• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What are your thoughts regarding the Lockman Foundation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
What are your thoughts regarding the Lockman Foundation?

Should they reveal the names of their translators?

Should they be more aggressive, when it comes to marketing the NASB ?

In other words, should they follow the example of Crossway, and attempt to make their Bible translation ubiquitous?
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
One of the verses cited to demonstrate a less literal translation was Isaiah 1:4, with the NASB "they have turned away from Him, whereas the ASV1901 has "they are estranged and gone backward." Both versions miss some of the message, they are estranged and they have turned their backs on Him. The NASB is missing estranged, and the ASV1901 does not explain what was meant by "gone backward."

And of course the NASB falls short of rendering the same word or phrases meanings consistently (concordantly.)
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
Van said:
One of the verses cited to demonstrate a less literal translation was Isaiah 1:4, with the NASB "they have turned away from Him, whereas the ASV1901 has "they are estranged and gone backward." Both versions miss some of the message, they are estranged and they have turned their backs on Him. The NASB is missing estranged, and the ASV1901 does not explain what was meant by "gone backward."

And of course the NASB falls short of rendering the same word or phrases meanings consistently (concordantly.)
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm wondering now, of course, what the shortcomings of the ESV are (i.e. similar or different).
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
alexander284 said:
Indeed. I'm merely seeking informed opinions.
Click to expand...
It's shortcomings are the same as any other literal translation, you can't get exactly Greek/Hebrew into English so translation choices are made. This is true for any translation (including KJV). If there are alternate readings though the ESV is usually faithful to list them in footnotes.

The reason I said subjective is because the KJVO crowd will undoubtedly chime in saying it uses corrupt manuscripts etc etc etc....
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
alexander284 said:
Agreed. I'm wondering now, of course, what the shortcomings of the ESV are (i.e. similar or different).
Click to expand...
The short comings of any English version are that they misrepresent the message of God. Some translation choices are better than others, and some are much worse in that they alter the message of the text. Here are some whoppers from the ESV. Revelation 13:8 says names were not written ( and by inference other names were written) in the Lamb's book of life from (or since or after) the foundation of the world. If you make it say the opposite (names not written before the foundation) to match doctrinal presumption, that is a true "short coming."

At James 2:5, and with many other versions, between "poor to the world" and "rich in faith" they insert "to be." But they do not put the addition in "italics" to allow the reader to see the insertion is not in the inspired text. The insertion here alters the message, they were chosen when they were rich in faith, and the altered message is they were not rich in faith, but were to be made rich in faith in the future. So once again we have the message reversed along the lines of Calvinist doctrine.

I could go on but my meaning of short comings hopefully is clear.
 
Last edited:
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
While it is common for versions to claim formal equivalence to some degree, if the translation does not use italics to identify words added for clarification, such as the NET, they are functional equivalence versions. So, we have the KJV, NKJV, and WEB based on the TR and MT, and the NASB, and LEB based on the CT, and of course Interlinears as the most closely aligned with formal equivalence.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
There are a number of issues. I am not going to make a list.

Romans 10:10, ". . . for with the heart a person believes, *resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, *resulting in salvation. . . ."

*footnote: Literally: to righteousness
*footnote: Literally: to salvation
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Van said:
While it is common for versions to claim formal equivalence to some degree, if the translation does not use italics to identify words added for clarification, such as the NET, they are functional equivalence versions. So, we have the KJV, NKJV, and WEB based on the TR and MT, and the NASB, and LEB based on the CT, and of course Interlinears as the most closely aligned with formal equivalence.
Click to expand...
Of course that isn't true Van. That's not the definition of formal equivalence.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
Of course that isn't true Van. That's not the definition of formal equivalence.
Click to expand...
Taint so adds nothing but personal incredulity to the mix. Show me a version that has so many modifications to the text they cannot use italics and I will show you functional equivalence.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Van said:
Taint so adds nothing but personal incredulity to the mix. Show me a version that has so many modifications to the text they cannot use italics and I will show you functional equivalence.
Click to expand...
First of all, there is no such thing as a word for word translation that makes any sense. Second, the use of italics is a choice by some of the formal equivalent translations but that is not the definition of a formal equivalent. Third, Formal equivalent means you are trying to get as close to a word for word as possible. Functional or Dynamic is thought for thought. Italics are not the barometer for functional vs. formal and it is ridiculous to even assert that.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
First of all, there is no such thing as a word for word translation that makes any sense. Second, the use of italics is a choice by some of the formal equivalent translations but that is not the definition of a formal equivalent. Third, Formal equivalent means you are trying to get as close to a word for word as possible. Functional or Dynamic is thought for thought. Italics are not the barometer for functional vs. formal and it is ridiculous to even assert that.
Click to expand...

Apparently you have never looked at a bible comparison chart, I think the KJV, NKJV, WEB, NASB and LEB make sense.

Who said the use of italics was the "definition" of formal equivalence? Please provide the quote. :)

I think formal equivalence has been misconstrued by those wanting to paraphrase the text, to disparage the best translation philosophy.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
You did.
Emphasis added.
Click to expand...
So if brown eggs are chicken eggs, the definition of chicken eggs is brown eggs. Twaddle.

But I think it is a fair assessment to say a sine qua non of formal equivalence versions is the use of italics (or other means of earmarking) to identify additions by the translators.
 
Last edited:
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Van said:
So if brown eggs are chicken eggs, the definition of chicken eggs is brown eggs. Twaddle.

But I think it is a fair assessment to say a sine qua non of formal equivalence versions is the use of italics (or other means of earmarking) to identify additions by the translators.
Click to expand...
Van you flat out said that if a translation does not use italics it is functional not formal equivalent. You can't weasel out of this one.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
Van you flat out said that if a translation does not use italics it is functional not formal equivalent. You can't weasel out of this one.
Click to expand...
It is not what I said but how you misconstrued it.

While it is common for versions to claim formal equivalence to some degree, if the translation does not use italics to identify words added for clarification, such as the NET, they are functional equivalence versions.

Which versions that do not use italics are formal equivalence versions?
No answer will be forthcoming.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top