Definitions

[Rippon2]

I'll be quoting extensively from my treasured book The Challenge Of Bible Translation. There are a host of authors. But have no fear, I won't cite all of them.

"As with translation endeavors generally, the goal of Bible translation is to transfer the meaning of a biblical text from its source language to some other receptor language so that communication occurs. Everything else about the translation business ---- all the linguistic expertise and scholarly apparatus, the lexicons, and the software ---- is little more than scaffolding." (by Glen G. Scorgie, p.20)

 

[Rippon2]

Glen Scorgie continues on page 26 :

"....A faithful translator is obliged to convey in clear and readable form, not only the meanings of individual words and phrases, but something also of the structure, rhythm, and emotive elements of the original text. Ultimately the 'accuracy' of a translation should be measured by the degree to which a translator has achieved all of these things."

 

[HankD]

Why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire thought for thought instead of word by word?

because we are not mind readers.

 

[Logos1560]

I do no trust anyone to translate a thought. That is called interpretation

If you cannot trust anyone to translate a thought, perhaps you cannot trust any translation since translation involves some interpretation.

Is not the more accurate meaning of individual words determined by how they are used in a certain context [the context would thus involve a thought and not just the individual word]?

 

[Rippon2]

Moises Silva wrote the following on page 43 :

"....intensive training translating clauses and sentences that cannot be rendered word-for-word and thus require restructuring would give students an entree into the authentic character of the foreign tongue....a nonliteral translation. precisely because it may give expression to the genius of the target language (in this case English), can do greater justice to that of the source language (Greek)."

 

[Rippon2]

Kenneth L. Barker has some wise words to impart on page 52 :
"Translation without interpretation is an absolute impossibility, for at every turn the translator is faced with interpretative decisions in different manuscript readings, grammar, syntax, the specific semantic possibilities of a Hebrew or Greek word for a given context, English idiom, and the like....In the very act of deciding, the translator has interpreted."

 

[Salty]

Not to mention - a language 2000+ years old

Lets take a modern day example

So we are talking about dialing the telephone - a term we have
used for decades. BUT if someone in a culture - who never saw the
old dial phones - just the push button phones.

Should we make a direct translation -of "dial" the number or should we
use the thought translation of "push" the number ??

 

[Rippon2]

Not to mention - a language 2000+ years old

Lets take a modern day example

So we are talking about dialing the telephone - a term we have
used for decades. BUT if someone in a culture - who never saw the
old dial phones - just the push button phones.

Should we make a direct translation -of "dial" the number or should we
use the thought translation of "push" the number ??

Crank it up and get put through with the operator.

 

[Rippon2]

I do no trust anyone to translate a thought. That is called interpretation

"The notion that one can translate responsibly without interpretation is, quite frankly, shockingly ignorant of the most basic challenges facing translators." D.A. Carson

 

[Yeshua1]

The NLT is not in the mediating category. Name a Bible scholar who says that.

The CSB is right in the center of the mediating translations along with the NET, NAB and the good ole' Norlie.

So you are putting the CSB in the same turf as the ESV? Curious that you would say that when you rail against inclusive language all the time and you know that the difference between the CSB and NIV in that regard is minimal.

The esv to me is in a unique placing, as not as "mediating" as either Csb/Niv, but not as formal as Nas/Nkjv!

 

[Yeshua1]

Kenneth L. Barker has some wise words to impart on page 52 :
"Translation without interpretation is an absolute impossibility, for at every turn the translator is faced with interpretative decisions in different manuscript readings, grammar, syntax, the specific semantic possibilities of a Hebrew or Greek word for a given context, English idiom, and the like....In the very act of deciding, the translator has interpreted."

Be we must strive to keep our readings into what was really meant to a minimal!

 

[Yeshua1]

"The notion that one can translate responsibly without interpretation is, quite frankly, shockingly ignorant of the most basic challenges facing translators." D.A. Carson

Its in translation, but should be minimized whenever possible!

 

[Yeshua1]

If you cannot trust anyone to translate a thought, perhaps you cannot trust any translation since translation involves some interpretation.

Is not the more accurate meaning of individual words determined by how they are used in a certain context [the context would thus involve a thought and not just the individual word]?

Think formal translations strive to minimize bringing over into the text what we think was meant!

 

[Rippon2]

Its in translation, but should be minimized whenever possible!

You have minimized comprehension skills.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have minimized comprehension skills.

Think that would be due to reading some of your postings!

 

[Rippon2]

Think formal translations strive to minimize bringing over into the text what we think was meant!

"Accuracy is a matter of meaning, not form, and meaning is primarily conveyed by phrases, not just by individual words, all of which have to be interpreted." (Taken from Bill Mounce's blog of September 23,2019

 

[Rippon2]

Think that would be due to reading some of your postings!

Proper spelling and grammar confuse you.

 

[Yeshua1]

Proper spelling and grammar confuse you.

What happened to bearing each others burden?

 

[Rippon2]

What happened to bearing each others burden?

You had said that my postings have basically compromised your comprehension skills. I said in reply that proper spelling and grammar confuse you.

 

[Rippon2]

In my thinking, the NIV is a somewhat functional equivalence translation, more literal than the Good News Bible, but still doing some dynamic renderings.

The Good News Bible is rather defunct by now I would think. A more appropriate and contemporary comparison would be that : The NIV is more literal than the NLT.