Featured The Harm of Dynamic Equivalence

Well, YLT does convey a 'celestial motif' within the dialogue (yea, the entire chapter) between Christ and Nicodemus that the rendering 'born again' (in lieu of born from above) misses:

2 this one came unto him by night, and said to him, `Rabbi, we have known that from God thou hast come -- a teacher, for no one these signs is able to do that thou dost, if God may not be with him.`
3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;`
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.`
21 but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.`
27 John answered and said, `A man is not able to receive anything, if it may not have been given him from the heaven
31 he who from above is coming is above all; he who is from the earth, from the earth he is, and from the earth he speaketh; he who from the heaven is coming is above all. Jn 3 YLT

'Born from above' melds nicely with John's other writings:

who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten. Jn 1:13 YLT
if ye know that he is righteous, know ye that every one doing the righteousness, of him hath been begotten. 1 Jn 2:29 YLT
9 every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten. 1 Jn 3:9 YLT
7 Beloved, may we love one another, because the love is of God, and every one who is loving, of God he hath been begotten, and doth know God 1 Jn 4:7 YLT
1 Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of Him
4 because every one who is begotten of God doth overcome the world, and this is the victory that did overcome the world -- our faith
18 We have known that every one who hath been begotten of God doth not sin, but he who was begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him 1 Jn 5 YLT

'Born from above':

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. Gal 4 (Psalms 87)

 

IMO, Nicodemus's non-enlightenment should not affect the correct rendering of Christ's intent with the word 'anothen' here. Anothen ( from above, from a higher place, of things which come from heaven or God, from the first, from the beginning, from the very first, anew, over again) can mean 'anew' or 'over again', but that's not what Christ meant, thus His further explanation in the next verse:

5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. Jn 1 YLT

Christ wasn't speaking of an earthly physical birth which Nicodemus wrongly perceived, He was speaking of a spiritual birth FROM ABOVE.

 

I think Christ indeed did correct him with His response of vv 5 & 6.

 

Well, I think 'born again' distracts from recognizing a wonderful 'celestial motif' from within the scriptures beginning at Genesis 3:15 to Psalms 87 to Isaiah 54 to Galatians 4:26-29 to Revelation 12. 'Born from above' leads us to the 'city of God', the mother of us all. We are children of the heavenly Zion.

...and I'm done.

 

I'm no vociferous opponent to those who oppose DE, but, JoJ, consider. While DE might be problematic, pedantic criticism weakens whatever case there is against it, and this is happening here.

Just one general case in point. On the one hand, it is said translation style should be elevated. On the other, that it’s OK to sound grammatically incorrect in the target language in order to represent the author’s style, meaning the original style is not elevated. This is Inconsistent at best. Sounding strange in the target language, though the original is fine would be a major fail. Such is best saved for interlinears.

 

I don’t necessarily disagree, yet do not really because of the following thoughts.

Either one takes a narrow approach in which the word definitions are consistently presented (while taking into account and presenting the writer’s own style) from the original into the target language, or the target language is the driving force.

Is it not true that the KJV standardized spelling, grammar and other structures to the English language? Yet, given the less tools, where not the translators faithful in presenting word accuracy from the original? One might even consider the invention of certain words, (though certainly to cover preconceptions such as “baptism”) were done to ultimately bring a product as faithful as possible to present both the style of writing as well as the message consistent to the original.

“Sounding strange in the target language certainly might happen. The “woodenness” of the NASB as an example.

But would it not seem far superior to be a bit strange yet accurate, then schmooze in offering lesser reliable?

This is a poor example, but the English doesn’t fit really accurately the writings of Mark when it comes to the happenings. He used the style of writing in which he places the reader into the action at the time it is happening. Because there is no concept of such verbiage in the English, the translators generally use past tenses. And (imo) the readers miss out because the target language is limited.

So in English passages of Mark read as they already happened, yet Mark writes the events to envelope the reader into the narrative, as if the reader is actually a part of the story - a part of the story. To my very limited understanding, no other writer did this in the Scriptures.

If the target language has such ability, would it be not be the most correct to present Mark’s account in such a manner, without the use of DE which is even lesser?

Well, enough of my silliness, and openly displaying thoughts that run through my misty punching holes that appear but for a glimpse, but never for long.

 

Sir, what is the proper classification for the translation of the KJV; I've heard it called a DE, perhaps in error. Thank you.

 

Forest and trees. That’s arguing semantics, applying euphemism to bolster a preference or opinion. The point is that one’s own pedantic prejudice does not demonstrate flaw in the other guy’s translation. When it comes down to mere preference or opinion, criticism should be limited to just that—clearly expressed as mere personal opinion or preference.

The truth is that, for any translation of significant size, something will be lost and/or added. It just cannot be helped. Distance in geography, culture, technology, and time worsens the problem. Sacrifices will have to be made, and no translation, no matter how good, should ever be the final word in deciding the meaning of a passage.

But to imagine the reader should understand that a strangely sounding translation is not intended to imply the author originally sounded that way, is fantastic, especially when the goal of the translator was to preserve the author’s style.

 

Uh-huh, then I guess someone else titled the thread, “The Harm of Dynamic Equivalence.” Again, I don’t defend DE, I just think overly pedantic, inconsistent criticism hurts making the case against it. I don't doubt that you can still have some success.

The rest was essentially a rehash, pointing out where we disagree. Opinions. We all have ‘em, even professional translators. Blind spots. Ditto. Biases. Again, ditto. Thus, no one is perfectly consistent.

I do appreciate translators trying to be as faithful as they can to the original (interlinears can be useful), so hope you keep up the good work. But it would be wrongheaded to expect a translation to do more than it really can. Prayerful Bible study is important.