Doug Moo On What We Don't Get

[Yeshua1]

All translations --each and every one of them, need constant revision.

The term 'word-for-word' needs to be retired since no translation lives up to that simplistic and naive ideal.

But you gave two examples --the NKJV and the NASB. They certainly would be strengthened with thorough revisions. And when completed they would no longer be considered remotely 'word-for-word.' They would then be in the category of mediating translations --a very fine place to be --actually a sweet spot.

Listen, all translations do to varying degrees what the NIV states in its preface.

"Faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words."

All Bible translations do that in greater or lesser degrees. It's just that the translators of the NIV are more honest than most PR departments of various competing Bible versions. 'Optimal equivalence' and 'essentially literal' also need to vanish as ways of describing translational methodology.

There is still a distinct difference though between a formal translation and a thought for thought version, and while the mediating position seems to be what many prefer, the truth is still that those versions such as the Nas and Nkjv editions do tend to overall give to us in English what the intended meaning and message of the scriptures are to us...

 

[go2church]

Don't all translations do that?

I think what you perhaps mean is that the NASB and NKJV fit the accepted conservative parameters within their translation and interpretation efforts. By calling it formal verses thought for thought you have set up a construct that is familiar and certainly popular, but not actually helpful or really all that accurate when discussing bible translation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Don't all translations do that?

I think what you perhaps mean is that the NASB and NKJV fit the accepted conservative parameters within their translation and interpretation efforts. By calling it formal verses thought for thought you have set up a construct that is familiar and certainly popular, but not actually helpful or really all that accurate when discussing bible translation.

They were in agreement with the conservative/proper view on the inspiration of the scriptures, and desired to have what God intended to say to us without as much of an interpration as other methods would allow for in the translation!

 

[Rippon]

There is still a distinct difference though between a formal translation and a thought for thought version,

No, there is not. There is a continuum --an ebb and flow. There are no distinct cut-and-dry definitive categories. Due to your ill-informed compartmentalization you still persist in framing things with a fictional view.

those versions such as the Nas and Nkjv editions do tend to overall give to us in English what the intended meaning and message of the scriptures are to us...

Based on your naivety you believe that.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, there is not. There is a continuum --an ebb and flow. There are no distinct cut-and-dry definitive categories. Due to your ill-informed compartmentalization you still persist in framing things with a fictional view.

Based on your naivety you believe that.

Neither of them sought out to try to get into the so called gender bias issue though , have they?

And if you more often then not try to go for a thought for though dynamic rendering of scripture, is that not begging the question of bringing to the text our own baggage of what we think it should have said, or should be seen as meaning now?

 

[Rippon]

Neither of them sought out to try to get into the so called gender bias issue though , have they?

You are hung up on that; aren't you. It has nothing to do with the OP. Please try to stay focused.

And if you more often then not try to go for a thought for though [sic]dynamic rendering of scripture, is that not begging the question of bringing to the text our own baggage of what we think it should have said, or should be seen as meaning now?

Indeed. Your very sentence is an example of a run-on. Can't you phrase things more simply. Be concise.

So-called thought-for-thought means phrase-for-phrase,clause-by-clause and sentence-by-sentence. It means translating sense for sense as John Purvey explained and did with the second so-called Wycliffe translation. It is a reasonable methodology which your favorite translations employ much of the time.

 

[go2church]

Bringing baggage as you suggest is the same as starting with baggage.

 

[lbr0805]

Word for word translations - there aren't any

Even if "word for word" were a better approach, there simply are not any word for word translations. There are about 140,000 words in the Greek New Testament. So one would expect a word for word translation to also have 140,000 words. But look at these word counts for common English translations:
RSV 173,293
NIV 175,037
ESV 175,599
NIV 2011 176,122
TNIV 176,267
NRSV 176,417
REB 176,705
NKJV 177,980
NET 178,929
RV 179,873
ASV 180,056
KJV 180,565
NASB 95 182,446
NASB 184,062
NLT, 2nd ed 186,596
TEV 192,784
Note that the NASB, promoted as being more literal, actually has more words than the NIV and almost as many as the New Living!

 

[John of Japan]

Even if "word for word" were a better approach, there simply are not any word for word translations. There are about 140,000 words in the Greek New Testament. So one would expect a word for word translation to also have 140,000 words. But look at these word counts for common English translations:
RSV 173,293
NIV 175,037
ESV 175,599
NIV 2011 176,122
TNIV 176,267
NRSV 176,417
REB 176,705
NKJV 177,980
NET 178,929
RV 179,873
ASV 180,056
KJV 180,565
NASB 95 182,446
NASB 184,062
NLT, 2nd ed 186,596
TEV 192,784
Note that the NASB, promoted as being more literal, actually has more words than the NIV and almost as many as the New Living!

Welcome to the BB. :wavey:

I just want to help you understand something here--I'm not going to lambast you, but want to help.

The truth is, your figures mean little. Here's why. There are many Greek grammatical forms which require more than one English word. For example, the Greek imperfect active indicative almost always requires more than one word, as in Greek: e;luon = "I was loosing." This is two more words in English than in Greek.

Again, which Greek NT are you talking about? The number of words in the Greek text depends on which one it is. For example, the TR or Byzantine each have many more words than the UBS or Nestles because of the textual criticism done for each.

 

[Van]

Even if "word for word" were a better approach, there simply are not any word for word translations. There are about 140,000 words in the Greek New Testament. So one would expect a word for word translation to also have 140,000 words. But look at these word counts for common English translations:
RSV 173,293
NIV 175,037
ESV 175,599
NIV 2011 176,122
TNIV 176,267
NRSV 176,417
REB 176,705
NKJV 177,980
NET 178,929
RV 179,873
ASV 180,056
KJV 180,565
NASB 95 182,446
NASB 184,062
NLT, 2nd ed 186,596
TEV 192,784
Note that the NASB, promoted as being more literal, actually has more words than the NIV and almost as many as the New Living!

Here you seem to defining formal equivalence with a definition designed to muddy the waters. First, each of the 140,000 or so Greek words have one or more meanings when considered within the context of scripture. Thus, word for word should be "word meaning for word meaning" using either a word or phrase to convey the actual Greek word meaning. Thus "put in charge" could translate a single Greek word meaning.

So the fact formal equivalence versions have more words than the Greek text does not in the slightest indicate they are not word for word translation philosophy versions.

Pick a verse, the better known the better, where a word for word translation philosophy version cannot translate it. Lets see if there is actually any meat on those bones.