Featured Your least favorite version?

Lets review:

Least favorite = liberal translations

RSV post #2 & 19
Good News and/or Living Bible posts # 3, 5, 8 and 20.
ISV post #4
NWT posts #6 & 8
Clear Word post #8
NIV, Message, Cotton Patch post # 8
Message and Living Bible post # 17

One word for word translation type, KJV was listed in post #13.

And to balance that out all the DE versions were listed as least favorite in post # 12.

 

Yes, let's.

 

Liberal in, liberal out.

 

Behold the DE's were listed as a group and considered least favorite in post #12.

Pay no attention to how Mr. Rippon characterizes the views of others,

 

There was no listing of any version in post 12. Are you blind?

List : 1) item-by-item record of names or things, usu. written one below another (Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus)

 

That is mainly due to it being more literally!

 

What is that based upon?

 

Hopefully I am not misreading this. Your "literally" was probably supposed to be literal.

The idea that being literal requires a translation to be wooden is a myth. Pay no attention to the sales pitch of DE paraphrases. If you must remove the inspired words, then the result is not less wooden, it is functional non-equivalence.

 

Just stating that the 1977 edition was translated in a more literal fashion than the 1995 revision, as they smoothed over some renderings to make it spound like better English!

 

I cannot even see his posts it matters to me not.

 

The Mess. LOL. Good one IT!

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

Has anyone ever read through this one?

 

For Van's benefit I will quote from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss:

"In functional equivalent versions, words are translated according to their meaning in context rather than according to lexical concordance." (p.27)

"An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form. This realization makes the popular definition of 'paraphrase' subjective and unhelpful. It would be better to use the term in a neutral sense, meaning 'to say the same thing in different words, usually for the sake of clarification or simplification.' By this definition all translations paraphrase to one degree or another, since all change Hebrew and Greek words into English ones to make the text understandable. The important question then becomes not whether the text paraphrases, but whether it gets the meaning right." (p.32)

 

LOL, Mr. Rippon, your quote is nonsense. It is a license to redefine words according to the presuppositions of the translator. The actual process is to determine which of the lexiconal meanings best presents the contextual message. Totally different translation philosophy.

I am reminded of a recent thread on denying sin, with the statement, everybody does it.

 

Quotes, they were quotes. And if you regard them as nonsensical, then you must think the opposite is true. For instance, you must think that in functionally equivalent version words are translated according to their lexical concordance. And that would be completely nonsensical. You are the one with irrationality lying at the basis of your beliefs.

Speaking of redefining -- you have completely redefined what Fee and Strauss plainly said. You do that a lot.

Do you ever wonder why so many on the BB repudiate your theology Van?