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

[Van]

Paraphrases on sale at the Bible counter at the Christian book store. Good or bad?

The first principle of getting an understanding of God's word is it must be a version that you can understand and will read. Not all of us are able to read in the original languages so we depend of faithful translators to present God's word to us in a way we can understand and apply to our lives.

One reason the NIV sells so well is that people pick it up and it reads like the other books they read, rather than like Shakespeare.

My view is we should find the version we can understand that comes closest to a word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning translation, rather than a thought for thought translation such as a paraphrase.

All translations contain errors where God's intended message has been garbled or misconstrued. And finding the one that comes closest in accuracy that we can understand means some of us choose rather loose translations such as the NIV.

I use the NASB for study, but find the NIV and NLT useful for reading as they, as JOJ has observed, present commentary melded with translation.

 

[JD731]

POINT#1 The first principle of getting an understanding of God's word is it must be a version that you can understand and will read. Not all of us are able to read in the original languages so we depend of faithful translators to present God's word to us in a way we can understand and apply to our lives.

POINT #2 One reason the NIV sells so well is that people pick it up and it reads like the other books they read, rather than like Shakespeare.

POINT #3 My view is we should find the version we can understand that comes closest to a word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning translation, rather than a thought for thought translation such as a paraphrase.

POINT #4 All translations contain errors where God's intended message has been garbled or misconstrued. And finding the one that comes closest in accuracy that we can understand means some of us choose rather loose translations such as the NIV.

POINT #5 I use the NASB for study, but find the NIV and NLT useful for reading as they, as JOJ has observed, present commentary melded with translation.

Commenting on my inserted designated points above:

POINT#1 Why not depend on the teacher, the Holy Spirit, who dwells in all believers? It is his job. 1 Cor 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. i Jn 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things...... 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
POINT #2 The NIV is, in my opinion, an attempt to westernize an oriental book by rewriting it.
POINT #3 A man centered effort? Why not seek the mind of God and allow him to lead?
POINT #4 If a man knows of errors, why not correct them, and wallah, a perfect translation.
POINT #5 I think the NIV claims it is a Bible, not a commentary. Not sure about the NLT.

 

[Van]

Commenting on my inserted designated points above:

POINT#1 Why not depend on the teacher, the Holy Spirit, who dwells in all believers? It is his job. 1 Cor 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. i Jn 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things...... 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
POINT #2 The NIV is, in my opinion, an attempt to westernize an oriental book by rewriting it.
POINT #3 A man centered effort? Why not seek the mind of God and allow him to lead?
POINT #4 If a man knows of errors, why not correct them, and wallah, a perfect translation.
POINT #5 I think the NIV claims it is a Bible, not a commentary. Not sure about the NLT.

1) Scripture says we should study the word of God as we prayerfully listen to our "helpers" leading.

2) Non sequitur, your response does not address the point made.

3) Non sequitur, your response does not address the point made.

4) If two translations differ in meaning, one or both should be assumed to be wrong. By study, I seek to discern the best or most accurate understanding of the text, but usually the Calvinists and KJVonlyists disagree.

5) I did not address what the NIV or NLT claims, but both are loose translations which some say are paraphrases. (NLT stands for New Living Translation.)

 

[JonC]

So, what's your resume which entitles you to tell us all what to believe about the English language?

Me? I know English real good.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

And finding the one that comes closest in accuracy that we can understand means some of us choose rather loose translations such as the NIV.

Speaking of 'loose' --you have several loose screws when it comes to this topic.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

POINT #2 The NIV is, in my opinion, an attempt to westernize an oriental book by rewriting it.
POINT #5 I think the NIV claims it is a Bible, not a commentary. Not sure about the NLT.

Your point #2 is invalid. All translations not stemming from the Middle East are not rewriting the Bible, but they are translating it, whether for Westerners, Africans, other Asians etc.
Your point #5 is silly. "Claims it is a Bible." Come on. The NIV is a translation of the Scriptures as much as the NLT and other mainstream Bible versions.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

“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.

No Bible translation follows the original text verbatim.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Either way, it is important that we translate God's Word into the vernacular, regardless of language. The target language itself should not be an obstacle.

We disagree about practically everything. However, I am in 100% agreement with your words above.

 

[Logos1560]

POINT #3 A man centered effort? Why not seek the mind of God and allow him to lead?

Perhaps you fail to practice what you preach.
Your human KJV-only reasoning/teaching is a man-centered effort that conflicts with the mind of God as presented in Scripture. Your human KJV-only opinions conflict with scriptural truths.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

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.

No legitimate translator translates merely individual words. They translate phrase and sentence fragments. It would be foolhardy to translate on a word-by-word mechanical method. I am sure you didn't translate individual word chunks, but words in connection with other words.

 

[37818]

No legitimate translator translates merely individual words. They translate phrase and sentence fragments. It would be foolhardy to translate on a word-by-word mechanical method. I am sure you didn't translate individual word chunks, but words in connection with other words.

Words are still being translated in some way. Even when a word for word translation is not possible.

 

[JD731]

Your point #2 is invalid. All translations not stemming from the Middle East are not rewriting the Bible, but they are translating it, whether for Westerners, Africans, other Asians etc.
Your point #5 is silly. "Claims it is a Bible." Come on. The NIV is a translation of the Scriptures as much as the NLT and other mainstream Bible versions.

I stated point #2 is my opinion.

If point #5 is silly it is because the NIV translating board is silly. They said it was a new way of presenting the scriptures. They called it, “dynamic equivalence.” Words means things. If it is a dynamic equivalence it is not a translation. Think.

 

[Van]

Speaking of 'loose' --you have several loose screws when it comes to this topic.

Yet another nothing burger, slathered with slander.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

If point #5 is silly it is because the NIV translating board is silly. They said it was a new way of presenting the scriptures. They called it, “dynamic equivalence.” Words means things. If it is a dynamic equivalence it is not a translation. Think.

"They said" were your untrue words. There is a four page preface to the NIV. The words "dynamic equivalence" does not appear at all. Neither does the preface state that the translation "was a new way of presenting the scriptures."
You are dishonest. Try to do better.

The NIV is a mediating translation occupying the same turf as the CSB, NET, NABRE and NJB.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"A comment should be made here about the word 'paraphrase,' since it is one of the most misunderstood and misused words with reference to Bible translation. The term is often used in a derogatory sense of a translation that is highly idiomatic and so (by implication) misses the meaning of the original. People will say, 'Isn't that just a paraphrase?' and mean 'that is not a real translation --it's too free.' The problem with this definition is that it starts with the incorrect assumption that an accurate translation is necessarily a literal one, and thus an idiomatic one is inaccurate." [Taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, pages 31,32]

 

[Van]

And finding the one [bible translation] that comes closest in accuracy that we can understand means some of us choose rather loose translations such as the NIV.

Some of the NIV's looseness could be removed by:

1) It should translate the same word or phrase meaning consistently.
2) It should minimize translating different source language words or phrases into the same English word or phrase.
3) It should not alter the meaning of the text by deletion or addition or revision of word or phrase meaning.

Specifics:
1) Translate monogenes as unique or one of a kind, not one and only.
2) Change "world" to "humanity or fallen humanity or humanity's dwelling place" in John's writings.
3) Change James 2:5 to read "...poor to the world, yet rich in faith...
4) Change 2 Thessalonians 2:13 from "to be saved" to "for salvation."
5) Change 1 Corinthians 2:14 from "...the things that come from the Spirit of God..." to "some of things of the Spirit of God."​

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Some of the NIV's looseness could be removed by:

1) It should translate the same word or phrase meaning consistently.
2) It should minimize translating different source language words or phrases into the same English word or phrase.
3) It should not alter the meaning of the text by deletion or addition or revision of word or phrase meaning.
​

Cite English Bible translations that do what you like.​

 

[Van]

Cite English Bible translations that do what you like.​

Yet another change the subject post, failing to address the fact the NIV is indeed a loose translation when compared with others.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Specifics:
1) Translate monogenes as unique or one of a kind, not one and only.
2) Change "world" to "humanity or fallen humanity or humanity's dwelling place" in John's writings.
3) Change James 2:5 to read "...poor to the world, yet rich in faith...
4) Change 2 Thessalonians 2:13 from "to be saved" to "for salvation."
5) Change 1 Corinthians 2:14 from "...the things that come from the Spirit of God..." to "some of things of the Spirit of God."​

1) I am not aware of any translations that use the wording of "one of a kind" or unique when translating monogenes. If so, cite them.
2) That's your preference, not found in any translation.
3) That's your preference, not found in any translation.
4) Most translations have "for salvation." however, the ESV, NCB, NCV, RSV NJB and Goodspeed (among others), have "to be saved."
5) That's your corrupt preference, and most certainly not found in any Bible translation. Don't make things up.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Yet another change the subject post, failing to address the fact the NIV is indeed a loose translation when compared with others.

I most definitely did not change the subject. I addressed your specifics. I want you to cite, name, identify English Bible translations that do what your three statements proclaim. Put up or shut up Van.