment.

Turns out, the more accurate translation is "Do not commit murder." There's a BIG difference.

Ron · « **Reply #22 on:** February 20, 2012, 10:46:53 PM »

The original "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" argument.

There isn't another ancient book nor text that has such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for its text as the Bible does.

The KJV bashers are just as silly as the KJV only folks. Both earnest but missing the point, IMHO.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2012, 11:00:18 PM »

Quote from: roo_ster on February 20, 2012, 09:34:55 PM

I was wondering how you would misconstrue what I wrote to paint me with the KJV-only brush.

Not sure if serious. I know you're not one of those.

Quote from: Hawkmoon on February 20, 2012, 10:05:13 PM

Quote from: fistful on February 20, 2012, 06:49:13 PM
Uh, don't they all?

No.

The King James version, for example, was based mostly on 6th century Greek texts that had been translated (often poorly) from the original Aramaic source documents. Aside from language shifts that have rendered some of the words in the KJV not meaning today what they meant in 1611, this is why the KJV is now not considered a particularly authoritative version. It's admired for its language, but not for its accuracy of content.

Looking up the NEW KJV, I guess that's the reason they revised it.

The NKJV mostly retains the textual basis of the KJV. It is mostly the wording that is updated.

You've said similar about the King James being based on Greek translations of Aramaic before. That conflicts with what I have read. Where did you get your information? I think you may be mis-remembering, or getting bad info.

I agree about "thou shalt not murder," of course. That is a real black mark against the KJV, for me, but most people think it's an unimportant detail. For most, whether or not they should kill is an esoteric question they can't imagine having to deal with in real life.

Oh, yeah, my point was that any modern translation you are likely to find (and we may as well include the King James, since 1611 is in the modern era) is translated from the original languages. The KJV is a little weak in that regard, but it's not a translation of a translation of a translation, as many uninformed people believe.

The Message, though? Not really a translation of the original languages; more of a paraphrase. Use with caution.

Ron · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2012, 11:36:29 PM »

Quote

The KJV is a little weak in that regard, but it's not a translation of a translation of a translation, as many uninformed people believe.

The translation from Hebrew and Greek is weak? The text it is based upon is weak? What is weak?

News:

Author Topic: Biblish Pseudoquotes (Read 16513 times)