@Mithridates -- and you think looking at the readibility of the English translation will be a good indication of the usefulness of the language found in the Kyrgyz translation?
>and you think looking at the readibility of the English translation will be a good indication of the usefulness of the language found in the Kyrgyz translation?
Of course. The Ecclesiastes example has a lot of repetition of frequently used verbs, while the Exodus example you will end up learning the Kyrgyz equivalents of ram of ordination, wave offering, unleavened bread, and a ton of other things a native speaker won't even understand. Just in the same way that if you like a translation of the Little Prince and want to use it to learn a language you can be sure that the other translation will be more or less the same content.
A good rule of thumb for books in the Bible is to avoid books with too many names of people and countries, and special objects or units. Genesis 10 is a good example of a particularly bad chapter:
13 Egypt was the father of
the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, 14 Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.
15 Canaan was the father of
Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites, 16 Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, 17 Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, 18 Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites.
Later the Canaanite clans scattered 19 and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, as far as Lasha.
Of course. The Ecclesiastes example has a lot of repetition of frequently used verbs, while the Exodus example you will end up learning the Kyrgyz equivalents of ram of ordination, wave offering, unleavened bread, and a ton of other things a native speaker won't even understand. Just in the same way that if you like a translation of the Little Prince and want to use it to learn a language you can be sure that the other translation will be more or less the same content.
A good rule of thumb for books in the Bible is to avoid books with too many names of people and countries, and special objects or units. Genesis 10 is a good example of a particularly bad chapter:
13 Egypt was the father of
the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, 14 Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.
15 Canaan was the father of
Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites, 16 Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, 17 Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, 18 Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites.
Later the Canaanite clans scattered 19 and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, as far as Lasha.
>To call it : The new testament was a great idea at the time but now, 2000 years later - this title sounds quite ridiculous.
As do New York, New Zealand and all the rest, I assume?
As do New York, New Zealand and all the rest, I assume?
"New" does not mean modern, contemporary, or current, it just means "new" as opposed to a previous version. What is the problem?
This was not my idea when I posted my first comment but since you ask : What is the problem ?
The big problem is with the possible next versions.
If version number 2 is the new one - how will you call version 3, 4 and so on ?
There is also another problem with the old testament. Obviously this was not its original title - nobody serious would call his book old something in the anticipation of a next version.
So the authors of the so called new testament - renamed the book of the Hebrews - in the hope of giving more credits to their own work.
As for the cities - I prefer to have New something than some Odessa in Texas.
The big problem is with the possible next versions.
If version number 2 is the new one - how will you call version 3, 4 and so on ?
There is also another problem with the old testament. Obviously this was not its original title - nobody serious would call his book old something in the anticipation of a next version.
So the authors of the so called new testament - renamed the book of the Hebrews - in the hope of giving more credits to their own work.
As for the cities - I prefer to have New something than some Odessa in Texas.
.
@alexandrec
> The Bible likely contains all of the best moral advice there is, provided you already have the moral sense ...
Regardless of a huge range of opinions possible on the cut last notion (left after the dots in the quote), I don't see how it contradicts to what I've said.
> The Bible likely contains all of the best moral advice there is, provided you already have the moral sense ...
Regardless of a huge range of opinions possible on the cut last notion (left after the dots in the quote), I don't see how it contradicts to what I've said.
@eugrus -- it would contradict the claim that the "Bible is probably one of the greatest sources of moral guidance out there" [order altered].
@Peter - "I might try the "Samuel" and "Kings" sections. One question, though. Would reading these "books" make sense if I haven't read the preceding ones?"
Well, the stories in these books start at the beginning of Samuel's, then David's, and then Solomon's lives and tell the stories of each of their lives - which intertwine. And the stories for the other Kings usually start from the beginning of their reigns until the end (for the most part I think), so I don't think you'd be too lost.
Well, the stories in these books start at the beginning of Samuel's, then David's, and then Solomon's lives and tell the stories of each of their lives - which intertwine. And the stories for the other Kings usually start from the beginning of their reigns until the end (for the most part I think), so I don't think you'd be too lost.