Baptists’ Bible Use

[TCassidy]

Example of the mythological "word for word" translation.

Thus for love the God the system as beside the son of him the only generated He gives that every the one believing into him no should be being destroyed but may be having life forever.

 

[Yeshua1]

Example of the mythological "word for word" translation.

Thus for love the God the system as beside the son of him the only generated He gives that every the one believing into him no should be being destroyed but may be having life forever.

So you would prefer a DE version over a formal one than?

 

[McCree79]

So you would prefer a DE version over a formal one than?

Obviously his post is not suggesting that. He does not like the term "word for word". The term is misleading. He is just proving that no translation is word for word, nor can it ever be. If you did the meaning would be lost. You have to interpret to translate. It is to what degree, that is what separates the NASB from the NLT.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Obviously his post is not suggesting that. He does not like the term "word for word". The term is misleading. He is just proving that no translation is word for word, nor can it ever be. If you did the meaning would be lost. You have to interpret to translate. It is to what degree, that is what separates the NASB from the NLT.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

So we should be using the term formal translations instead?

 

[Rob_BW]

Each word ion the originals were inspired by God Himself, correct?

If I take these God inspired words and rearrange them, would the product be inspired, too?

Of course not.

 

[Yeshua1]

If I take these God inspired words and rearrange them, would the product be inspired, too?

Of course not.

The originals had the right words in the right order, correct?

 

[Rob_BW]

The originals had the right words in the right order, correct?

Certainly.

 

[TCassidy]

If I take these God inspired words and rearrange them, would the product be inspired, too?

The problem with that is that in Greek, a reflexive language, word order, with a very few exceptions, does not affect meaning as it does in an inflected language such as English.

 

[Rob_BW]

The problem with that is that in Greek, a reflexive language, word order, with a very few exceptions, does not affect meaning as it does in an inflected language such as English.

I knew that was coming.

I tried to avoid that by stating my point in post #112. A New Testament Greek Lexicon has all of the words, but nobody would claim that it is inspired. I can take a chunk out of 1 Clement that has only words shared with the NT, but that doesn't influence to call 1 Clement inspired.

And for a sidebar, does anyone have a count of neologisms in the New Testament?

 

[Yeshua1]

The more formal translation would get more of the original intent, as there would be less interpreting being involved!

 

[rlvaughn]

And for a sidebar, does anyone have a count of neologisms in the New Testament?

Interesting question. Maybe that would be a good separate thread!? The Bible itself seems to define χριστιανούς (Christians, in Acts 11:26) as such: "...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

 

[Rippon]

The more formal translation would get more of the original intent

Not necessarily, as you well know.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not necessarily, as you well know.

I know that there is less interpretation present in a formal translation then in one more Dynamic.
I also know that many would agree with me that those versions as the Nas/Nkjv would be more accurate to the originals, but would also in some passages be harder to read and understand.

 

[Rippon]

I know that there is less interpretation present in a formal translation then [sic]in one more Dynamic.

All translations are interpretive.

I also know that many would agree with me that those versions as the Nas/Nkjv would be more accurate to the originals,

Nope. A number of N.T. Bible scholars would disagree. What matters is if a given passage expresses the meaning as accurately as possible. In certain verses the NASB may be viewed as more faithful to the original and in other cases the NIV or even the NLT may be superior in that regard.

 

[Yeshua1]

All translations are interpretive.

Nope. A number of N.T. Bible scholars would disagree. What matters is if a given passage expresses the meaning as accurately as possible. In certain verses the NASB may be viewed as more faithful to the original and in other cases the NIV or even the NLT may be superior in that regard.

all translation do interpret, but the formal ones do much less of that, and overall, would be superior to giving to us the original intended meaning!

 

[Rippon]

The formal translation is by necessity attempting to be literal and exact to each word that was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so though no version is fully formal, those that are essentially such as Nas/Nkjv would be closer to the original than say your Niv!

You never learn. This mysterious "exact to each word" is a silly concept. If a translation was that exacting it wouldn't be a translation at all. It would remain in the original languages.

No translator would foolishly claim that their translation was exact to the very words. No translation can be verbatim.

You are entirely confused.

You have often said that your favorite translations are the 1977 edition of the NASB and the NKJV. Have you noted they are different? That's why they are called versions. There is no exactness to the method. There can be carefulness and seeking to be as faithful as possible to the original --but fallible human translators cannot be replicating exact words. That's absurd.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5:15 AM Pacific.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5:15 AM Pacific.