Verified answer

Wendy's translation is correct.

I just want to add that the lovers Francesca and Paolo the song talks about (the names should not be translated!) are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_da_Rimini and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Malatesta . Their love is described by Dante in Inferno, canto 5 with these words:

"Love, that on gentle heart doth swiftly seize,

Seized this man for the person beautiful

That was ta'en from me, and still the mode offends me.

Love, that exempts no one beloved from loving,

Seized me with pleasure of this man so strongly,

That, as thou seest, it doth not yet desert me;

Love has conducted us unto one death;

Caina waiteth him who quenched our life!"

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy/In...

Neither a cross, not even a flower

Only darkness and humidity

The grace of the bodies which had been

Now offends memories

Among those rocks over there

It is because of a love

Certainly human jealousy

The sun tries in vain to enter

With the beams to heat the sad temple

Only pity in that unseemly embrace, nothing more

Framework imperfect that nobody will admire

And Frances was a beautiful flower

Paul gathered

But the hatred that armed the hand

Took their lives

Just pity in that last hug, no more

History and legend ... forever ageless love

The Last Embrace

Neither a cross, not even a flower

Only darkness and humidity

The grace of the bodies which had been

Now offends memories

Among those rocks over there

It is because of a 'love

Certainly human jealousy

The sun tries in vain to enter

With the beams to heat the sad temple

Only in that split mercy embrace, no more

Framework imperfect that nobody will admire

And Frances was a beautiful flower

Paul collect

But the hatred that the hand armer

Their lives have successfully

Just pity in that last hug, no more

History and legend ... forever ageless love

I decide on the New Revised Standard Version. More approximately that on the finish. The persons who say that the KJV is the nearest translation to the common are simply flawed, and there are function explanations for this. First of all, the KJV was once released in 1611, on account that then we have now extra transcripts to paintings from, adding the lifeless sea scrolls which support students do a bigger jobs of resolving the minor variations within the textual content. Secondly, we all know historical languages a lot bigger than the students of 1611 did. Remember that Hebrew was once a lifeless language that was once revived within the twentieth century. The students in 1611 did not understand Akkadian, an early Semitic language that pre-dates Hebrew. As a outcome, latest students can do a far bigger activity of translating the Old Testament than the students of 1611 might. I have a years valued at of graduate stage biblical Hebrew and a few stories in Greek as good, so I understand what I am speakme approximately right here. The KJV is a well translation, however it isn't, as many argue, the fine translation. In Divinity School, the interpretation we used probably the most in most cases was once the New Revised Standard variant. It does a exceptional activity of mentioning all the translation disorders and discrepancies within the textual content. And a further factor for the humans who speak approximately the alterations which were made to the textual content, are you mindful that the exceptional Isaiah scroll observed with the Dead Sea Scrolls within the 50's is an practically phrase for phrase reproduction of the booklet of Isaiah we use at present. In modern global, studying the KJV makes it sound as though we must check with God handiest with pronouns equivalent to "thee" and "thou" and no longer "you" and "your's" But the common Greek and Hebrew pronouns are the equal pronouns you could use to consult anybody else. If we translate them into latest English, it must comfortably be "you" and no longer "thou." You would possibly decide on the latter, however it isn't extra proper. Another main change is that each Biblical Greek and Hebrew use the masculine plural to consult businesses of combined genders. So, for instance, while the angels say "peace on this planet well will to guys," what they supposed was once "peace on this planet well will to persons." Isn't it extra main to get the which means proper than it's to get the phrase for phrase translation proper? I consider it's. Anyone who has studied biblical Hebrew is aware of there's no "literal translation." The Hebrew language is comfortably no longer that distinctive. For illustration, in Hebrew you could say "King Saul ate lunch with David" and "King Saul ate David for lunch" precisely the equal approach. There is not any change. We have got to cross as some distance on the first clause in Genesis earlier than we discover a big translation software. The King James interprets the Hebrew word "bresheet bara elohim" as "In the starting God", the hindrance is that the "the" isn't there. If it have been, breshit must learn as brasheet" but it surely does not. It looks that the introductory clause is truthfully in a possessive dating with the verb "bara" (to create), so it must learn anything like, In production's starting, God created the heaven's and the earth." That's as near as we will be able to get in English, however discover we had to make use of create two times despite the fact that it isn't there. There is yet another instance in Ruth. The textual content is filled with examples like this, and there are complete passages which can be comfortably our fine wager as to the translations. Many latest translations such because the NIV and NRSV recognize those disorders and present the reader trade translations. With all of this stated, I decide on the TNIV and NRSV, on account that I think they translate the common gender impartial nature of masculine plural nouns bigger. The NRSV additionally presents exceptional translation notes. I am a Baptist, however no longer Southern Baptist.