Another Thread On Translation

[Van]

One falsehood after another is being posted. Will they explain why the word which literally means male, man,men, husband etc, has been neutered? Nope. Why do the majority of the versions say men but a few mutilators cut off the man.

They just make up stuff and post it, folks.

 

[Rippon]

Some choice quotes from D.A. Carson's book The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism follows:

"...there is no rigid pattern, no indisputable step that signals the crossing of the line from 'literal' translation to paraphrase. And even 'literal' I have enclosed in quotation marks because the most literal of translations has to decide what word best suits the original, make decisions about idioms, search out the appropriate syntax in the receptor language. "(p.77,78)

"I am opposing the simplistic cast of mind that makes rigid distinctions between a 'literal' translation and a 'loose' translation, or between a translation and a paraphrase. In thousands of instances, the person who translates the New Testament from Greek into some other language must make decisions that some with equal knowledge may contest, or which involve his understanding of what the text means." (p.88)

"But just as it is possible to be too loose, it is possible to be too literal." (p.89)

"...it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the 'dynamic equivalent.' " (p.90)

 

[Jerome]

There is no such animal is literal.

Well said!

 

[Rippon]

Well said!

How did I do that? The 'i' and the 'a' are far apart on the keyboard.

 

[Rippon]

The following snips are taken from How To Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss.

"An idiom may be defined as 'an expression whose meaning cannot be understood from the combined meanings of its individual words.‘...you cannot translate idioms literally if you hope to retain their meaning." (p.61)

Some examples are given of biblical idioms on pages 62 and 63.

In John 10:24 "the people ask Jesus (literally), 'Until when you take up our souls?' The Greek idiom 'take up souls' means to 'keep in suspense'

John 9:21 deals with the parents of the man born blind. They tell the religious leaders that their son 'has lifespan.' The NIV says he is 'of age' --other translations have he is 'old enough' to speak for himself.

Mark 1:32 'literally' says that Jesus healed all 'those having badly.' But it means 'those who were sick.'

Should 1 Samuel 10:9 have the ESV rendering of 'God gave him another heart'? Or should it be more easily translated as 'God changed his heart'?

Esther 1:14 'who saw the king's face' is better translated as 'had special access to the king.'

Joshua 10:6 reads ’Do not relax your hand from your servants' in the ESV. But it means 'do not abandon your servants' as a number of translations have it.

Mark 1:2 has 'I send my messenger before Your face.' as the NKJV reads. But most versions have 'ahead of you.'
______________________________________________________________________________________________
So I think it's been proven that many Bible idioms are difficult if not impossible to render 'literally'.

I have heard it said numerous times to the effect that the Word should be translated by what it says --not by what some translator thinks. Nonsense. First of all, the majority of translations are not solo efforts.

It's a balancing act to be faithful to the original and at the same time to be faithful to the target language.

Using clumsy literalism is not a sign of being more biblical.

 

[McCree79]

To neuter "act like courageous men" with be courageous is adulteration, plain and simple.
Take a look at 1 Kings 2:2 and see if "men" has not been deleted in some versions for the sake of being PC. Now this word is translated as male, men, husband and so forth again and again, so the "has lost its meaning" canard will not fly.

ἀνδρίζομαι has been shown to mean "conduct oneself in a courageous way". That is what the word meant when used in the LXX and NT.

Why go to 1 Kings 2:2 for support? The Greek there is ἄνδρα (LXX). What transaltions mess that up? The LEB? The CSB and NIV render it "man".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Did a mod delete some posts from this thread? I had replied to a posters a day or two ago. I can no longer find my post or the one I replied to.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

Some choice quotes from D.A. Carson's book The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism follows:

"...there is no rigid pattern, no indisputable step that signals the crossing of the line from 'literal' translation to paraphrase. And even 'literal' I have enclosed in quotation marks because the most literal of translations has to decide what word best suits the original, make decisions about idioms, search out the appropriate syntax in the receptor language. "(p.77,78)

"I am opposing the simplistic cast of mind that makes rigid distinctions between a 'literal' translation and a 'loose' translation, or between a translation and a paraphrase. In thousands of instances, the person who translates the New Testament from Greek into some other language must make decisions that some with equal knowledge may contest, or which involve his understanding of what the text means." (p.88)

"But just as it is possible to be too loose, it is possible to be too literal." (p.89)

"...it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the 'dynamic equivalent.' " (p.90)

Some things written forty years ago, such as the above, have to be repeated today. Is anyone listening?

 

[Yeshua1]

Some choice quotes from D.A. Carson's book The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism follows:

"...there is no rigid pattern, no indisputable step that signals the crossing of the line from 'literal' translation to paraphrase. And even 'literal' I have enclosed in quotation marks because the most literal of translations has to decide what word best suits the original, make decisions about idioms, search out the appropriate syntax in the receptor language. "(p.77,78)

"I am opposing the simplistic cast of mind that makes rigid distinctions between a 'literal' translation and a 'loose' translation, or between a translation and a paraphrase. In thousands of instances, the person who translates the New Testament from Greek into some other language must make decisions that some with equal knowledge may contest, or which involve his understanding of what the text means." (p.88)

"But just as it is possible to be too loose, it is possible to be too literal." (p.89)

"...it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the 'dynamic equivalent.' " (p.90)

There are formal translations, who strive to be as literal as is possible!

 

[Yeshua1]

Some things written forty years ago, such as the above, have to be repeated today. Is anyone listening?

I don't know, did the translators on the Nkjv/Nas hear him?

 

[Rippon]

I don't know, did the translators on the Nkjv/Nas hear him?

One has to advance from merely hearing to actually listening.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Some things written forty years ago, such as the above, have to be repeated today. Is anyone listening?

Everybody who has the slightest knowledge of the original languages and/or the theory of translation knows this. I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if it were news.
However, we are talking about the translation of the word of the living God, and anybody who attempts that task should do it in fear and trembling. Translations into English should be as close to literal as is compatible with good English (the same would apply to other languages). That is what I understand by 'Formal Equivalence.'

 

[Rippon]

Everybody who has the slightest knowledge of the original languages and/or the theory of translation knows this.

Are you saying you agree with everything D.A. Carson said in post 122?

I would be favorably impressed if you do. But from your many posts on the topic in the past leads me to believe that it would be unlikely.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you saying you agree with everything D.A. Carson said in post 122?

I would be favorably impressed if you do. But from your many posts on the topic in the past leads me to believe that it would be unlikely.

I don't disagree with what he says. As I say, anyone who has any experience of translating from one language to another knows that a 'word for word' translation is not often possible. What I disagree with is the implication that you (and he?) appear to draw from it, that because an absolutely literal rendering is impossible therefore 'dynamic equivalence' translations are OK. I don't believe they are. Because you may have to translate one passage loosely in order to make good English is not a green light to translate every passage that way.

 

[Rippon]

Some choice quotes from D.A. Carson's book The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism follows:

"...it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the 'dynamic equivalent.' " (p.90)

MM, you are confused. Read the above with attention.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

MM, you are confused. Read the above with attention.

You are confused because you don't understand what he's saying.

 

[Rippon]

You are confused because you don't understand what he's saying.

I really am laughing. It's hilarious.

You Brits invented English, but you can't understand simple North American English. DAC is Canadian who has spent the majority of his life in the USA.

Across the grid of Bible versions all use dynamic equivalence in the process of translation. Some versions use it more and some use it less, but all use it. It is impossible not to use it. All translation is interpretation. Even TC believes that.

You think in black and white. But that's not a valid way of viewing things on this subject. There is a weaving in and out. Some parts of a verse in a more form-oriented version strive for that. But other parts of the verse reverts back to DE.

It doesn't mean that the NKJV or NASBU are dynamic equivalent translations but they have to employ dynamic equivalence time and time again. It's inevitable.

The following is taken from A Word To The Reader of the NIV:

"The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the Biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the Biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures."

[I highlighted the ending.]

A lot of translations do what was described above. Unfortunately their marketing arms don't want to acknowledge reality.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2:15 AM Pacific.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2:15 AM Pacific.