Search results

Van is stuck. He is forced to be non-committal. He is confounded. If he concedes that he agrees with Mr. Wu, then Van has no argument. If he disagrees, then he goes full-bore into irrationality. My guess is that Van will double down because his ego will not allow him to demonstrate any...

Van typed the above absurdness. I had said Mr. Wu admitted that it is rare to have exact lexical equivalence. Do you, Van, disagree that he said that? If you do disagree, you are out of your ever-lovin' mind. Mr. Wu isn't the only person who believes the above --common sense dictates it...

You have claimed it is both, but of course that is double-speak. In reality the NIV is faithful to the originals and communicates in clear, natural language.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

You can't have it both ways Van-man. Is it scatter gun, or is it agenda driven? In reality it is driven to be as faithful as possible to the originals in clear language. But of course, in your mind that would be impossible. How poorly would the LEB fare under Mr. Wu's analysis?

Better watch yourself there Van. You are not Mr. Wu. You tried to get away with blending your thoughts in with his words. That is dishonest of you Van. Let me refresh your old memory banks Van. You had said "just about everybody else other than the NLT" You have confused Bible versions with people!

Since Mr. Wu admitted that it is rare to have exact lexical equivalence. It follows that a sense-based translation such as the NIV would score higher.

"The scores may be different when a sense-based evaluation system is used."

Where Van comes from the term "willy nilly" is a term of high prominence. No pity is needed. But don't be cowardly. Just answer my question. Did the cat get your tongue?

Translations are not people. They can't be called "everybody." ;-) I wonder how inconsistent the LEB would be in the opinion of Mr. Wu.

You still have not answered my question. Go sit and ponder. Then, after you have used what's left of your gray matter, give me a reasonable answer.

You mean he thought some renderings in those other versions were better in his estimation. It doesn't mean he put them down entirely. He was dealing with certain passages. Before he was an NIV translator he critiqued it negatively with respect to certain passages. You really need to read some...

He has dementia at 86 years of age. I doubt he is on that payroll since he's not with CBT any longer. The NASB team is on the payroll though.

You have a habit of inverting the meaning of words Van. Things that are factual you view as nonsense. I have dealt with you on this very same subject many times Van. Don't make things up. I just gave five examples. I was not being comprehensive. My question still stands. Is the LEB less...

Well, well, well. You're lying again I see Mr. Van man.

From Fee &Strauss: (pages 54,55) "Formal equivalent versions tend to seek one-to-one correspondence, and if the translation works --even awkwardly ---then that translation is retained. The problem is that this results in unnatural English. For example, the Hebrew verb nathan usually means...

The truth has stung you Van. Facts are my speciality. ;-)

It was factual, needed information from two Bible scholars. You have, in fact, denied it. You have insisted on a minimum number of English words to translate from the original languages. But there is indeed, a semantic range which you are unwilling to admit. Not necessarily. There could be...

The NLT.

"Words (lexemes) can have many different meanings. Most words in any language don't have on 'literal' or all-encompassing meaning. They have what is called a semantic range --a range of potential senses. The reason for this is that languages have a limited number of words to express an almost...