Featured Idioms

Van, you are being silly again. In John 10:24 the people ask Jesus (literally) "Until when will you take up our souls?"
NASU "How long will You keep us in suspense?" The NASU does not use literal language.

Mark 1:32, translated literally, says that Jesus healed all "those having badly." but it means "those who were sick." The NASU does not speak literally in the text.

In 1 Samueul 10:9 the NASU says that God gave Saul another heart. But the idiom means "to change one's disposition or heart attitude." The NASU did not put the "literal" in the text.

And on and on. Your "principle" just doesn't work in actual practice.

 

And I did not say that you claimed that it did. No quote will be forthcoming.

But the thing that you constantly emphasize is that Bible versions should translate idioms "literally" within the text and put the meaning in the footnotes.

I have demonstrated that it is not a practical idea. There are too many occasions where it just would not make any sense. Sometimes it it works, but many times it just does not make any sense.

The NASU is a good translation. Yet it is not the be-all-and end-all.

 

Well, that won't fly. You have an unreasonable stance. Alternatives sometimes have to be noted. Explanations need to be given. Variants need to be stated. A number of times translators are not sure what some words mean. Take a look at the book of Psalms, for instance. In the NASU you will observe a lot of footnotes indicating that it is unclear what the author was saying. No doctrines hinge on those items however.

It's just a practical thing to have helpful footnotes. I am not in favor of study Bibles. But doing away with foonotes would be unwise.

 

Well of course.

You mean ;"...other than being unable to afford the diversity."

You harbor the belief that having an edition of a translation with footnotes will harm a new believer?

When you use the term "textual footnotes" do you mean textual variants? Or do you mean anything that comments on the verse? There are various helps that enlighten a reader. If you are in the habit of giving out the KJV or even the NKJV to a new believer -- having no footnotes will throw them for a loop. It will be a hindrance to their understanding.

Some new believers come from a church background. Others come from no church background. In the latter I'd give them an NLT. For the first group I'd go with the NIV but footnotes should be included for both kind of candidates.

 

But I have demonstrated that your principle is all wet if you will just note the examples I gave in post 21. The NASU on a number of occasions puts the "literal" in the footnotes and the more understandable rendering in the text. I commend the NASU for that. It just goes agin' the Van principle. ;-)

The NET Bible (a fav of yours) puts both alternatives in the footnotes.

 

People are under the sentence of God's wrath. That means they deserve God's anger as the GWT and Weymouth word it. The NIV has "we were by nature deserving of wrath."

Are you under the impression that those under the wrath of God do not deserve the wrath of God?

"The principle" is yours. The Van principle says that the literal must be in the text and the meaning should be in the footnotes --not the other way around. How soon you forget your own themes. ;-)

 

No, you are wrong. The Van principle does not allow the meaning of idioms to be placed in the text --only the "literal."

It is a critical issue. If you think people do not deserve wrath then you do not believe the Bible.

His "inspired words" are found in the Greek --not in a translation.

 

Van, do you wish to renounce your oft-repeated mantra?

From your OP :"I think the best way to handle idioms is to translate them literally, and footnote the possible idiomatic meaning."

You repeated the same idea in post 13 : "...translation should translate idioms and metaphors and figures of speech etc, literally and footnote the possible meaning or meanings."

 

There you go. Now that's the Van I know! Of course your favorite version doesn't follow the Van-principle --but you have been known to be inconsistent.

 

Did I say that you did? Nope. Then why make it up?

Buddy, all three of them do not follow the Van-principle. Many times they put the meaning in the text and put the 'literal' in the footnotes. And that is a good thing. It would be stupid to do otherwise.