Featured Some interesting videos about translations.

I listen to the Dave Brunn video, and did not think he provided much insight. He made a case that we should buy his book in order to gain insight.

First he presented the same straw man argument against the more literal versions. Word for word was not presented as trying to go from source language word or phrase meaning to an English word or phrase meaning. Thus a Greek word with two meanings (set apart or make holy for example) would have two different word or phrase translations, one for each source language meaning.

Next, he used examples from the NASB such as Job 27:7 where he "found" the NASB less literal. He picked a verse with a footnote for the literal rendering, in order to disparage the NASB. But he did not mention the footnote.

He did correctly point out that the same English word or phrase is used for more than one source language meaning, and the same source language meaning has been translated in a needlessly large group of English words.

I think he accurate presented the difficulties in translating God's word into non English languages. However many of us are searching for the best available although no doubt flawed English translation, which in my opinion is the NASB.

 

Hi MartyF, his effort to disparage the NASB was based on fiction. Anyone can scrub the version by omitting the italic words, and inserting the literal footnotes. That is how I look at a verse for study.

Look at all his cases of the NASB not being literal! How many are footnoted? I have looked at two, Job and 2 Timothy and both were footnoted. He was making the case that the more literal were not a whole lot more accurate for gaining an understanding than the more DE versions. It is a faulty view, in my opinion.

I did not bother with the second video, the KJV is a wonderful translation, but the NASB is far, far better.

 

Well MartyF, one of us missed the point. The video assailed the fact that formal equivalence is better than DE leaning versions.

 

MartyF, the NWT is no worse than the NASB!!

Try this on, pick one or two New Testament verses that must be translated into English using DE and cannot be translated using word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning methodology.

Lets take a specific, monogenes which appears in John 3:16. The KJV went with begotten. But the literal root words meaning is one kind. Many more modern translations go with one and only, and some others with unique. But Dr D. Wallace believes the idiom "one of a kind" provides the best meaning for meaning translation.

 

To investigate meaning for meaning translation efforts, let us look at the last phrase of Acts of the Apostles 26:18. The phrase as stated in the version presented if you click on the reference is: " are sanctified by faith that is in me." First "sanctified" translates a Greek word that could mean set apart for a purpose, or to purify or make holy. Thus if you look at several translations, you could find "set apart" (NLT) or "made holy" (God's Word Translation). The vast majority of course use sanctified. which might mean either of our choices.

Next we get "by faith" but the "by" has been added by the vast majority of translators. Weymouth however renders it "through faith."

And next we get in most versions "in Me." Thus the majority view has our faith in Christ in view. However a few have "the faith that is in Me" indicating (possibly) it is Christ's faith (His faithful sacrifice) that is in view.

So here is a possible translation "are set apart through faith into Me." Completely different meaning than the vast majority of translations. So careful study of this and related passages are best served using a translation that presents meaning for meaning translation.

 

If we look at Philippians 3:8 we might get:

But more than that
I also deem all to be forfeit,
because of the superiority
of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.
Because of Him,
I have forfeited everything
and I am deeming it to be dung,
that I should gain Christ.

 

Lets look at a verse (2 Thessalonians 2:13) as presented in more DE leaning versions:

If you look at the phrase "to be saved" in the NIV translation, you will note the underlying Greek noun has been altered into verb form such that "through the sanctifying work of the Spirit" now is linked to how you were saved, rather than how you were chosen.

If you look at the NLT, you see a different methodology that results in the same altered message, through the Spirit is now linked with salvation rather than how you were chosen. Also note "sanctification" was construed to refer to a salvation that makes you holy, rather than being chosen by being set apart by the Spirit.

Now if you look at this more word meaning for word meaning version you will see a different message:

 

I took a brief look again at the video where 6 verses were referenced showing the NASB had not literally translated a word. However, all six were footnoted with the literal meaning. So a positive attribute of the NASB was used to claim it was not a literal as needed.

Next, a Greek word (Sarx) which can refer to flesh, or humankind, or ungodliness was used to undercut both the ESV and the NASB. When they translated the word with a meaning other than flesh, they were presented as not matching the original. As I said, not shedding much light.

 

Hi MartyF, now it is my turn to say, I think you have missed my point. We are on a Bible Translation thread where I am advocating for more FE leaning versions (such as the NASB and NKJV) over and against more DE leaning versions such as the NIV and NLT.

Full disclosure, I am a one point Calvinist (once saved always saved) and a two point Arminian (our election for salvation was conditional, based on our faith in the truth, and Christ died for all mankind.)
On other points, I disagree with both these views, siding I like to think with scripture.

 

The God that we Calvinists speak about is the God of the scriptures, as while you and I would disagree on theology, we cannot disagree on which God, as there is only one God, in the person of the Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit!

 

Hi Y1, I think you claim God creates people, not chosen before creation, who cannot believe in Christ due to spiritual inability, so they go to Hades, then the Lake of Fire to be punished for thoughts and actions they were compelled by their fallen natures to engage in.

Not what the Bible says, such as God crediting our faith as righteousness, then setting us apart in Christ where all our sin is forgiven and remembered no more forever.

One view teaches futility, but the other (Biblical) view teaches hope through the love of God.

 

The first video really addresses the issues. And I favor a word for word translatiion - because it is more possible into English. But as rightly pointed out not in every case. And it is note worthy that there are places where the NLT has been more literal.

I am an advocate of using the KJV. The second video addresses an important issue with using it.

I have some of the modern translations. NKJV, NASB 1995 edition, HCSB & CSB, ESV (which I like less), NRSV, NLV (older editions), NIV both 1985 & 2011 which I like less).

 

The TR which the KJV used in spite of some textual issues which is now known that it has, is in general better than the CT most modern translations use. That can be a bigger issue than how it is translated.

 

Take a look at the World English Bible (WEB). It is based on the Majority Text (or at least one version of it) and avoids several problems with the TR. You can find it on line for free.

As far as the noteworthy observation that the NLT is sometimes more literal, the reality is that it is vastly less literal. For example, in John 3:16, the NLT has "loved the world so much" indicating degree (a lot) but the more literal meaning is found in the CSB "loved the world in this way" indicating method.

One and only is also a flawed translation of monogenes. Unique is more literal. Note that Jesus is not God's only son, because every born anew person is a child of God and Adam of course was another son of God. But of course Jesus, God in the flesh, is unique.

 

It translates γενομενου "being ended" as if it were γινομενου "During" in John 13:2. The MLV did the same, but shows it in italic that is not the text reading.