Another Thread On Translation

Yes they ask questions to change the subject, or misrepresent an opponents position to change the subject which is basically all they have. There is absolutely no need for loose translation, but there is a need for improved clarity of translation. Ambiguity is the enemy of truth.

 

Another thing that really, really doesn't matter to me is whether you think I'm a liar or not (1 Corinthians 4:3). In fact, a friend lent me the book about 20 years ago and I read it and didn't agree with it.

I am not without (that's a litotes, JoJ ) formal education both in Greek and in textual criticism, and I make up my own minds on these matters.

Rippon, you are a very dear chap, but you seem not to be able to bear it when people disagree with you, which is something that will inevitably happen on a discussion forum. You are breaking the rules of the forum when you keep accusing people of lying. You did it to Y1 in post #21. Please stop it. It is possible to discuss without out being loutish.

 

The truth is that while the Niv is a decent enough translation, the more formal ones are to be preferred over it, such as hte two that you mentioned.
The 1984 edition is also preferred over the 2011 one, as that verion went way too much into inclusive rendering of the scriptures.

 

How can those of us who hold to the Holy Spirit giving to us revelation in a verbal plenary fashion though see a DE being as accurate to the originals as a formal translation?

 

if a "word for word" English Bible translation were to actually be made, it'd make no sense in English.

 

Yet another stawman argument, where the opponent of formal equivalence seeks to redefine word for word translation philosophy as not including rearranging word order to express the idea in English.

And once more, no verse was cited that could not be accurately translated using the word for word translation philosophy method as seen in the NASB, LEB, and NKJV.

They are swinging an empty sack.

 

One of the things a 'formal equivalence' translation will usually do is to translate the little prepositions which abound in Hebrew and Greek.

Isaiah 12:1-5, NIV. 'In that day you will say, "I will praise you, O LORD. Although you were angry with me, your anger has turned away and you have comforted me. Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid. The LORD, the LORD, is my strength and my song; he has also become my salvation.
With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'

Isaiah 12:1-3, NKJV. 'And in that day you will say: O LORD, I will praise You; Though You were angry with me, Your anger is turned away and you comfort me. Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For YAH, the LORD, is my strength and song; He also has become my salvation.
Therefore with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'

The three underlined words are actually in the Hebrew text. First of all I want to say that even if one feels they serve no useful purpose, the Holy Spirit has placed them there and it is not for some human translator to decide to leave them out.

But in fact they do have a purpose. The 'and' in verse 1 connects it to the previous chapter and tells us when 'that day' is (c.f. 11:10). The 'for' in verse 2, gives the reason why we can trust and not fear, and the 'therefore' in verse 3 tells us that it is only the person for whom verses 1 & 2 are true who can draw this experiential water from the wells of salvation.


Romans 1:15-18, NIV. 'That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes; first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel, a righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven.......'

Romans 1:15-18, NKJV. 'So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven......'

Each of the underlined words translates the Greek word gar, meaning 'for.' It doesn't trouble me at all that the NIV has translated it once as 'because,' but it does trouble me that they have left the word untranslated twice. Gar joins verse 16 to verse 16 and verse 18 to verse 17. The reason Paul is ready to preach the gospel to the Romans is that he is 'not ashamed of the gospel,' meaning that he glories in it (litotes). And the importance of that gospel is that only it can save us from the wrath of God which is revealed from heaven. The NIV translators had no business leaving it out.

 

From another thread:

 

Dr. Bob was not involved in the discussions that prompted Van's response. Plus, without proper context we are unable to see if Dr. Bob and Van are using the term in the same way.

*I believe Van uses the term to describe translations that he feels "over interpret".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Thank you, McCree. I see elsewhere Dr. Bob explained:

 

Just a quick note, loose translations omit words, add words and change the meaning of words, thus the translation only loosely resembles the original text. Sometimes the alterations are for the purpose of over interpretation.

Here are three loose translations, the NIV, the NET and the CSB. Another characteristic of loose translations are versions that alter the source language grammar such as changing a noun into a verb in order to alter the meaning.

And no verse has been cited that needed to be translated loosely. 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.

 

The formal translation method brings over to us a bterr rendering of the intended meaning than a Dynamic one would!

 

As Brother Martin has pointed out here, the formal versions such as the Nkjv and Nasb are better at bringing over what was given and intended for us, as they do not involve as much human interpreting as the freer versions undertake with the text!

 

Not always. William Mounce gives one example of where the formal method causes confusion. But the dynamic method allows for clear conveying of Paul's original intent. Col 4:16

"Paul writes, “After this letter has been read to you (καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ παρ᾿ ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή), see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans (ποιήσατε ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῇ) and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea (καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε)” (Col 4:16; NIV).

This verse gives us a nice example of ellipsis; ἐπιστολή is not repeated but assumed in the final clause. τὴν modifies the unexpressed ἐπιστολήν.

It gives us another example as well of how we often write in short-hand and expect the reader to understand the missing parts. If you just read the final phrase, who wrote the second letter? The NIV’s “the letter from Laodicea” sounds like the church in Laodicea wrote a letter to the Colossian church. However, most people (if not all) understand that this second letter was written by Paul to the Laodicean church, and he wanted to make sure that his letter was also sent to Colossae.

If Paul had taken the time to write all the words to be precise and not confusing, he may have written τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἐπιστολήν μου or perhaps τὴν ἐπιστολήν μου τῷ Λαοδικείᾳ.

The NLT is the only major translation that clarifies the issue: “After you have read this letter, pass it on to the church at Laodicea so they can read it, too. And you should read the letter I wrote to them.”

Even the formal equivalent NASB clarifies with a footnote and italicized words: “read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.” The footnote on “my” reads, “Lit he.” As you know by now, I do not like the use of “lit(erally).” It is simple to see ὁ functioning as a personal pronoun, which does not require a footnote.

I would prefer something like, “in turn, also read my (τὴν) letter coming from (ἐκ) Laodicea (Λαοδικείας),” or more dynamically, “in turn, also read the letter I wrote to the Laodiceans.”

It also illustrates the danger of simply translating words, something the NIV and NET normally do not do. “See that you also read the letter from Laodicea” (ESV, see also CSB, NRSV, NET). Going word-for-word miscommunicates since the Laodicean church did not (most likely) write the letter.

As I have often said, language is the stringing of one ambiguity after another. It is only in context, with a little common sense, that meaning is communicated."

My guess this a rare example, but is does show the dynamic method at times always for clearer renderings while the formal can leave many guessing.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk