Agedman had some thoughts on Bible translation on a thread now closed.
Among his ideas:
He was saying that a version is good "as long as the Word is as closely aligned with the original as possible."
I agree. But there might be several different approaches with various versions to achieve that goal. Versions can't be called versions if they all used the very same wording. LOL!!
Agedman went on to say that a translation should be "precisely presented as possible."
Perhaps he meant : presented as precisely as possible.
But agedman has an unrealistic goal. Accuracy or precision isn't as exact of a proposition as he suggests.
All Bible translations try to convey the meaning of the original --as much as it is possible
Agedman had said that a translation should be accurately carried over into the English word selection rather than the contextual assumption of the passage (sort of what the NIV, and more extensively paraphrases do do [sic]."
His thoughts are rather awkwardly worded. But I will try to deal with what I think he's trying to say.
I agree that any translation should attempt to convey the original as accurately as possible, as I have said before. However, the terminology of English word selection is a head-scratcher. Most of the time one can plug into an equivalent word or words so easily. Different translations do the transfer in different ways. You can't use a decoder ring to "accurately" transfer the original.
"Contextual assumption of [what he means --a given passage] is unclear.
But I think he's in error here. Good translations have to use a contextual approach most of the time. Translation is not done by a lexicon. You have heard of semantic range --haven't you?
The NASB and ESV use the contextual approach more often than you would care to admit --or possibly even know.
Phrase by phrase and clause by clause is the way to go. John Purvey of the second Wycliffe Bible agreed --he said the Scripture should be translation according to the sense of the sentence. It's not a matter of plugging in isolated words --word chunks. But using phrases, clauses or clusters of words to communicate the meaning of the original.
Among his ideas:
He was saying that a version is good "as long as the Word is as closely aligned with the original as possible."
I agree. But there might be several different approaches with various versions to achieve that goal. Versions can't be called versions if they all used the very same wording. LOL!!
Agedman went on to say that a translation should be "precisely presented as possible."
Perhaps he meant : presented as precisely as possible.
But agedman has an unrealistic goal. Accuracy or precision isn't as exact of a proposition as he suggests.
All Bible translations try to convey the meaning of the original --as much as it is possible
Agedman had said that a translation should be accurately carried over into the English word selection rather than the contextual assumption of the passage (sort of what the NIV, and more extensively paraphrases do do [sic]."
His thoughts are rather awkwardly worded. But I will try to deal with what I think he's trying to say.
I agree that any translation should attempt to convey the original as accurately as possible, as I have said before. However, the terminology of English word selection is a head-scratcher. Most of the time one can plug into an equivalent word or words so easily. Different translations do the transfer in different ways. You can't use a decoder ring to "accurately" transfer the original.
"Contextual assumption of [what he means --a given passage] is unclear.
But I think he's in error here. Good translations have to use a contextual approach most of the time. Translation is not done by a lexicon. You have heard of semantic range --haven't you?
The NASB and ESV use the contextual approach more often than you would care to admit --or possibly even know.
Phrase by phrase and clause by clause is the way to go. John Purvey of the second Wycliffe Bible agreed --he said the Scripture should be translation according to the sense of the sentence. It's not a matter of plugging in isolated words --word chunks. But using phrases, clauses or clusters of words to communicate the meaning of the original.
