Are you actually reading what I wrote? I TEACH MILLENNIALS IN AMERICA. And I meet millennials all the time out in AMERICAN society.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Col. 1 in the NLT
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
I give up. Tell you what, I'll just ignore you now.
Not concerned with how others translate.
Marty, he has conceded. You've won.
He didn't concede, He just got tired. I know that the young group that he might get at a college is not nearly the "average" Millennial. One finds the "average" Millennials in public high schools. What he gets in his college class are usually the top 10-20% even though to him, they seem average - even below average.
I have had to help enough adults and children with basic reading to know that vast majority would have no clue if they read the original American Standard or King James. This is why such things as the Bible Project are so valuable. People don't give a lot of money to the Bible Project because they think the Bible is "easy" to understand. They give because they know and have experienced and seen others experience difficulties with the Bible. Billy Graham didn't endorse Living Letters because he thought it was not needed. He endorsed it because he say they need for people to read and understand what was going on themselves.
My first Bible after the Living Bible was the NASB - the first one. Although it was helpful in many ways, the NASB promoted a manner of reading which was verse by verse. And this promoted a type of systematics theology. And if you read a systematic theology book, it start by stating what the person believes. The rest of the systematic theology book is spent looking for Bible verses which back up what the writer believes. I disagree with that methodology.
What is kinda upsetting to me is that people nitpick their way verse by verse in the NLT. But these same people don't see how silly it is for people to use a Bible which introduces Medieval Western European mythical creatures. A wholly and horribly incorrect translation. But they say nothing. It's hypocrisy.
For those who deride the NLT for various 'reasons,' I'd like to pose a question. This concerns the average unchurched 20 year old of modest intellect. Would it be better for this person to understand half of the content of an 'approved' translation by the hardcore conservative crowd? Or would it be much better for this individual to understand 90% of the content of the NLT?
I truly did not appreciate you calling my students "abnormal." They are wonderful young people, committed to serving Christ.
He meant 'not the norm.' They are not representative. But you already knew this. You're just itching to be offended.
There are 45 students (juniors and seniors) in the class I am leading right now. (Others lecture with me.) Now, tell me how you know those are all "abnormal," or in the top 10%-20%? They are from many different states and several foreign countries. Can you tell me a single name? Can you tell me their grades?
I just finished teaching Greek in a 9 week block. Nothing like teaching a language to learn how millennials communicate. I have a wide range of students in intelligence, communication skills, and linguistic ability. I had two students who were flirting with failing the class, but came through at the last minute.
Yet somehow you think you know my "abnormal" students by communicating on the BB. Really?
So now I'm a hypocrite. Actually, you know next to nothing about me. You have no idea what I think about the KJV. You don't know what version I read from for personal devotions. You don't know what version we use for family devotions (a different one).
I asked you if you were familiar with the universal grammar theory? Are you? Do you know anything about relevance theory or code theory? Seems like if you are an expert on communication you should know these theories. Do you?
Do you know what optimal equivalence is? Can you define dynamic/functional equivalence?
Here is v. 7.
7 You learned about the Good News from Epaphras, our beloved co-worker. He is Christ’s faithful servant, and he is helping us on your behalf.
7 καθὼς καὶ ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διάκονος τοῦ χριστοῦ,
This is not bad. I would translate it a little differently, but it does not add or subtract data from the original.
7 You learned about the Good News from Epaphras, our beloved co-worker. He is Christ’s faithful servant, and he is helping us on your behalf.
7 καθὼς καὶ ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διάκονος τοῦ χριστοῦ,
This is not bad. I would translate it a little differently, but it does not add or subtract data from the original.
Here is v. 8.
8 He has told us about the love for others that the Holy Spirit has given you.
8 ὁ καὶ δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι.
This verse is also not bad. My only objection is to the use of "told" for the Greek δηλώσας, which Friberg's Anlex defines as:
"1) show clearly, make clear or plain (1C 3.13); (2) indicate, signify (HE 9.8); (3) declare, impart information (1C 1.11); (4) of something divinely communicated reveal, make known (2P 1.14)."
To render this simply as "told" is to lose Paul's colorful nuance. There are several other words in Greek which mean simply "said" or "told." I would render it "shared" here. It occurs six other times in the NT, sometimes with a meaning of physically showing something--quite different from simply "told." It's actually surprising that the NLT translators went with such a routine word here, considering their skopos for the translation.
8 He has told us about the love for others that the Holy Spirit has given you.
8 ὁ καὶ δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι.
This verse is also not bad. My only objection is to the use of "told" for the Greek δηλώσας, which Friberg's Anlex defines as:
"1) show clearly, make clear or plain (1C 3.13); (2) indicate, signify (HE 9.8); (3) declare, impart information (1C 1.11); (4) of something divinely communicated reveal, make known (2P 1.14)."
To render this simply as "told" is to lose Paul's colorful nuance. There are several other words in Greek which mean simply "said" or "told." I would render it "shared" here. It occurs six other times in the NT, sometimes with a meaning of physically showing something--quite different from simply "told." It's actually surprising that the NLT translators went with such a routine word here, considering their skopos for the translation.
Can you define abnormal?
Certainly. It means not normal in a negative way.
"unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way" (Definition of ABNORMAL).
"different from what is usual or average, especially in a way that is bad" (ABNORMAL | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary).
"not usual or typical, especially in a way that is worrying or that shows there may be something wrong or harmful" (ABNORMAL (adjective) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary).
No they are not.
MartyF's post #46 and your post above reflect the conclusion that the Bible cannot be translated so that an average person can understand it without "fixing" the message. Places where the text was altered along Calvinist lines are ignored, and the subject changed to the claim the text must be altered to make it understandable. But, no verse or passage is referenced, to illustrate the point.
I would just have them use the Nas or the Nkjv!
Statistically, I don’t need to. Your students are privileged and much smarter than the rest of the public. They are! Name the the percentage of Americans who get to learn Greek from a distinguished professor!
I never said I knew. I only said I knew that they were abnormal and statistically I am correct.
You haven’t ever attacked the KJV. You are going out of your way to attack the NLT. That’s all the proof I need for hypocrisy. But if you have already started a thread or written a paper about the problems with the KJV, by all means point it out to me and I’ll apologize.
Once again, why haven’t you contacted the lead translator for Colossians? Ask for a public debate? There are obviously professors who disagree with you.
I can see how some people dislike the NLT. For an in depth, verse by verse reading, the NLT is not very good. The NLT’s purpose is to get people to enjoy reading the whole Bible. You might disagree with that purpose and that is fine. But most people do need an easier to read Bible.