|
|
Werewolves Are Real!
Recent Story, Werewolf sighting
Modern Transformation Case
Notes on Baelish231
An archaic form of Chivian, Baelish is written much as English
was written a thousand years ago. The alphabet contains twenty-four
letters. Every letter is pronounced, even when this seems
impossible, as in cniht and
hlytm.
...
Many Old English words have gone out of use: wer meaning "man" survives only in
"werewolf." Others have survived unchanged--a hwæl is still a "whale." Cniht, which originally meant "boy,"
(cnihtcild was a "boy
child") was transformed into "knight," and the k
was still being pronounced when English spelling was
standardized a couple of hundred years ago.
She carried the scroll to the long
table at which Duraid, her husband, was already at work. He looked
up as she laid it on the tabletop before him, and for a moment she
saw the same mystical mood in his eyes that had affected her. He
always wanted the scroll there on the table, even when there was no
real call for it. He had the photographs and the microfilm to work
with. It was as though he needed the unseen presence of the author
close to him as he studied the texts.
Then he threw off the mood and was the
dispassionate scientist once more. `Your eyes are better than
mine, my flower,' he said. `What do you make of this
character?'
She leaned over his shoulder and studied
the hieroglyph on the photograph of the scroll that he pointed out
to her. She puzzled over the character for a moment before she
took the magnifying glass from Duraid's hand and peered through it
again.
`It looks as though Taita has thrown in
another cryptogram of his own creation just to bedevil us.' She
spoke of the ancient author as though he were a dear, but sometimes
exasperating, friend who still lived and breathed, and played
tricks upon them.
`We'll just have to puzzle it out, then,'
Duraid declared with obvious relish. He loved the ancient game.
It was his life's work. --Wilbur Smith,
The Seventh Scroll232
The subjects of the Testaments, Old and
New, are taken from very primitive and inartificial life. With the
exception of the writings of Paul, and in a less degree Luke, there
is little evidence of literary culture, or of a wide and varied
range of thought, in their authors. They narrate plain facts, and
they promulgate doctrines, profound indeed, but addressed less to
the speculative and discursive, than to the moral and spiritual
faculties; and hence, whatever may have been the capabilities of
Hebrew and of classical Greek for other purposes, the vocabulary of
the whole Bible is narrow in extent, and extremely simple in
character. Now, in the early part of the sixteenth century, when
the development of our religious dialect was completed, the English
mind, and the English language, were generally in a state of
culture much more analogous to that of the people and the tongues
of Palestine than they have been at any other subsequent period.
Two centuries later the native speech had been greatly subtilized,
if not refined. Good vernacular words had been supplanted by
foreign intruders, comprehensive ideas and their vocabulary had
been split up into artificially discriminated thoughts, and a
corresponding multitude of terms. The language in fact had become
too copious, and too specific, to have any true correspondences
with so simple and inartificial a diction as that of the Christian
Scriptures. Had the Bible then for the first time appeared in an
English dress, the translators would have been perplexed and
confounded with the multitude of terms, each expressing a fragment,
few the whole, of the meaning of the original words for which they
must stand; and whereas, three hundred years ago, but one good
translation was possible, the eighteenth century might have
produced a dozen, none altogether good, but none much worse than
another. We may learn from a paragraph in Trench what a different
vocabulary the Bible would have displayed, if it had been first
executed or thoroughly revised at that period. One commentator, he
says, thought the phrase "clean escaped" a very low expression;
another would reject "straightway, haply, twain, athirst, wax (in
the sense of grow), lack, ensample, jeopardy, garner, passion," as
obsolete; while the author of a new translation condemns as
clownish, barbarous, base, hard, technical, misapplied, or
new-coined, such words as beguile, boisterous, lineage, perseverance,
potentate, remit, shorn, swerved, vigilant, unloose, unction,
vocation, and hundreds of others now altogether approved and
familiar. --George P. Marsh, Lectures on the
English Language233
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED234
by Edward F. Hills
The King James Version Defended,
by Edward F. Hills, is the best 20th Century Defense for
the Textus Receptus (Received Text) and the
King James Version of the Bible (better known as the Authorized
Version). Available for the first time in electronic format, this
book may be downloaded for personal use, with the kind permission
of the Christian Research Press. Dr. Hills founded his arguments
for the New Testament text squarely and solidly on the historic
doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation
of Holy Scripture.
PLEASE NOTE: That the text is ©
Copyright and may not be reproduced for sale or profit.
But first, from page 218 of the book we
offer these abbreviated six reasons why the King James Version
should be retained:
- "...the English of the King James Version is not the English
of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of
English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English,
which...owes its merit, not to 17th-century English--which was very
different--but to its faithful translation of the original."
- "...the King James Version is enduring diction which will
remain as long as the English language remains..."
- "...the current attack on the King James Version and the
promotion of modern-speech versions is discouraging the
memorization of the Scriptures, especially by children..."
- "...modern-speech Bibles are unhistorical and irreverent. The
Bible is not a modern, human book...On the contrary, the Bible is
an ancient, divine Book...Hence the language of the Bible should be
venerable as well as intelligible, and the King James Version
fulfills these two requirements better than any other Bible in
English."
- "...modern speech Bibles are unscholarly. The language of the
Bible has always savored of the things of heaven rather than the
things of earth. It has always been biblical rather than
contemporary and colloquial."
- "...the King James Version is the historic Bible of
English-speaking Protestants. Upon it God, working providentially,
has placed the stamp of His approval through the usage of many
generations of Bible-believing Christians. Hence, if we believe in
God's providential preservation of the Scriptures, we will retain
the King James Version, for in so doing we will be following the
clear leading of the Almighty."
|
Now I am trying to sort this out. I read a recent news
release about some villagers in India claiming to have seen a wolf
come out of the forest then turn into a man and walk away. The
authorities came up with an official version that the villagers had
just seen a wolf, to which the villagers replied, yeah, but the
wolf turned into a man and walked away.
bibles.n7nz.org