Another Thread On Translation

[Rippon]

Formal translations are preferred for serious studies in the scriptures, such as Nasb/Nkjv/Web, but the looser versions

You're getting as bad as Van. Stop with the falsehoods.

such as Net and Niv can also be used at times, but should be avoided as being the primary ones used.

Why in the world shouldn't the NET and NIV be used as primary translations for serious Bible study?

It would be equally wrong for anyone to say that the NASU, NKJV and WEB shouldn't be used for serious study.

Most of us don't use one version anyway. Besides there are other Bible study helps aside from translations.

 

[Rippon]

But I did not say "word for word" I said "word for word translation philosophy versions."

"So while formal equivalent translators try to proceed with a method of formal equivalence (word-for-word replacement), their decisions are in fact determined by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain the meaning."
[P.28 of How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth By Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss.]

 

[anerlogios]

Phrase by phrase and clause by clause is the way to go.

For the sake of clarity I think Van is calling those types of translations “loose”.

I do have several questions:
1. Do you feel like there aren’t any what people would call formal translations that are accurate?
2. What verses would you say we’re lacking in accuracy in any formal translations like the NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc.?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"So while formal equivalent translators try to proceed with a method of formal equivalence (word-for-word replacement), their decisions are in fact determined by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain the meaning."
[P.28 of How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth By Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss.]

This is the sort of rubbish I expect to read from Fee and Strauss.
The philosophy of Formal Equivalence is entirely different to that of 'Functional Equivalence.' With both methods, the results will depend on the particular text in question.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why in the world shouldn't the NET and NIV be used as primary translations for serious Bible study?

Because they are not accurate enough. When Simon Kistemaker took over the Baker New Testament Commentary series from William Hendrickson, he started off using the NIV, but soon found that it was not suitable for a semi-technical commentary series and ended up using his own translation.

My church uses the NIV (1984) and I go along with that so as not to cause dissent. Most of the time there isn't any problem. But when I'm preaching, every so often I have to explain that the NIV is not exactly what the Greek or Hebrew text says, and that is unfortunate because there's a danger that I undermine the congregation's faith in the Bible they have in front of them. We may switch to the ESV at some stage which will be an improvement, but the only translations I feel really comfortable with are the NKJV and the NASB.

 

[Rippon]

Because they are not accurate enough. When Simon Kistemaker

He passed away a little more than five months ago.

took over the Baker New Testament Commentary series from William Hendrickson, he started off using the NIV, but soon found that it was not suitable for a semi-technical commentary series and ended up using his own translation.

Yeah, the 84 edition hadn't reached the heights as the 2011 version. Nevertheless Robert Reymond used it in his A New Systematic Theology text.

My church uses the NIV (1984) and I go along with that so as not to cause dissent. Most of the time there isn't any problem. But when I'm preaching, every so often I have to explain that the NIV is not exactly what the Greek or Hebrew text says, and that is unfortunate because there's a danger that I undermine the congregation's faith in the Bible they have in front of them.

If was exactly what the Greek says it would be in Greek!

You have a vaunted view of things.

We may switch to the ESV at some stage which will be an improvement, but the only translations I feel really comfortable with are the NKJV and the NASB.

Well others feel comfortable with the NIV such as D.A. Carson who knows a tad bit more than you do.

 

[Rippon]

This is the sort of rubbish I expect to read from Fee and Strauss.

You speak out of ignorance. My quote of theirs was the truth. And you have the uninformed view to call it rubbish. Shame on you. If that's how you evaluate things your "facts" are skewed.

Every translation including your revered ones have to alter the form on more occasions than you would care to admit --or you aren't even aware of it. You are in a mode of blissful ignorance.

Go to any chapter in the NT, say John 1, and see if your NASB hasn't altered the form of the original.

Much of the time the form or structure of the original has to be altered to make sense in English.

The philosophy of Formal Equivalence is entirely different to that of 'Functional Equivalence.'

You are wrong again. Both have overlapping principles.

So-called formally equivalent translations use functional equivalence a lot.

Both "systems" end up doing the same thing more than you know.

Many translations from across the spectrum (not the old Living Bible or Message and things of that nature）share commonalities more than differences.

 

[Rippon]

I do have several questions:
1. Do you feel like there aren’t any what people would call formal translations that are accurate?

You didn't read my post #21 very carefully.

It all depends on particular passages. There are passages rendered accurately in so-called formal equivalent editions and there are passages rendered accurately in so-called functionally equivalent translations.

2. What verses would you say we’re lacking in accuracy in any formal translations like the NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc.?

Tell you what --go to the archives and take a look at scores of my threads on Bible translations and you will get a rather good dose of just what you are asking for.

 

[Rippon]

The marketing arms of the so-called formally equivalent versions claim one thing and deliver another.

They make the claim that their translations are word-oriented. But the practical outworking is that they operate on the phrase and clause level.

Of course the so-called functionally equivalent versions don't make the false claim that they focus on individual words in their translations --they actually do what they say. They will translate on a phrase-by-phrase and clause-by-clause basis.

That's what John Purvey, William Tyndale, Martin Luther (among others)set out to do.

 

[Van]

For the sake of clarity I think Van is calling those types of translations “loose”.

I do have several questions:
1. Do you feel like there aren’t any what people would call formal translations that are accurate?
2. What verses would you say we’re lacking in accuracy in any formal translations like the NASB, ESV, NKJV, etc.?

Those advocating for loose translations muddy the water with deflections such as which versions exhibit the word for word translation philosophy. Note how the question of providing a verse which cannot be translated accurately using that method is avoided. Yes, the best translations (NASB, LEB, NKJV) contain plenty of less than the best translation choices. So they have plenty of room for improvement. It is just that the loose translations have more room. One other point, the word for word philosophy attempts to replace each source language word or phrase meaning with a distinctive target language word or phrase meaning. Thus the Greek word often translates as "sanctify" would better be translated "make holy" or "set apart" depending of context.

 

[anerlogios]

Note how the question of providing a verse which cannot be translated accurately using that method is avoided.

Yeah I kind of noticed. I seemed to be brushed off.

 

[Rippon]

This is the sort of ____ I expect to read from Fee and Strauss.

The following are some of the recommendations for the book How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth:

"In his third How to... for All Its Worth book, Gordon Fee has teamed up with Mark Strauss to produce another winner--How to Choose a translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions. It is a great read, filled with good illustrations from the numerous English translations from the past and present, and written in an engaging way. readers will be more accurately informed on how translation decisions are made and which translations are best suited for which audiences are made and which translations are best suited and which translations are best suited for which audiences... Fee and Strauss have upheld both accuracy and meaning while fairly evaluating the large number of English translations that have been given as a gift to the body of Christ." Walter C. Kaiser Jr.

"Lay people often imagine that Bible translation is simply a matter of replacing one word in the original language with one word in the target language. Those involved in such work know that the matter is much more complex and that translation always involves interpretation. This work provides laypersons and specialists alike with a superb summary of the issues involved. Written in a style that is accessible to all, Fee and Strauss have cast theoretical and complex problems into everyday English. They have provided pastors and teachers who seek to guide their people through the translation maze with one of the finest resources available." Daniel I. Block

 

[Rippon]

How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth By Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss.][/QUOTE]
The following are some relevant insights from the above book:

"...the Christian doctrine of divine inspiration, which concerns not words in isolation, but the meaning of those words in context." (p.36)

"Translators cannot translate words 'literally', they must translate them according to their meaning in context." (p.48)

"The fact that most words do not have a literal meaning is important for translators to recognize." (p.49)

"...the goal of translation is not to duplicate the form of the original but to reproduce its meaning." (p.50)

 

[Rippon]

They make the claim that their translations are word-oriented. But the practical outworking is that they operate on the phrase and clause level.

Of course the so-called functionally equivalent versions don't make the false claim that they focus on individual words in their translations --they actually do what they say. They will translate on a phrase-by-phrase and clause-by-clause basis.

Stanley E. Porter's book How We Got The New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation.

"I equate formal equivalence translation with the ...phrase as the minimal translational unit --protests regarding individual words notwithstanding --because it seems to be at this level that much of the translational work is being done." (p.182)

"...the dynamic equivalence translation has several features in common with the literalistic translation, so much so that some of these dynamic translations retain many similar distinguishing characteristics of literalistic renderings. The Formalist and dynamic equivalence methods have much in common theoretically...and practically. The emphasis of formalist equivalence [is] on word...although the practical outworking ...is the clause, and the major units of analysis of dynamic equivalence...the clause." (p.187)

 

[Rippon]

I don't know the reason for the line crossing through the last 20 words.

 

[Rippon]

The following is taken from D.A. Carson's article called The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation.

"...it has become necessary to warn against the reactionary wing that demonizes functional equivalence with occasionally insightful rhetoric, but is more often linguistically uninformed, is rarely balanced, and is sometimes shrill." (pages. 77,78)

 

[Rippon]

Speaking of extra-loose, here's what Van said on 9/7/2014 :
I think I narrowed down the meaning of 'logos' to 'that which accomplishes God's purpose.'

Or his take on 1 Peter 2:8 :

and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENCE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Van thinks that that passage deals with works vs. faith! Just incredible.

Van said :"Again, they were designated or assigned because of their stumbling over salvation through faith and not works." 8/30/2014

Van said :"So in 1 Peter 2:8 those that stumbled over salvation by faith rather than salvation by works were designated or set apart and put away from salvation in Christ." 8/26/2014

Van barks a lot, but his personal interpretations make a mockery of God's Word.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The following are some of the recommendations for the book How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth

I really, really, really don't care.
I read the book quite a few years ago and disagree with it profoundly.
Gordon Fee has written several other books and I don't like them either. Like Wayne Grudem, he tries to be Reformed and charismatic at the same time, and it doesn't work.

 

[Rippon]

I really, really, really don't care.
I read the book quite a few years ago and disagree with it profoundly.
Gordon Fee has written several other books and I don't like them either. Like Wayne Grudem, he tries to be Reformed and charismatic at the same time, and it doesn't work.

This has nothing to do with Reformed or Charismatic issues.

I really doubt that you read the book. Especially after making such juvenile remarks as you have is quite evident that you have no regard for facts.

The main text is 138 pages. It's too reasonable for unstable minds.

"Yet another book on translation? Yes, and this is the one I shall now recommend to concerned Christians who want to understand what the perpetual flap over Bible translation is all about. Few will agree with every judgment in its pages, but for courtesy to all sides, accuracy in technical matters, clarity of writing, a deep commitment to faithful rendering of the original, and an abundant supply of that least common gift, 'common sense,' this is the book on translation that deserves widest circulation." D. A. Carson

 

[Van]

Speaking of extra-loose, here's what Van said on 9/7/2014 :
I think I narrowed down the meaning of 'logos' to 'that which accomplishes God's purpose.'
Or his take on 1 Peter 2:8 :
and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Van thinks that that passage deals with works vs. faith! Just incredible.
Van said :"Again, they were designated or assigned because of their stumbling over salvation through faith and not works." 8/30/2014
Van said :"So in 1 Peter 2:8 those that stumbled over salvation by faith rather than salvation by works were designated or set apart and put away from salvation in Christ." 8/26/2014
Van barks a lot, but his personal interpretations make a mockery of God's Word.

Once agaoin Mr. Rippon addresses the poster rather than the position with impunity

I do like the definition of "logos" as that which accomplishes God's purpose, whether His message or the Second Person of the Trinity.

And 1 Peter 2:8 addresses that depending on Christ's sacrifice instead of their works of the Law was a stumbling block to the Jews. And yes, those disobedient to the word of God are designated or assigned to stumble and be put to shame.

Mr Rippon once again attempts to change the subject and avoid citing any verse that cannot be accurately translated using formal equivalence.

The opponents of formal equivalence are swinging a sack of "against the man" arguments which is tantamount to an empty sack.