• 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!

Dynamic Equivalence--Again!

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
Regarding post #100. JJ has yet to prove that existentialism is foundational in any Bible version of today. No mere assertion will do --only proof from the writings of present day translators and from the texts of English Bible translations.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
JJ brought up the word gold earlier. Of 15 Bible verses the NIV uses it 444 times. That's more than the NKJV (428) and the old KJV (419)Of the 15 translations the KJV uses the word the least.
Which translations use it the most? NABRE (514) CEB (543) and the winner --the NRSV at 545..I have yet to do a study on which translations (if any at all) use the word in a metaphorical sense. It is very doubtful.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
John of Japan said:
His semantics: his belief that no word has exactly the same meaning twice, but the context is absolute in determining meaning.

Context does not change the meaning of the word in the slightest, and it never has.
Click to expand...

The first sentence JJ attributes to Nida. In the second sentence JJ was speaking of the word 'gold' and how the meaning is sometimes altered in a metaphorical sense. But JJ does believe, in the absolute sense that context cannot change the meaning of a word, even in the slightest.

Of course, he is wrong. But I will give some quotes from Bible scholars more knowledgeable than him. These quotes are from the book The Challenge Of Bible Translation with chapters by various authors.

The first quote is from D.A. Carson in his chapter The Limits Of Functional Equivalence In Bible Translation.
"Few translators of any competence would today deny such fundamental priorities as the following :
1. Contextual consistency has priority over verbal consistency (or word-for-word concordance)." [from page 92]

The next quote is from Mark Strauss in his chapter Current Issues In The Gender-Language Debate
"It is context alone that determines which sense of a lexeme is intended within its semantic range." (p.134)

This last quote is from Steven Voth in his chapter Justice And/Or Righteousness.

"...it is necessary to look at the sum total of the contexts in which a given word is used in order to arrive at a more accurate meaning or meanings of a particular lexical unit." (p.326
 
Last edited:
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
This time I will quote from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss. (Fee died five weeks ago.)

"Translators cannot translate words 'literally", they must translate them according to their meaning in context."(p. 48)

"All translation is interpretation. The translator must first determine the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek term in its context. Then he or she must find and English word, phrase, or clause that reproduces that meaning as accurately and clearly as possible." (p.49)

"The principle again is that translation is not a mechanical replacement of words. It is a careful and measured assessment of their meaning in context." (p. 50)
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I looked in on the ignored Rippon, and see that he still doesn't understand translation. (Alas, I have no hopes for the future for him :(.) Just because context does not determine meaning does not mean that context does not help the translator choose the correct meaning. Most words are polysemous, meaning they have more than one meaning. The translator must choose the one that is appropriate for the context in which it appears.

So, though context cannot change meaning, it shows which of possible meanings the translator should choose. For example, ekklesia (ἐκκλησία) can be translated "church" or just "assembly." Our English word "church" has the particular meaning of an assembly of Christian believers. However, ekklesia had the original meaning of an assembly of the citizens of a Greek-city state. Thus, the proper choice of the two ("church" or "assembly") is clear in Acts 19, where it appears twice, is "assembly." Note the KJV:

39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
 
Last edited:
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Concerning Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss, who Rippon is so fond of, both of them worked as NIV translators. So, duh, of course they are partisans Rippon roots for and quotes, since Rippon loves the NIV so much. That's fine. Doesn't bother me at all. Just remember that there are plenty of scholars on my side as well, so Rippon's quotes prove absolutely nothing.

Rippon, carry on with your trolling. :p

P. S. Much of what Rippon quoted by others I would agree with. That is where Rippon is ignorant about me, as I have said and he denied. If I answer all of his posts, though, he'll just continue with his trolling. He doesn't understand what I write, and he certainly doesn't interact with what I write trying to understand. I have no idea what his motives are for his trolling. :Cool
 
Last edited:
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John of Japan said:
2. His semantics: his belief that no word has exactly the same meaning twice, but the context is absolute in determining meaning.
Click to expand...
Note what I said here, which Rippon did not comprehend. Nida believed that context determines meaning. Conservative translators believe that context helps you know the correct meaning, which is already recognized as possible from previous research.

In illustrating this, my scholar son (who has been published in the UBS journal, The Bible Translator) likes to tell the story of the worst mistake I ever made in Japanese.

I was talking to a lady out in front of the bank, hoping to witness to her or get her to church. Trying to make friends with her shy little boy, I said, "Iya rashii desu, ne," (いやらしいですね) thinking I was saying, "He doesn't want to talk to me." What I didn't realize was that those first two words together could mean something different. I was amazed when she grabbed her boy and stalked off with a shocked look on her face. In context, she should have understood that I was just making small talk, but she took it as the insulting word. Going home and looking it up in my big dictionary, I discovered that to her ears I had said (out of context), "Your little boy is a pervert!" :eek:

The point is that context should have pointed out my meaning to the lady, but it didn't. Instead, she relied on a previously understood meaning. The meaning of "pervert" to her trumped my in context meaning of "seems to dislike."
 
Last edited:
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
John of Japan said:
Concerning Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss, who Rippon is so fond of, both of them worked as NIV translators. Just remember that there are plenty of scholars on my side as well, so Rippon's quotes prove absolutely nothing.

Much of what Rippon quoted by others I would agree with.
Click to expand...
See, you are contradicting yourself yet again.
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So, Rippon is still on "ignore," but I peeked just to see--yep, he's still trolling. I'm pretty much done with this thread, since Rippon is the only one responding, and he's not really responding directly to anything I wrote, but just spouting off.

Have a good next thread, folks. I'll be back--with a different thread sometime or other.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
JJ got out of the kitchen because he couldn't stand the heat.

I have asked him direct questions and he dodges them because they make him feel uncomfortable I guess.

JJ speaks with a forked tongue. On the one hand he dismisses the views of the authors I have cited. He says there are plenty of scholars that are on his side and that my quotes prove nothing. Then JJ turns around and says "Much of what Rippon quoted by others I would agree with." So which is it? My quotes are either worthless or he agrees with most of them. JJ is still contradicting himself. He seems not to be able to stop himself. It's a case of JJ vs. JJ.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
@RipponRedeaux, what is at issue is what the word of God actually says being faithfully translated as opposed to what some translators want God to say instead.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
So you do believe translation should be as literal as possible.
Click to expand...
It's better for a translation to be as accurate as possible -- not as literal as possible. The words literal and accurate are not synonyms.

In a Word To The Reader of the NIV it states "accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures.
To achieve clarity the translators have sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context."
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
Translation cannot be accurate without beginning the actual word of God, aka as literal.
Click to expand...
Martin Luther disagrees with you.

"I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew expresses...Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather he must see to it -- once he understands the Hebrew author -- that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, 'Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?' ... Let him drop the Hebrew words and express the reading freely in the best German he knows." (Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 35:193)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top