What do you think? part 2

QUOTE:
"what was ur authority for this"

My authority for inserting italicized words? Well, it would be the teachings in the Bible which extol honesty as a virtue. By italicizing the words which have no basis in the Greek the alien reader will know they are not God-breathed, and thus not binding on his conscience, but only there for readability and filling up of that which seems to be lacking in the sense in the Engish due to the different natures of the two tongues.

QUOTE:
"can u illustrate that "consistency" w NT translated quotes of the OT?"

Please specify what you mean. Do you mean you want to see how I would render some NT verse(s) in which the speaker quotes the OT? Or something else?

QUOTE:
"making GOd sound wooden isn't elevating His Word."

If the translator has to choose between a somewhat wooden sounding rendering which accurately, faithfully and precisey conveys what the original author said/signified and one which has smooth English but somewhat twists the author meaning then the wooden is to be preferred. This dilemma can come up in the process of translating seeing there is this difference between Greek and English. A smooth English reading which twists or changes the author meaning elevates His word much less than a wooden one which accurately reflects the same. The ideal of course is smooth English which is also literal and faithful to form and meaning of the author's wording.

QUOTE:
"a translation eliciting any other response than what was originally intended is unfaithful"

This smacks of heretick Eugene Nida's theories. The God-called translator is primarily to be concerned with being faithful toward the inspired wording of the original tongue text before him, and that means faithful to its Author, even God. He will leave the response of the readership in the hands of Him that called him to translate.


QUOTE:
"o really, n u'd suppose that those prohibitions on adding, subtracting, n changing apply to translation--is that what u believe, i'd like to confirm?"

Primarily, in their respective contexts, they probably did not address translating the word of God. But application-wise they must be allowed to have bearing also on this thing known as translating the Bible. So, my answer is a plain YES. And for the record, I am not alone with this conviction, so I bring no new novelty. Other FE proponents are of the same understanding.

QUOTE:
"in that case, not only the KJB but dozens other translations r "illegitimate" in ur words, esp the NUMEROUS instances where the changes r NOT flagged (either w italics or square brackets or whatever). does this bother u?"

KJB is not an illegitimate translation in my estimation, and some others are quite on par with it. Nevertheless it bothers me to a certain degree that in numerous places the KJV does not indicate deviations from the inspired wording of the underlying TR, primarily referring to added and omitted articles. This is one of the reasons why I am not KJV Only any more, meaning I do not any more impute absolute and total perfection to the KJV, translation-quality-wise. I can recommend the KJV as a good and trustworthy Bible, and will even defend it where and when I judge it needful.

QUOTE:
"but i'd really be interested in ur response on whether verses against changing the "words" of Scripture applied to translation, as u seem to have intimated."

Like I said, yes, they must be allowed to apply. A God-called Bible translator is one who takes the inspired divine words of the original tongue text and carries them across into a target language, for the benefit of others, with a view to/hope of their spiritual edification etc. Tell me why should not all those passages apply to this task?

QUOTE:
"who r "DE perverters" that r "pleasers of men"? did u intend to use a pejorative term in response to "practitioners"? "

Clear examples of DE perverters who are men pleasers would be the producers of certain versions which have received the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic harlot church. Reportedly the NIV is among those that have gotten this imprimatur so-called. The KJV is among those versions which do not have the same from the papal church. I put the word practitioners in quotation marks because it was the first time I encountered this term "FE practitioner". The term DE perverter was not in response to your term, but I used it for other reason, because DE translators are more of perverters than carriers-across (trans-lators). They add, subtract, and twist & pervert most of the time.

Harald

 

All right. You have stated your opinions. But it seems to me you've gone to great pains to refute me as though I have implied my convictions, views, and "canons" are things binding upon men's consciences, like the word of God is. Nowhere have I said they are, just for the record. And nowhere have I said they are perfect or that my translating is perfect, but you seem to have interpreted my statements to that end, and acted accordingly.


QUOTE:
"i hope my response following, tho perhaps harsh at times, might shed some light on the common myths in FE."

What are "the common myths in FE". And according to who are they "myths"? And if myths then on what basis do you claim them thus?

QUOTE:
"altho u have (falsely) associated Revelation 22:18-19, Deut. 4:2, 2 Cor. 2:17, n other Scriptures to fit ur FE views, ur canons of translation, by n large, have little basis in Scripture or linguistic science."

You are entitled to your opinion. But let me say this. My "FE views", as I can discern, are subject to all those scriptures, or at least they ought to be. If I fail herein I am of course to be blamed by and before God. My canons of translation, have no basis in Scripture, if by "basis in Scripture" is meant that they must be expressly written down for them to be valid or good. As for "linguistic science" as a branch of science it is quite a new thing, I believe. I do not know much about it, nor do I believe e.g. Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Whittingham, Jerome, Beza, Erasmus and the KJV translators etc. were much into "linguistic science". They were rather into translating the words of God as faithfully as in them lay. If they were able to translate without new linguistic science novelties such as Nida's infidel theories then why not me as well, and others who are anti Nida and his isms. While my canons have no basis in Scripture in the way I stated I do not believe they militate against any Scriptural principles or teachings which can by way of application be applied to translating the word of God. If any of them clearly thus militate you must prove it to me by such Scripture which have bearing on these things, and if I am convicted then I must of course seek to change them to be harmonious with God's precepts.

QUOTE:
"FEs don’t do that, despite this claim. did u respond to my example of Mizraim? try Joshua Moshiach n Apostle Jacob or the Book of Judas, too."

I cannot answer for all other FE proponents. I am not their patronizer, nor their master. Myself try consistently to observe the morphology of Greek words as far as that is possible in translating, having in mind the differences in nature of the two languages. I know I do not follow this 100%-ly all the time. An example would be in places where I encounter the adjective hamartôlos. Sometimes I may render it as a noun, "sinner". But sometimes I follow its form and render it "sinful". I do not recall this thing with "Mizraim", what do you mean? As for "Joshua Moshiach" that is not found in any Greek NT edition, so why do you bring it up. If it is to be found in some Aramaic NT I know not, but I do not follow such. The Greek says, if I am not mistaken, Iêsous and Christos, but to be exact I do not know if the form "Iêsous Christos" as written is found in the Greek. As for "Jacob". Why do you not use the commonly used "James"? If by "Jacob" you tried to reflect what the Greek says you fail just as miserably as the English versions, because it says Iakôbos. I am not the only one able to be nitpicky, if that is what you want to go into. But for the record I use exactly what you proposed here, i.e. "Jacob" and "Judas", in my translation of Jude's epistle.
http://uk.geocities.com/romans5_21/Jude.html

QUOTE:
"BCV? remember, old does not equal biblical. the really olde biblical terms incl. hilaskamos n agape."

Again if you require those mine words to be expressly written down in Scripture you are a fool. But a Scripture that comes to mind is "remove not the ancient landmark" in Proverbs 22:28. Tell me why would I be such a fool so as to remove from a translation such old and proved and biblically accurate words as "propitiation", "reconciliation", "justification" etc. If so be you advocate such then tell me why it should be done? What thing in your theological view requires such removal? I know many DE versions more or less have removed such old and good Bible words, just to replace them with not better words but less accurate and less biblical ones. But that is apostasy. As for your "hilaskamos", why do you bring into the discussion a word that is not to be found in all the word of God, not in the Alexandrian texts nor in the TR, nor yet in the LXX vocabulary? Or have you perhaps some very ancient Greek text at your disposal which textual scholars know nothing of? Of course agape is an old biblical word, who would deny that? I do not get your point, if there is any. Or do you mean the Greek word of God must not be translated at all? If so then you are surely peculiar in your notions.

QUOTE:
"why shdn’t something purportedly taught by Revelation 22:18-19, Deut. 4:2, 2 Cor. 2:17, n other Scriptures be DOGMATICALLY followed? why condemn other versions that don’t? seems to me that FEs put themselves as judges of when precisely to follow the dogma."

Rendering one Greek word with two English words is not doctrinal compromise in light of those Scriptures, if doing so accurately and precisely translates the one Greek word. An example would be the singular Greek word "kata" when in some context it is translated by 2 English words as "according to". See what I mean?

QUOTE:
"well, the KJB deviates fr the Duoay-Rheims which deviates fr the Geneva which deviates fr the Bishop’s .... who determines what’s warranted? how is it that FEs see themselves n themselves alone as "qualified" n "called" to the task, n DEs as perverts n hereticks?"

Well, I do not mind the KJB deviating from the Jesuit version you mentioned. Were the KJV translators obligated to follow its readings? I do not think their translating canons which Bancroft claimedly had penned down required them to follow the readings of the DRB. But I have heard the Geneva Bible was one of the prior versions they consulted. And if they deviated from its readings here and there that was their decision, not mine. Sometimes it was for the better, but sometimes for the worse. But as for me, what does warrant a deviation from former versions and their readings is the Greek text. If former versions deviate from its wording then one must be faithful to the Greek, not to the versions. And as for me with "the Greek" here I myself mean the Textus Receptus. It may be many FE translators see themselves alone as qualified and called to the task of translating the Bible. But most often they may be deceived, just as DE translators are all the time. DE is such a faulty policy when it comes to Bible translation that the DE translators may readily be discarded as not called of God. And if one compares the bibliological views of randomly selected FE translators and DE's respectively I believe it can be shown that DE's are weaker in their doctrine, and more often unorthodox as pertain to bibliology. FE as a translation philosophy to adopt in Bible translation is about the best there is, in and of itself. It was the main philosophy or method used until the later part of the 1900's, when DE gained ascendancy. While FE per se as a method/policy is good it does not mean all FE translators or proponents are sound in doctrine and soteriology, nor yet that they are called of God to the task. I know many versions which are classified FE but which nevertheless are weak translations and contain many errors. But in general DE versions are even worse than the weakest FE versions. And the standard for such judgment is and must always be the Scriptures in the original tongue from which a version is translated, as well as the whole counsel of God's word. As for me I know of no one DE translator who is biblical in his soteriological views. If there is one I would like to see one. This is not to say I mean FE translators are automatically biblical in the same. But among them is more likely to be found such who are sound in the faith.


QUOTE:
"again, "too" is arguable. somehow, when FEs change the form, it’s ok; ah ha, but see what happens when DEs do it!"

Yes, "too" is up for discussion. But if the ones who judge are true saints of God who are knowledgeable in the Scriptures I believe they will judge quite the same as to what is too interpretitive or explanative. I have not said that when FE's change the form it is OK and when DE's do the same it is not OK. Some FE's may be such respecters of persons, but I hope I have no part with such. As an example I can inform you that in connection with my web page I have a file with some deviations of the KJV (from the inspired Greek wording), a FE version. I do not hesitate to criticize even the most esteemed of FE versions if I judge it needful, as when there is some unlawful deviations from God's inspired wording. It does not serve the cause of truth to say e.g. the KJV has absolutely no translational imperfections or errors or deviations from the TR when it has, evidently and provably so.

QUOTE:
"like many others, no BCV. the amazing thing abt many FE versions, ironically, is how wooden-sounding they come out, esp those made by a single self-appointed "translator" who tries to correct the KJB (there r several of such i have seen)!"

There is no need for BVC. My maxim for which you required BCV is not militating against God's glory or His word. If it is then you prove it with Scripture. No doubt many FE versions sound wooden here and there. But if wooden secures that the author (ultimately God) meaning is not twisted as opposed to a smooth reading which sacrifices accuracy and precision and faithfulness then wooden is better.

QUOTE:
"i like this one. can u show me where in the NT that Paul or Matthew or John used italics to show their additions in quoting the OT?"

You do not get it do you? Paul and the other penmen where not in the bussiness of Bible translating. They were in the bussiness of writing new Scripture under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. And sometimes that entailed quoting the OT as the Spirit led them along. And as He is God He had the prerogative and authority to be Lord over the OT, just like Christ the Lord says He is Lord of the Sabbath. God is greater than the word He has given, and which testifies concerning Him. Your argument is near to a strawman so called. It is a non-issue.

QUOTE:
"how many times is Elohim capitalised in the OT? Theos in the NT? how consistent the capitalisation of Gk / Heb/ Aramaic pronouns?"

It seems Elohim is not capitalized in the OT. As for Theos in the NT it is at least capitalized in John 1:1 in Stephanus's 1550 TR, in which I checked. But I recall having read the original Greek autographs had not such capitalization. Is that so? It also appears that the pronouns are not capitalized. I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with if nouns referring to a divine person were uncapitalized in the autographs. That was God's prerogative if He chose thus not to do.


QUOTE:
"this must take the cake - what a hooter! Ruckman makes better sense, really. why stop there? why not the tense n voice n gender as well? that’s what comes of a translational philosophy founded NEITHER in Scripture NOR in linguistic science (cf. DE, which has good underpinnings for both, which i doubt ur FE reading sources thus far have pointed out.)."

Scorn as much as you please. These are my axioms, and no one else is duty bound to follow them. As for tense and voice etc. I already touched upon attending to the morphology. That kind of translation which commends itself to the consciences of God's true (and doctrinally sound) people is based on a better philosophy than that which they reject as a perversion of God's words. And DE is likely the latter. Apostate religious bodies may favour DE and versions based on its philosophy, but the few true churches of Christ on earth today reject DE and DE versions. This is my firm belief. And they also reject the vast majority of modern versions in general as well, especially those based on Alexandrian Greek editions.

QUOTE:
"again, i see the caveat "as far as possible..." giving the FE "translator" sovereign rights to override his purportedly "scriptural" principle of not changing the text!"

If you read my sentence as a whole you would have no need for saying this. It seems you here want to nitpick just for its own sake.

QUOTE:
"ah, but who gave u the right to mess w the original punctuation or lack thereof? remember, it’s supposed to be FORMAL equivalence, right? why change the athnah to something else?"

The very original Greek Testament reportedly had no punctuation, or at least the oldest available seem to indicate this. FE does not have within its principles any prohibitions against punctuation. And I would recommend you express yourself more understandably. Your being a DE-ist and not being able to use normal English words is contradictory. I refer to the gibberish looking word "athnah".


QUOTE:
"ha, that’s right out of DE. whatever happened to NOT changing the FORM? "semantic range"? that sounds like meaning-based translation, ew, another term for DE!"

Nothing humorous about this. FE translators have been around longer than DE's, and have understood such a thing as semantic range of a word/term and contextual meaning long before Nida was born. If I in some place render pistis as "faithfulness" instead of "faith" how does that affect form? Both are nouns. What is your point?

QUOTE:
"does this incl translations that say "p*ss*th against the wall" n "b*st*rds"?"

The first is some KJV reading from the OT, right? I have read it is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. Do you consider this "worldly", seeing it was what God inspired? The second is a good word. What is your problem with it? I see nothing peculiarly worldly about it.

QUOTE:
"how does this jive w trying to sound old but not too old! frankly, i sense a doublemindedness here."

How come you criticize God's word as worldly and the use a word like "jive". I had to look it up in a dictionary. Oxford's Dictionary of Current English had this to say about it: n. a lively dance popular in the 1940s and 1950s, performed to swing music or rock and roll. v. dance the jive.
No other definitions were given.
Where have I said a translation must sound "old". The only thing that could have been interpreted to such end was when I referred to preserving old and good biblical terms. There is no doublemindedness. What I said was a reasonable and legitimate maxim which safeguards against New Hermeneutics and such modernism which seeks to make void the word of God by all kinds of devilish trickery such as claiming most precepts and prohibitions and commandments of the NT are "culturally bound" and thus unapplicable to our day and age.

Harald

 

QUOTE:
"no, u got it. try, for example, Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18."

All right, I will give it a try. I will translate from Scivener's 1894 TR:

Pneuma Kuriou ep eme hou heneken echrise me euaggelizesthai ptôchois apestalke me iasasthai tous suntetrimmenous tên kardian kêruxai aichmalôtois aphesin kai tuphlois anablepsin aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to be announcing glad tidings to destitute ones, he hath sent me forth to heal the ones having had the heart broken, to preach forgiveness to captives, and recovery of sight to blind ones, to send crushed ones forth in liberty"

Just for the record let me state that the verb for "to evangelize" is here in the middle voice. It does not reflect in my translation, nor in any other below. Had I come up with some proper and unforced way of verbally expressing the middle voice I had done so. You know what the middle voice signifies, but for others who may not know I shall just say that according to grammarians it signifies the fact that "The middle voice differs from the active in that it calls special attention to the subject while the active merely represents the subject as acting. But the middle voice does not of itself indicate what the particular is that is emphasised". (A T Robertson - A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed., pg. 289). Daniel B Wallace says of the middle: "...in the middle voice the subject performs or experiences the action expressed by the verb in such a way that emphasizes the subject's participation". (pg. 414 of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics). In some places the versions emphasize the middle voice by inserting "himself", "themselves" etc., e.g. Matt. 27:5 where Judas "hanged himself".
For comparison I will quote some formal versions which follow the same wording.

(YLT) `The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because He did anoint me; To proclaim good news to the poor, Sent me to heal the broken of heart, To proclaim to captives deliverance, And to blind receiving of sight, To send away the bruised with deliverance,

18The sprete of the lorde vpon me because he hath annoynted me: to preache ye gospell to ye poore he hath sent me: and to heale the broken harted: to preache delyverauce to the captive and sight to the blinde and frely to set at lyberte them that are brused (Tyndale NT)

18The Spirit of the Lord on me, for which thing he anoyntide me; he sente me to preche to pore men, to hele contrite men in herte, 19and to preche remyssioun to prisoneris, and siyt to blynde men, and to delyuere brokun men in to remissioun; (Wycliffe NT)

(KJV) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

(Geneva) The Spirit of the Lord is vpon mee, because he hath anoynted me, that I should preach the Gospel to the poore: he hath sent mee, that I should heale the broken hearted, that I should preach deliuerance to the captiues, and recouering of sight to the blinde, that I should set at libertie them that are bruised:

(LITV) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me. Because of this He anointed Me to proclaim the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me" to heal the brokenhearted, "to proclaim remission to captives, and to the blind to see again," to send away the ones being crushed, in remission,

And for comparison I will quote some classified as DE versions which of course do not follow the same Greek wording, due to being based on Alexandrian text.

(Contemporary English Version) "The Lord's Spirit has come to me, because he has chosen me to tell the good news to the poor. The Lord has sent me to announce freedom for prisoners, to give sight to the blind, to free everyone who suffers,

(Good News Bible) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has chosen me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed

(God's Word) "The Spirit of the Lord is with me. He has anointed me to tell the Good News to the poor. He has sent me to announce forgiveness to the prisoners of sin and the restoring of sight to the blind, to forgive those who have been shattered by sin,

(The Message) God's Spirit is on me; he's chosen me to preach the Message of good news to the poor, Sent me to announce pardon to prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, To set the burdened and battered free,

QUOTE:
"o come off. as we’ve seen, one cld call Nida any name, but his concern for closest natural equivalence in translation is even stolen by FEs themselves! there’s no need to sound pious w leaving reader response in the hands of "Him that called"! we’ve already seen numerous instances where FEs arrogate that right n task to themselves."

FE's have been around long before Nida and his ilks, so what you said is quite stupid. I cannot speak for other FE's, but myself has not reader response as a main concern. Of course I must have the readership in mind, but with DE's it seems to be the main concern or top priority, and they relegate faithfulness to the source text to a secondary place. The translator, while having the reader(s) in mind, must be faithful to God and his words/wording, pleasing God is his main concern, and secondary concern is that the finished version must also commend itself to the conscienses of God's true children. He has no or very little obligations to self-loving natural men who may happen to enjoy studying the Bible. Most modern versions appeal to carnal men with tickling ears (spurious converts), because they water down the word of God. What contributes to such watering down seems to me to be (among other things) 1) their being based on Alexandrian editions
2) their translators being apostates with faulty theology and soteriology
3) dynamic equivalency as guiding philosophy in the translation process

QUOTE:
"n for the record, FEs r wrong in that understanding. they don’t even follow it themselves while, like one old n venerable Jewish sect was wont to do, binding heavy burdens of guilt to others’ conscience."

Other FE proponents might accuse you of slander if they read your words. Myself does not care so much. I have been carped at before by people like yourself. I chiefly refer to your last 19 words.

QUOTE:
"1. such an application isn’t supported in the context. in other words, it is alien."

The context may not support such an application in the sense that it does not expressly say "this applies to translating the Bible". The context did not address modern day Bible translating. But it has bearing on it application-wise. If one would exegete such a passage the author meaning would be ascertained, i.e. what the author meant with his words to the original target group. But as you know in hermeneutics there is difference between meaning and signification and application. Like if one says "this passage means this and that, and its significance is this, and now let us apply it to our lives by doing so and so." The FE translator has restraints, and they are or at least should be the precepts and prohibitions related to God's word and words as penned down in the Bible. The DE translator seems to me a lawless fellow who has no restraints at all, but is free to add or subtract or change and pervert God's words as it pleases him. These God's commandments relating to His own word/words are no burden to myself. It is a joy to submit to them and to know that observing them in translating preserves from the errors and wickednesses of DE's.

QUOTE:
"2. the NT’s use (in Greek) of the OT (Heb) show us NO sign of such an alien application."

It seems to me you do not believe nor understand the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures. The holy men of God who authored Scripture were not sweating over translational matters or translational quality. They spoke as God the Spirit carried them along (supernaturally guided, inspired). Each and every word which was penned down was of God's contriving, they did not have to weigh and ponder over them like translators do. Don't you understand this? If not then I can but pity you.

QUOTE:
"3. modern linguistic science (a la our fave "heretick" Nida, et al.) n even ancient linguistics or even commonsense itself declares that languages r different becos they r different. now that sounds tautological n obvious, but that’s becos it is. English n Greek do not share a common syntax, their morphemes do not share a common semantic range, n their idioms differ. if this isn’t obvious, u may compare Finnish n English, or Chinese n Urdu, whatever.
so to force those Scriptures to do duty where they weren’t intended is at best disingenuous. worse, it’s wresting them to one’s own destruction n stumbling young believers fr knowing God thru their modern Bibles. "

Never have I denied that languages aren't different. So what? Those Scriptures were not first and foremost to do duty as addressing translational matters, granted. But secondary or tertiary by way of application and having bearing on they do pertain also to Bible translating. It may be you and DE's do not see this, but I and many others do. I do not dare to make void God's word by such rationalizing as you seem to resort to. You and yours may follow modern linguistics and philology and their findings, but me I will seek the principles of God's word that apply to translating His word and seek to have them as my restrainers and guides. And what I do is not what you slanderously claim. I am not wresting them to my destruction, that is very far fetched on your part. Neither am I stumbling young believers from knowing God. God is sovereign and knows them that are His and in due time He brings them all to a knowledge of Himself (John 6:45). God may or may not use modern Bibles. One thing is certain, He does not have any use of clearly mistranslated passages in modern Bible versions, whether DE versions or FE. The same applies to ancient versions as well when they have translated his words perversly. His Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and He will not set His seal on erroneous renderings in any version. And for the record let me say I do not believe God has much use of modern versions in general. As long as good old TR based Bibles (e.g. KJV, Geneva, Tyndale, YLT) are available why should God the Spirit lead true converts to use inferior modern versions and perversions as main or only version? This would imply God has lowered His standards of excellency and is become content with mediocrity and less than mediocre Bible translations. If God e.g. would lead one of His children to use an Alexandrian DE version as only or main version this would imply He does not will for His child to be obedient to all things whatsoever He hath commanded by His Son Jesus Christ. Because such versions omit some precepts and commandments, and by twisting and adding etc. they present to the saint another Bible, which is not able to make the man of God perfect or proficient, cp. 2Tim. 3:16-17. They will make him less than proficient, mediocre only, and that is surely not God's revealed will, is it? So if God for some strange reason led one of His children to use an Alexandrian DE version He would have to make up for its deficiencies in the NT through new divine revelations, such as charismatics et.al. claim to be getting. But the orthodox teaching on inspiration says the canon was closed after Revelation was given to John at Patmos, circa 95 AD. Surely I wonder, what kind of conceptions have you of God?

Harald