Featured Idioms

Trying to discuss translation philosophy and illustrate where improvement is possible seems a topic some desire to derail.

A very basic principle, that everyone should embrace, has now been ridiculed for three pages. But has any verse been cited where the principle would not work? Nope. Why not?

 

Thanks RSR for your on topic posts! I am willing to concede there might be exceptions, but then why has no one cited one? Are we supposed to just read scripture or study it? In the case where the principle is followed, the translator is telling the reader what the text says.

Lets consider the idea that the figures of speech are so outdated in the original, that a literal translation would make the message indiscernible. I think not, especially in the absence of examples.

Turning to ambiguities, to the extent the meanings are in doubt, i.e. some faction says John 6:29 says the work God requires of you, and another faction says the work God does for you, leaving it as the "work of God" seems the safest course of action. However if study and learning has revealed which side of the dispute is most probably valid, then putting that in the main text, and footnoting the alternate seems sound.

 

Which verse reads "the little man of the eye." The principle works for all three verses cited in post 21. Just put the literal reading in the main text, and footnote the meaning or meanings. This would work for John 10:24, Mark 1:32, and 1 Samuel 10:9.

But lets address "apple (or little man) of his eye." This refers to the pupil of our eye. Very precious, something we would protect thus our children can be referred to as the apple of our eyes.

Although I did not find a version that translated Deuteronomy 32:10 as "little man of his eye" but here is the NET footnote: Heb “the little man.” The term אִישׁוֹן (’ishon) means literally “little man,” perhaps because when one looks into another’s eyes he sees himself reflected there in miniature. Thus translating literally and footnoting the possible meaning works in every example cited!

 

More you, you, you violations and more absurdity. If the text, say Deuteronomy 32:10 reads "little man of the eye" that is how the text should be translated (i.e. accurately) and then the interpretation (pupils or that which is treasured and protected) put in the footnote.

Forum rule number 6: Do not attack the other poster; if you want to question the opinion, that's fine. But do so in a God honoring way. Don't attack the person; the goal is to build up and win for the truth's sake.

 

More disparaging the poster, more effort to change the subject and more absurdity. Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings. The way forward is for the various translations to utilize this principle more consistently.

 

Proof of a non-literal translation does not prove non-literal translation is valid, wise, or accurate. The way forward is for the various translations to utilize the principle more consistently.

Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings.

 

Is the issue that not every idiom is treated that way, literal translation and footnote of idiomatic meaning? Nope. Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings.

 

Two posts in a row, violating the forum rules, addressing posters rather than the topic. Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings.

Now if ITL wants to address the topic, then I could quote his comment and address the topic.