Another Thread On Translation

[Van]

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

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

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.

 

[Rippon]

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.

It's not a matter of someone disagreeing with me. It's folks such as yourself who say such outlandishly false and malicious things on a regular basis. You have the inclination of making caustic comments about things which a person with a conscience would not dream of doing.

 

[Rippon]

Let's see. MM insists that the very fine book called How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth is worthless.

If I flipped the quotes around and had them saying the opposite, here's how they sound. remember, I don't believe the following at all. No one with an ounce of sense would concur with the following:

Inverting post 33 :

The Christian doctrine of divine inspiration concerns words in isolation --not the meaning in context.

Translators are easily able to translate literally --meaning is not derived from the context.

Most words have a literal meaning.

The goal of translating is to duplicate the form of the original --not to reproduce its meaning.




Inverting post 34 :

Dynamic translations have no features in common with literalistic translations either theoretically or practically.



The inversion of my personal post 27 :

Dynamic translations have no features in common with literalistic translations --neither theoretically or practically.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
So if I were to take you literally --referencing the original quotes trash --then it follows that the very reverse of the statements would ring true for you. And of course that would prove your foolishness.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's not a matter of someone disagreeing with me. It's folks such as yourself who say such outlandishly false and malicious things on a regular basis. You have the inclination of making caustic comments about things which a person with a conscience would not dream of doing.

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?

 

[Rippon]

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?

There you go again. You have been corrected on this numerous times and yet you remain obstinate. You refuse to change your ways.

Listen to the words of Mark Strauss which I have quoted for you expressly perhaps a half a dozen times:

"Some critics have claimed that the only way to protect the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is to translate literally. This, of course, is linguistic nonsense. The translation that best preserves the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is one that clearly and accurately communicates the meaning of the text as the original author intended it to be heard. The Greek idioms that Paul or John or Luke used did not sound awkward, obscure or stilted to their original hearers. They sounded like normal idiomatic Greek. Verbal and plenary inspiration is most respected when we allow the original meaning of the text to come through."

 

[robycop3]

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

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

 

[Jerome]

Not a single soul here is advocating "loose translations." Stop with your continual falsehoods Van.

From another thread:

Used the NIV Study Bible for homeschool in the 90's and it was a refreshing loose translation that engendered good discussions with my kids.

 

[McCree79]

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

 

[Jerome]

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

The NIV is the most "readable" but is so dyanmic in translation that I don't care for its "loose" handling of the Greek....the NKJV...is my choice for preaching today.

I have great disdain and no use for "loose" translations or paraphrases or amplified "bibles".

 

[Rippon]

As was pointed out --DB is not a participant on this thread.

I think he would agree that the NIV translators are very good and godly scholars (specifically in the NT since he was referencing the Greek). They (for it takes a majority to make a change) wound not lightly translate in a 'loose way' manner.

DB uses the terminology of 'so dynamic' --even the NLT is not 'so dynamic.' And certainly the NIV is to the left of the NIV in those translation charts.

It's funny, once when he was demeaning the NIV I asked him to quote a source for his ideas --to document. So he decided to quote ESV connected voices and said it was straight from the horse's mouth. Huh?!

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Rippon]

Something's loose in your head to call those translations loose. You have a rather loose understanding of the word loose as it is applied to translations Van.

I don't have the needed time now to address all the incredible goofs of your posts. But one thing is particularly --what's the word I'm looking for...oh yes...DUMB.

You said "sometimes the alterations are for the purpose of over translation." That's really so juvenile of you Van.

Just what alterations do you mean? What is the perfect phraseology that meets the Van Standard?

You post such nonsense. What translators translate for the purpose of over translating? Something is screwing with your mind.

What you said is completely different than someone objecting to a certain rendering in a given translation --thinking it's an example of over translating. But translators do not enter into their efforts with the intention of "Now let's be sure to over translate these passages." ;-)

 

[Jerome]

the NIV translators...wound not lightly translate in a 'loose way' manner.

certainly the NIV is to the left of the NIV in those translation charts.

Huh?!

all the incredible goofs of your posts....what's the word I'm looking for...oh yes...DUMB....You post such nonsense...Something is screwing with your mind.

 

[Yeshua1]

There you go again. You have been corrected on this numerous times and yet you remain obstinate. You refuse to change your ways.

Listen to the words of Mark Strauss which I have quoted for you expressly perhaps a half a dozen times:

"Some critics have claimed that the only way to protect the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is to translate literally. This, of course, is linguistic nonsense. The translation that best preserves the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is one that clearly and accurately communicates the meaning of the text as the original author intended it to be heard. The Greek idioms that Paul or John or Luke used did not sound awkward, obscure or stilted to their original hearers. They sounded like normal idiomatic Greek. Verbal and plenary inspiration is most respected when we allow the original meaning of the text to come through."

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Something's loose in your head to call those translations loose. You have a rather loose understanding of the word loose as it is applied to translations Van.

I don't have the needed time now to address all the incredible goofs of your posts. But one thing is particularly --what's the word I'm looking for...oh yes...DUMB.

You said "sometimes the alterations are for the purpose of over translation." That's really so juvenile of you Van.

Just what alterations do you mean? What is the perfect phraseology that meets the Van Standard?

You post such nonsense. What translators translate for the purpose of over translating? Something is screwing with your mind.

What you said is completely different than someone objecting to a certain rendering in a given translation --thinking it's an example of over translating. But translators do not enter into their efforts with the intention of "Now let's be sure to over translate these passages." ;-)

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!

 

[McCree79]

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

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