Bill Mounce: NIV/TNIV is "Dynamic"

[Yeshua1]

Hear Mark Strauss:

"Some critics have claimed that the only way to protect the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is to translate literally. This, of course, is linguistic nonsense. The translation that best preserves the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is one that clearly and accurately communicates the meaning of the text as the original author intended it to be heard. The Greek idioms that Paul or John or Luke used did not sound awkward, obscure or stilted to their original readers. They sounded like normal idiomatic Greek. Verbal and plenary inspiration is most respected when we allow the original meaning of the text to come through."

Read with understanding. Do not misinterpret. Take your time.[/QUOTE]

At times though, it is best to bring over into the english phrasing and terminology that while might seem to be stilted/awkward, seems to reflect and catch what the original intent of God was!

 

[Yeshua1]

OK. That's what I thought.

The basic dispute here regarding which is the more accurate bible translation to the original intent of God revolves upon which do you think has the best approach to getting to that, one holding to striving to keep readability at all times, or else one who does think that at times its better to keep an awkward rendering, since that would fit better what the original said?

 

[Rippon]

At times though, it is best to bring over into the English phrasing and terminology that while might seem to be stilted/awkward, seems to reflect and catch what the original intent of God was!

!!! Everything you say must end in an exclamation mark!!! It's that significant!!!

Some things in the orginal are obscure. And the obscurity should be maintained. But I think some Bible translations are needlessly awkward --not because the clumsy renderings are more faithful to the original --but just because it keeps to the KJVish phraselogy.

 

[Rippon]

The basic dispute here regarding which is the more accurate bible translation to the original intent of God revolves upon which do you think has the best approach to getting to that, one holding to striving to keep readability at all times, or else one who does think that at times its better to keep an awkward rendering, since that would fit better what the original said?

All of the above is one very long run-on sentence. I can tell you are against readability. Your posts evidence that all the time.

"to getting to that"
"to striving to keep"
"its better to keep"

 

[RLBosley]

The basic dispute here regarding which is the more accurate bible translation to the original intent of God revolves upon which do you think has the best approach to getting to that, one holding to striving to keep readability at all times, or else one who does think that at times its better to keep an awkward rendering, since that would fit better what the original said?

ummm.... what? Brother, Rippon and myself and numerous others have encouraged you to put more (any?) effort into readability and spelling. Please listen.

 

[Yeshua1]

ummm.... what? Brother, Rippon and myself and numerous others have encouraged you to put more (any?) effort into readability and spelling. Please listen.

What is the u;tomate aim for the Bible translation?

To always have it translated so that it retains clear readibility at all times, is always changed to keep up with current English grammar, or else to accept that at times a better rendering into the English might read and seek to be somewhat ackward and "wooden?"

 

[Rippon]

What is the u;tomate aim for the Bible translation?

"U;tomate"?

To always have it translated so that it retains clear readibility at all times, is always changed to keep up with current English grammar,

"always"
"readibility"
"at all times
"is always"

Since you have already used "always" it is not necessary to use the same thought again and again and again in the same sentence. "Readability" should be readability."

or else to accept that at times a better rendering into the English might read and seek to be somewhat ackward [sic]and "wooden?"

"The English" is poor English. The definite article is not necessary.

Why should translators aim to use awkward and wooden language sometimes? You claim that by doing so it would be a better rendering in English. That makes no sense at all. I don't think that is a valid translation principle (to say the least).

Here are some suggestions for your posts:

Make your sentences shorter.
Shorter sentences are easier to understand.
Shorter sentences will usually have less mistakes.
Your goal is for readers to understand what you are trying to convey.
Have respect for the readers of your posts.
Take the time to edit your posts.
You apparently have a great deal of time to make many more posts than the average BBer.
Take the time to evaluate your logic and consistency.
Don't ask the same questions over and over and over.
Do not end most of your posts with an exclamation mark.
Do not use the quote feature to quote very long passages from another poster just for you to add a few lines of your own.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you think that there have been ANY examples where the Niv, in attempting to make it "more clear" to modern reader, missed the mark as compared to how say the Nas/Nkjv chose to translate the passage?

 

[JonC]

Do you think that there have been ANY examples where the Niv, in attempting to make it "more clear" to modern reader, missed the mark...?

Good question. BTW, Yeshua1, do you think that there have been ANY examples where the NIV has arrived at a closer meaning than a "word for word" translation would allow?

 

[Revmitchell]

This readability thing has become abused much like the doctrine the Priesthood of the beleiver. They both have become excuses to justify all kinds of things not necessary. It is all a bunch of hooey.

 

[Yeshua1]

Good question. BTW, Yeshua1, do you think that there have been ANY examples where the NIV has arrived at a closer meaning than a "word for word" translation would allow?

Would say that there are instances where the Niv has made it easier to understand the gist of what was said and meant, but that overall, the more formal version would be preferred...

 

[Yeshua1]

This readability thing has become abused much like the doctrine the Priesthood of the beleiver. They both have become excuses to justify all kinds of things not necessary. It is all a bunch of hooey.

True, as though i am a Nas preferred person, marvel that we must have a revision every 10 years to suit some!

Wonder how God ever was able to use that ole kjv for all those years?

 

[JonC]

This readability thing has become abused much like the doctrine the Priesthood of the beleiver. They both have become excuses to justify all kinds of things not necessary. It is all a bunch of hooey.

I agree. Someone on this board (I can't remember who) actually said that one needed a commentary just to understand the NASB. I am sure that they are not so ignorant of the English language that their statement is true...but there's an example of your hooey. Too many just want to be told what to believe...cliff notes for the Bible...because they don't have time to read and think.

Just imagine....some people actually think that reading Scripture should be more involved than reading a Koontz novel. The nerve of it all .

 

[Rippon]

Would say that there are instances where the Niv has made it easier to understand the gist of what was said and meant,

"The gist"? Surely you jest.

but that overall, the more formal version would be preferred...

To certain people who have little understanding.

 

[Rippon]

True, as though i am a Nas preferred person, marvel that we must have a revision every 10 years to suit some!

So that means you would be the kind of individual to dismiss the updates/revisions of the NLT, HCSB, ESV and other versions.

Wonder how God ever was able to use that ole kjv for all those years?

God is in the business of using the weak and beggardly elements to further His kingdom. By the way, the KJV has had multiple "improvements" over the centuries. It has not been frozon or static. Martin Luther's translation was updated five times in his life alone.

Revisions are needed in all versions. To deny that reality is to live in a fantasy world.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree. Someone on this board (I can't remember who) actually said that one needed a commentary just to understand the NASB. I am sure that they are not so ignorant of the English language that their statement is true...but there's an example of your hooey. Too many just want to be told what to believe...cliff notes for the Bible...because they don't have time to read and think.

Just imagine....some people actually think that reading Scripture should be more involved than reading a Koontz novel. The nerve of it all .

I grow weary of hearing how this translation is clumsy or that translation is awkward. The adjectives assigned to the many various english translations in order to justify their personal preferences as being somehow on a higher plane than all others are just absurd.

 

[Rippon]

This readability thing has become abused much like the doctrine the Priesthood of the beleiver[sic]. They both have become excuses to justify all kinds of things not necessary. It is all a bunch of hooey.

Your typical drive-by has been duly noted ...and ...found wanting. Surprise.

To merely denounce with no supporting evidence is..what shall I say? That's right...hooey.

"Readability thing." Ha, Ha.

 

[Rippon]

I grow weary of hearing how this translation is clumsy or that translation is awkward. The adjectives assigned to the many various english translations in order to justify their personal preferences as being somehow on a higher plane than all others are just absurd.

You need to demonstrate --not just remonstrate.

 

[Yeshua1]

So that means you would be the kind of individual to dismiss the updates/revisions of the NLT, HCSB, ESV and other versions.

God is in the business of using the weak and beggardly elements to further His kingdom. By the way, the KJV has had multiple "improvements" over the centuries. It has not been frozon or static. Martin Luther's translation was updated five times in his life alone.

Revisions are needed in all versions. To deny that reality is to live in a fantasy world.

Not nearly as often as you seem to believe that they do though!

I still have and use bothe the 1984 Niv/1977 nasb, and actually believe their revisions made them worse, not better...

 

[Yeshua1]

I grow weary of hearing how this translation is clumsy or that translation is awkward. The adjectives assigned to the many various english translations in order to justify their personal preferences as being somehow on a higher plane than all others are just absurd.

The cry to have the one that is easiest to understand, or the ones that will fit best into current views on things such as gender/feminism fuels much of this I fear..