Featured How To scripturally Determine the Mind of God on the Modern Practice of Paraphrasing His Words

You do not answer questions that have been asked. You do not control or dictate which questions are to be asked and answered.

Instead of engaging in any serious discussion, you make condescending, negative comments.

 

Starting a thread does not put you in control of the discussion. It does not entitle you to try to dictate to or to control other posters. You tend to jump to wrong conclusions as you incorrectly make assumptions and negative accusations against other posters.

You seem to frame your one-sided topics to generate friction and negative attributes towards the word of God translated into present-day English.

 

It was God's will.
Matthew 2:13

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

In other words, "I will never answer any of your direct questions," but you must answer mine.

 

Like so many of our "hidden agenda" threads, do we really think God wants us to present a corrupted gospel? Of course not.

Are we to think God does not want us to translate Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts into languages understandable to all nations? Off course not.

Are we to define one translation as "God's word" and all other efforts as "paraphrases" meaning corrupt versions? Of course not.

Does God want us to loosely translate His word, missing His intended message? Nope

Does God want us to do our best to present His word as accurately and as understandably as we can? Of course.

Does God want us to study God's word on our own, in addition to seeking wise counsel? Of course.

Does that mean we need to use a version we can understand, rather than one that has to be explained to us because it is in another language or an outdated vocabulary of our language? You bet.

 

Without a definition of "paraphrase," the OP is ambiguous, and cannot be cogently answered. What is your definition of paraphrase?

I offer a couple of definitions:

“paraphrase n. v. an expression of the meaning of the word or phrase using other words or phrases, often in an attempt to make the meaning easier to understand. For example, to make someone (or something) appear or feel younger is a paraphrase of the English word rejuvenate. Dictionary definitions often take the form of paraphrases of the word they are trying to define.”[1]
(Jack Richards, Richard Schmidt, Heidi Kendricks, Youngkyu Kim, Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3rd ed., 2003, 384-385.)

“Paraphrase: The statement of the contents of a passage, text, etc., in the same or another language, without following the original text verbatim.”
Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics, 1967, 159.

 

Let the King James Translators spell it out for you. From the preface to the KJV.
The Translators to the Reader
The Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek
While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient. But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in Kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too. Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the Translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the Edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathered) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries. Yea, Epiphanius above named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the Authors thereof not only for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect; and Justinian the Emperor enjoining the Jews his subjects to use especially the Translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament

The Translators to the Reader

 

I think it is also helpful to distinguish between a paraphrastic rendering (a phrase that is paraphrased within a more literal Bible version), and a paraphrased Bible (a version which uses paraphrase from start to finish).

All Bible translations (except maybe Young's Literal Version ) paraphrase some or most idioms (not necessarily other figures of speech) at a minimum. However, versions like The Message or The Living Bible have a philosophy of paraphrasing, and thus usually twist the Word of God into their own creation.

Here is a statement from my lecture on paraphrasing that might be helpful: Paraphrasing looks at the text primarily as a unit of sentences, not individual words and grammatical structures. The translator then rewords the source text in his own words and syntax without much regard to the grammar and syntax of the original document. This makes paraphrasing more subjective (often much more) than literal methods, since it makes the translator the authority rather than the text.

 

The First Tome or Volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus upon the New Testament (1548). A Facsimile Reproduction with an Introduction by John N. Wall, Jr. Delmar, NY: Scholars' Facsimiles and Reprints, 1975.

 

The LXX is not a paraphrase. "The various books in the Septuagint vary as to literal and free translation. Examples of free (or even sometimes paraphrastic) translations are Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, Daniel, and Esther; literal translations are the books of Judges (the B text), Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles" (Metzger, The Bible in Translation, 2001, p. 17).

 

I am interested in which translation you use. Please tell us.

 

If it is not an effort to present KJVonlyism, I will have another donut!

Code words: paraphrase = not the inspired KJV translation
Modern Practice = Non-KJV translation efforts

 

A bogus version of the definition of paraphrase:

Such works "weave with ease and without self-consciousness, in and out of material from the volume we know between hard covers as the Bible ...(bringing it) into play with disparate sources, religious practices, and (prayers)."​

 

In some bookstores, there may be only one [not several] paraphrase available--the Message.