Oh really?
A sample:
Last edited:
-
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!
"Formal" vs "Functional"
- Thread starter alexander284
- Start date
- Status
A sample:
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
JOJ has been inconsistent with respect of the use of 'receptor language.' He has denounced its use in the past now he uses it freely. It means the same thing as target language.
Yeah, see, I don't trust your expertise in these matters. No offense, but you know your limitations better than I do.
No, FE usually means functional equivalence. Many authors use it that way. I admit, they usually write the full name first and then (FE). But it is used that way all the time. Usually when they mean formal equivalence, they simply say "formal."
I'm willing to be proven wrong. Give me a quote from an author on Bible translation that uses FE for formal equivalence.
Oh, here we go again. You seem to delight in doing BB searches just to prove people wrong. Hope you had a good time on this one. I can think of better hobbies: chess, sports cards, coin collecting, barrette collecting, ant watching.
The question remains, did I first say "formal equivalence (FE). Or not. Whatever.
Last edited:
I haven't used it on this thread except in referring to Nida's theory in posts 10 & 60. Pay attention!
Well folks, I'm on Spring Break with my wife, sipping a vanilla latte in B&N. This thread seems to have degenerated into "What's wrong with JoJ" (Rippon's usual) thread, but I want to enjoy our vacation. Have a good week!
I agree with you on that, as why stated the textual notes far more important!
Think that the Lsb is a very good choice now also!
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Everything I stated in the first paragraph was factual. Please point out anything that differs from fact. I had started out by telling you that I had never said there are no difficult passages in the Bible. Where you got such a notion I do not know.
Many footnotes contain so-called Lit. renderings. One doesn't have to be a textual scholar to find that out. By the way, do you claim to be a textual scholar? I use my eyes and see many such cases
I also told you that there are a number of uncertainties in the text of the Old Testament especially.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
You have made many threads in the Bible translation forum over the years. And you have also contributed to threads made by others. I didn't single out this thread alone. Open your eyes. You have gone back and forth on the two terms.
Nope. Baloney. I never say "receptor" unless I am quoting Nida or referring to FE (Nida's theory, no matter whether it refers to "formal" or "functional"). Or of course you could go back to when I first came on the BB, which was before I had read any of Nida's works. I'm sure you'll want to try--always trying to prove me wrong about something or other, arntcha.
Bought MCO 15 (the awesome classic Modern Chess Openings) at B&N, traveled to our hotel, had a great walk in the town with my wife, then an awesome steak and fries. Am watching baseball. The Lord is good. お休みなさい。 (Google it.)
Just saw this, and decided to modestly say before I hit the sack that I have had an essay published in a festschrift on the textual variants of εὐθυς in Mark's Gospel from a discourse analysis viewpoint. I dunno. Does that make me a textual scholar?
And once again, お休みなさい。
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
The above is retelling my post #80. I am waiting for you to reply.
Aside from your falsehood regarding difficult passages --putting words in my mouth --everything I made observations about can easily be seen by reading English Bible versions. No particular expertise was needed. But, like clockwork, you tear down perfectly reasonable posts and vaunt yourself. Sort of arrogant of you.
I'm on vacation. Pretty sure the BB rules say I don't have to answer you when I'm on vacation--or any other time, actually!
"Go away, kid, you bother me."--W. C. Fields
Had an awesome breakfast with the wife: cinnamon pancakes, eggs, bacon, lots of coffee. Maybe I'll go look up the Queen's Gambit in my MCO.
Last edited:
Actually, I said no falsehoods and put no words in your mouth. If you will look back, you will see that I carefully stated things in a question. And I'm pretty sure you know the difference between a question and a declarative sentence.
Sitting here enjoying my latte, thinking about our planned pizza supper. Maybe we'll go back downstairs to the pool and whirlpool and relax there after supper. You know, Rippon, you seem very uptight. Maybe you should take a vacation yourself. You need to relax, what with your accusation of a non-existent falsehood, your obsession with attacking my views on translation, etc., etc.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
For the past four days I have been wearing a foley catheter. I have ten more days to wear the thing. Every single hour, 24 hours a day, I deal with two ultra pain sessions lasting about 70 seconds each. That's every hour. Sleep? What's that? Relaxation? I've never heard of it.
Meanwhile, indulge your pleasures.
Someone who doesn't know the history of this subject on the BB may be wondering what the big deal is about the term "receptor," and why I do not use it. First of all, my linguistic/translation training was secular (Tokyo School of the Japanese Language), and secular translators don't use the term, but use "target" instead.
Secondly, Nida's term "receptor" was based in his existentialism, which becomes neo-orthodoxy in theology. All conservative theologians oppose neo-orthodoxy, and all good Christians oppose the godless philosophy of existentialism. Nida's idea was that how the "receiver" of the translation reacts (called "reader response") is the most important fact of a translation.
That the term "receptor" is based in Nida's existentialism is easily proven. Here is just one quote. Nida’s friend and hagiographer Philip Stine wrote, “Nida drew on the existentialist philosophers, particularly Ludwig Wittgenstein, who held that the meaning of any word is a matter of what we do with our language” (Philip Stine, Philip C. Stine, Let the Words be Written (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, 143).
Nida himself wrote in detail how existentialism was a theoretical basis for his theory in his first work on DE: "Those who espouse the traditional, orthodox view of inspiration quite naturally focus attention on the presumed readings of the 'autographs.' The result is that, directly or indirectly, they often tend to favor quite close, literal renderings as the best way of preserving the inspiration of the writer by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, those who hold the neo-orthodox view, or who have been influenced by it, tend to be freer in their translating; as they see it, since the original document inspired its readers because it spoke meaningfully to them, only an equally meaningful translation can have this same power to inspire present-day receptors" (Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of Translating,. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1964, 47-48).
Secondly, Nida's term "receptor" was based in his existentialism, which becomes neo-orthodoxy in theology. All conservative theologians oppose neo-orthodoxy, and all good Christians oppose the godless philosophy of existentialism. Nida's idea was that how the "receiver" of the translation reacts (called "reader response") is the most important fact of a translation.
That the term "receptor" is based in Nida's existentialism is easily proven. Here is just one quote. Nida’s friend and hagiographer Philip Stine wrote, “Nida drew on the existentialist philosophers, particularly Ludwig Wittgenstein, who held that the meaning of any word is a matter of what we do with our language” (Philip Stine, Philip C. Stine, Let the Words be Written (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, 143).
Nida himself wrote in detail how existentialism was a theoretical basis for his theory in his first work on DE: "Those who espouse the traditional, orthodox view of inspiration quite naturally focus attention on the presumed readings of the 'autographs.' The result is that, directly or indirectly, they often tend to favor quite close, literal renderings as the best way of preserving the inspiration of the writer by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, those who hold the neo-orthodox view, or who have been influenced by it, tend to be freer in their translating; as they see it, since the original document inspired its readers because it spoke meaningfully to them, only an equally meaningful translation can have this same power to inspire present-day receptors" (Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of Translating,. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1964, 47-48).
Sorry to hear that. I had emergency surgery on Christmas Eve two years ago, was in the hospital for almost three weeks with all those tubes (had blood clots), then had to wear a bag for six months before having follow-up surgery. So I honestly feel for you.
Last edited:
alexander284
Well-Known Member
What do you like about the LSB? Anything specific about it that makes you consider it to be a very good choice?
alexander284
Well-Known Member
Just a simple example: being "angry" is not the same thing as being "furious."
- Status