21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

[John of Japan]

Note how they want to talk about my character and qualifications rather than how best to translate figurative language.such as the Hebrew Idiom is to use arm to convey strength and power. Some versions provide no footnote, some remove arm and put in power, but the best is to provide the literal translation and then footnote the idiomatic meaning.

Lean in real close to the screen. A little closer. That's right. Now listen carefully.

That was not an idiom. It was a metaphor.

Good grief. This is so basic I thought Van could catch on, humble himself, and learn. Guess not.

 

[John of Japan]

Hi JOJ, your attempt to change the subject from your erroneous ridiculous claim, demonstrates you seem rather full of yourself.
Folks, the case is closed, the best way to present figurative expressions whose literal meaning is not the author's intended meaning is to translate the expression literally, and then footnote the meaning or possible meanings.

Hey, I really want to recognize your qualifications to make these authoritative statements, I really do. So please let me know your qualifications, so we can have a great discussion, professional translator to professional translator.

1. Are you self-educated to fluency in any foreign language?
2. Have you self-educated yourself in Greek and/or Hebrew to fluency in reading?
3. Have you read completely through any technical books on translation? Even one?
4. Have you ever actually done any Bible translation on your own?

 

[John of Japan]

Give it up, Van. You are in way over your head. Walk away. Quit while you are behind. Never pick a fight with an 800 pound gorilla. (Sorry John, nothing personal, just a metaphor. )

Yes, I'm working on a translation for sentient gorillas, too. Any intelligent apes here on the BB other than me?

 

[Van]

I did look up a few more NET footnotes, and the use of arm is indeed called a metaphor. It is also said to symbolize military strength. It's use is also called a metonymy. But there is no doubt "arm" is used often to symbolize strength and power. And one more point, more often than not, the NET inserts the interpreted meaning into the text, and footnotes the literal rendering with explanation. Not the best approach in my opinion.

Here is an example from Isaiah 52:10:
52:10 The Lord reveals his royal power15
in the sight of all the nations;
the entire earth sees

Footnote 15: Heb “his holy arm.” This is a metonymy for his power.

Folks, the case is closed, the best way to present figurative expressions whose literal meaning is not the author's intended meaning is to translate the expression literally, and then footnote the meaning or possible meanings.

 

[Van]

JOJ posts the same off topic effort to change the subject. He is so full of himself. The use of footnotes to clarify the meaning of figurative expressions is not ridiculous as he mistakenly claimed. Degrees do not matter, truth matters. Apparently you have yet to attend a school that presents the commands of Christ. He has the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to attempt to change the subject from his blunder to my education. There is a word for that. It begins with B, but I cannot use it because it would be edited out. :

 

[John of Japan]

I did look up a few more NET footnotes, and the use of arm is indeed called a metaphor. It is also said to symbolize military strength. It's use is also called a metonymy. But there is no doubt "arm" is used often to symbolize strength and power. And one more point, more often than not, the NET inserts the interpreted meaning into the text, and footnotes the literal rendering with explanation. Not the best approach in my opinion.

Here is an example from Isaiah 52:10:
52:10 The Lord reveals his royal power15
in the sight of all the nations;
the entire earth sees

Footnote 15: Heb “his holy arm.” This is a metonymy for his power.

Excellent! You are learning. Perhaps now we can have an intelligent conversation--even though you refuse to admit that you have any qualifications (even self-educated ones) to give authoritative statements about translation.

Folks, the case is closed, the best way to present figurative expressions whose literal meaning is not the author's intended meaning is to translate the expression literally, and then footnote the meaning or possible meanings.

Now, you are not representing my position correctly. I have never said that there should never be footnotes to any figurative expression in a translation. (Read "figure of speech" here.) In fact, we have many footnotes of various kinds in our Japanese version. What I was objecting to was your insistence that idioms must always be translated literally with a footnote as to the original meaning. To translate all idioms literally is literally to hide the oiginal meaning. The reader should not have to look in a footnote for the meaning to all idioms.

 

[John of Japan]

JOJ posts the same off topic effort to change the subject. He is so full of himself. The use of footnotes to clarify the meaning of figurative expressions is not ridiculous as he mistakenly claimed. Degrees do not matter, truth matters. Apparently you have yet to attend a school that presents the commands of Christ. He has the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to attempt to change the subject from his blunder to my education. There is a word for that. It begins with B, but I cannot use it because it would be edited out. :

You know, since you came on the BB your insults have gotten worse and worse. Are you sure you're okay? I realize that people sometimes get harsh when enduring trials, so I'm going to take a minute to pray for you right now--and I'm serious.

 

[Van]

51:9 Wake up! Wake up! Clothe yourself with strength, O arm of the Lord!23 Wake up as in former times, as in antiquity! Did you not smash the Proud One? Did you not wound the sea monster? (NET)

Footnote 23: The arm of the Lord is a symbol of divine military power. Here it is personified and told to arouse itself from sleep and prepare for action.

53:1 Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the Lord’s power5 revealed through him? (NET)

Footnote 5 Heb “the arm of the Lord.” The “arm of the Lord” is a metaphor of military power; it pictures the Lord as a warrior who bares his arm, takes up his weapon, and crushes his enemies (cf. 51:9-10; 63:5-6). But Israel had not seen the Lord’s military power at work in the servant.

12:38 so that the word79 of Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled. He said, “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord81 been revealed?” (NET)

Footnote 81: “The arm of the Lord” is an idiom for “God’s great power” (as exemplified through Jesus’ miraculous signs).

BTW, Some might try to draw distinctions without a difference, but that would be ridiculous, like saying footnotes should not be used to explain figurative expressions.

 

[John of Japan]

12:38 so that the word79 of Isaiah the prophet would be fulfilled. He said, “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord81 been revealed?” (NET)

Footnote 81: “The arm of the Lord” is an idiom for “God’s great power” (as exemplified through Jesus’ miraculous signs).

BTW, Some might try to draw distinctions without a difference, but that would be ridiculous, like saying footnotes should not be used to explain figurative expressions.

The NET writer is incorrect. "Arm of the Lord" here is an anthropomorphism, not an idiom. And yes, I am qualified to disagree with the NET writer, since I had a minor in English, taught English in Japan, and now teach college English 101.

An idiom has widespread usage, being a set semantic unit, but the specific term "arm of the Lord" only occurs in the Bible in Isaiah (twice), and in John 12:38 where he quoted Isaiah.

 

[Van]

You are welcome to your opinion, but you do not have the authority to rule on how others use words. If I mirror the usage found in the dictionary, or some commentary, my usage is perfectly oi. Do not behave like some sandbox kid who thinks he is allowed to make the rules. This is not your dojo.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are welcome to your opinion, but you do not have the authority to rule on how others use words. If I mirror the usage found in the dictionary, or some commentary, my usage is perfectly oi. Do not behave like some sandbox kid who thinks he is allowed to make the rules. This is not your dojo.

If this was an actual debate, John wins by a shut out!

 

[Van]

JOJ has been shown to be wrong. My view, use footnotes to explain figurative language has been validated.

Lets just take the last example of blunder:

An idiom has widespread usage, being a set semantic unit, but the specific term "arm of the Lord" only occurs in the Bible in Isaiah (twice), and in John 12:38 where he quoted Isaiah.

Here JOJ is ignoring all the references where "arm" is used to refer to God's strength and power. The Hebrew scripture uses "arm" 38 times in reference to God's power.

It does not matter whether it is called an idiom, a metaphor, a symbol, or some other expression, the way to explain the meaning is with a footnote.

 

[John of Japan]

You are welcome to your opinion, but you do not have the authority to rule on how others use words. If I mirror the usage found in the dictionary, or some commentary, my usage is perfectly oi. Do not behave like some sandbox kid who thinks he is allowed to make the rules. This is not your dojo.

Wow! Linguistic existentialism. I reject it.

Words have meanings. There is a broadly accepted definition for each figure of speech we have been discussing: idiom, metaphor, metonymy, etc. I'm not trying to change the meanings of these universally accepted figures of speech. I accept the dictionary definitions, and have even given some of those definitions.

 

[Van]

5“My righteousness is near, My salvation has gone forth,
And My arms will judge the peoples;
The coast-lands will wait for Me,
And for My arm they will wait expectantly. (NASB Isaiah 51:5)

Now lets consider these references to arms or arm. The arms (plural) will judge the people. Now if we suppose the second person of the Trinity is one "arm" of God, could not the other be the third person of the trinity, especially considering "arm" is used idiomatically to refer to God's strength and power, which is embodied by the Holy Spirit.

But is anyone ready to insert into the text this possible interpretation, "my Son and Holy Spirit will judge the peoples and ...they will wait expectantly for MY Son? See the problem with inserting possible meanings into the very inspired word of God?

 

[Van]

Wow! Linguistic existentialism. I reject it.

Words have meanings. There is a broadly accepted definition for each figure of speech we have been discussing: idiom, metaphor, metonymy, etc. I'm not trying to change the meanings of these universally accepted figures of speech. I accept the dictionary definitions, and have even given some of those definitions.

Would you address the fact the same phrase is called different things and I could throw in a few more. You are straining at gnats.

 

[John of Japan]

JOJ has been shown to be wrong. My view, use footnotes to explain figurative language has been validated.

Lets just take the last example of blunder: Here JOJ is ignoring all the references where "arm" is used to refer to God's strength and power. The Hebrew scripture uses "arm" 38 times in reference to God's power.

I ignored nothing. An idiom is a set expression. There is no idiom in the Bible such as "arm of the Lord." However, there is an oft repeated anthropomorphism in which the arm of God is used in one way of another, just as the term "seed" is often a metaphor (not an anthropomorphism) for God's Word.

It does not matter whether it is called an idiom, a metaphor, a symbol, or some other expression, the way to explain the meaning is with a footnote.

Of course it matters what an expression is called. Simply because you are not aware of the difference between an anthropomorphism and an idiom does not mean there is no difference, nor does it mean the difference does not matter. As for footnotes, sometimes they are necessary and sometimes not. It depends on the target language and culture as per relevance theory. (For any serious student of Bible translation, I highly recommend Relevance Theory, by Ernst-August Gutt. The subtitle is "A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation." It's only $9.00 on Amazon.)

 

[John of Japan]

Would you address the fact the same phrase is called different things and I could throw in a few more. You are straining at gnats.

I will address that as soon as you answer my honest questions as to your qualifications to make authoritative statements on translation. Put up or shut up.

Tell you what. I'll even dumb down my request to just one question: Have you read completely through any technical books on translation? Even one?

 

[John of Japan]

If this was an actual debate, John wins by a shut out!

Thank you kindly.

 

[Van]

By my count you ignored about 35 usages of "arm" for God's power and strength. And it does not matter what you call them, the literal usage does not convey the intended message. Footnotes are needed to explain the figurative expression.

 

[Van]

JOJ loves to change the subject and attack the credentials of those who know his statements are ridiculous. The NET provides footnotes to explain the use of "arm." So JOJ's statement although intended to disparage me, actually identified his animus toward me.