-
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!
How would a functional translation be superior to formal one?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
You are starting with a false premise.
there was no verbal plenary inspiration of the originals?
atpollard
Well-Known Member
... your question is also assuming that a functional translation is superior, so THAT could also be your alleged "false premise".
Imagine if every copyist that ever lived believed that it was "better" to just transcribe what they thought the author meant rather than endeavoring to preserve the literal words. Would our modern Bibles be better or worse for the experience?
I just read an article about this recently... let me try and dig it up again....
Here it is: From the late Rodney Decker of the Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. in 2006.
VERBAL-PLENARY INSPIRATION AND TRANSLATION by Rodney J. Decker [LINK]
The introduction alone (16 or so pages) is PACKED with information!
Decker defined the interrelationship between doctrines and biblical translation theories.
Spend some time in this article and you will not be sorry!
THEN return to this thread and comment.
Rob
Here it is: From the late Rodney Decker of the Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. in 2006.
VERBAL-PLENARY INSPIRATION AND TRANSLATION by Rodney J. Decker [LINK]
The introduction alone (16 or so pages) is PACKED with information!
Decker defined the interrelationship between doctrines and biblical translation theories.
Spend some time in this article and you will not be sorry!
THEN return to this thread and comment.
Rob
Last edited:
I hold to the formal translations being better, so was asking him why would we see functional ones as being better?
Rod was a good man. I looked forward to reading his articles on a regular basis. By the way, he was a big fan of the 2011 NIV and wrote about it in clear language. His words go against the typical garbage that is thrown around about the NIV.
A great deal of the rhetoric on this subject "represents a poor understanding of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, which historically does not refer to the words as 'words in themselves,' but 'words as they convey meaning.' It is precisely at this point that we would argue that a translation that places the priority of meaning over form is much more in keeping with the doctrine of inspiration, since at issue is the 'meaning' of the inspired words. The translation that best conveys that meaning is the most faithful to this historic doctrine.
….the Christian doctrine of divine inspiration, which concerns not words in isolation, but the meaning of those words in context....An English translation remains God's words when it faithfully reproduces the meanings, grammatical constructions, and idioms, translation can never be simply replacing words. The Hebrew and Greek text must first be interpreted --word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase, clause-by-clause --to determine the original meaning. Then this meaning must be painstakingly reproduced using different words, phrases, and clauses in English. The translation that most closely adheres to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is the one that reproduces the total meaning of the text, not just its words." (From How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Gordon F. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, pages 35,36)
….the Christian doctrine of divine inspiration, which concerns not words in isolation, but the meaning of those words in context....An English translation remains God's words when it faithfully reproduces the meanings, grammatical constructions, and idioms, translation can never be simply replacing words. The Hebrew and Greek text must first be interpreted --word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase, clause-by-clause --to determine the original meaning. Then this meaning must be painstakingly reproduced using different words, phrases, and clauses in English. The translation that most closely adheres to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is the one that reproduces the total meaning of the text, not just its words." (From How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Gordon F. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, pages 35,36)
Here's another article I was looking at:
Just How Literal is the King James Version?
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 37/1 (2011), pp. 27-56
It notes some grand variety in the definition of what a literal translation is.
To always render “the same Hebrew … word by the same English word, and similarly for many types of grammatical constructions” (Nida 1961:11-12).
To attempt “to match grammatical forms and even to employ the same word order, if at all possible” (Nida 1964:23).
To follow source language usage, “(notably in the use of pronouns, prepositions, and participial constructions) to an extent which runs entirely counter to the genius” of the [target]8 language (Kenyon & Gehman 1963:348)
A literal translation is a direct word-for-word translation in which the unit of translation is below the level of the sentence, i.e. a morpheme, word or phrase. Formal changes which are typical of normal translation are not made (Van den Broeck & Lefevere 1979:121).
“Interlineal translation is actually an extreme form of the much more common literal translation, where the literal meaning of words is taken as if from the dictionary (that is, out of context), but TL [target language] grammar is respected” (emphasis in the original) (Hervey & Higgins 1992:20).
Describing “word-for-word” (i.e., literal) translations, Packer (2005:10-11) states that they “are not […] word-for-word in any mechanical sense; they seek simply to catch all the meaning that the text expresses, book by book, section by section, paragraph by paragraph, and sentence by sentence, in a way that the original writer, were he with us today, would recognize as a full and exact rendering of what he sought to put across to his own readership, now expressed in clusters of English words that as far as possible match those that he used himself.”
Grudem et al. (2005) propose an interesting variation of the literal approach to translation, which they call “essentially literal translation.” One of the contributors defines “essentially literal translation” as follows: “‘Essentially literal’ does not mean totally literal. It means that a translation strives to find the English word or combination of words that most accurately corresponds to the words of the original text. It does not mean translating the original in a way that makes no sense in English. Furthermore, retaining the syntax of the original, though not an irrelevant consideration, is nonetheless not a high priority, inasmuch as Hebrew and Greek syntax is so different from English syntax” (Ryken 2005:58).
A literal approach to translation seeks “to reflect as closely as possible the words, expressions and even the structures of the text in its original language” (Noss 2007:14).
Just How Literal is the King James Version?
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 37/1 (2011), pp. 27-56
It notes some grand variety in the definition of what a literal translation is.
To always render “the same Hebrew … word by the same English word, and similarly for many types of grammatical constructions” (Nida 1961:11-12).
To attempt “to match grammatical forms and even to employ the same word order, if at all possible” (Nida 1964:23).
To follow source language usage, “(notably in the use of pronouns, prepositions, and participial constructions) to an extent which runs entirely counter to the genius” of the [target]8 language (Kenyon & Gehman 1963:348)
A literal translation is a direct word-for-word translation in which the unit of translation is below the level of the sentence, i.e. a morpheme, word or phrase. Formal changes which are typical of normal translation are not made (Van den Broeck & Lefevere 1979:121).
“Interlineal translation is actually an extreme form of the much more common literal translation, where the literal meaning of words is taken as if from the dictionary (that is, out of context), but TL [target language] grammar is respected” (emphasis in the original) (Hervey & Higgins 1992:20).
Describing “word-for-word” (i.e., literal) translations, Packer (2005:10-11) states that they “are not […] word-for-word in any mechanical sense; they seek simply to catch all the meaning that the text expresses, book by book, section by section, paragraph by paragraph, and sentence by sentence, in a way that the original writer, were he with us today, would recognize as a full and exact rendering of what he sought to put across to his own readership, now expressed in clusters of English words that as far as possible match those that he used himself.”
Grudem et al. (2005) propose an interesting variation of the literal approach to translation, which they call “essentially literal translation.” One of the contributors defines “essentially literal translation” as follows: “‘Essentially literal’ does not mean totally literal. It means that a translation strives to find the English word or combination of words that most accurately corresponds to the words of the original text. It does not mean translating the original in a way that makes no sense in English. Furthermore, retaining the syntax of the original, though not an irrelevant consideration, is nonetheless not a high priority, inasmuch as Hebrew and Greek syntax is so different from English syntax” (Ryken 2005:58).
A literal approach to translation seeks “to reflect as closely as possible the words, expressions and even the structures of the text in its original language” (Noss 2007:14).
"For the vast majority of people actually engaged in Bible translation, the importance of functional equivalence is a given ---and rightly so. Its victory is hailed by numerous pieces of evidence. There is widespread recognition of the inadequacy of merely formal equivalency in translation, buttressed by thousands of examples. Undergirding such recognition is the awareness that expressions such as 'literal translation' and 'paraphrase' are steeped in ambiguity and, in any case belong, not in mutually exclusive categories, but on the same spectrum. A 'too literal' translation can be as bad as a 'too paraphrastic' translation, if for different reasons." (Taken from the Book : The Challenge of Bible Translation. D.A. Carson wrote the third chapter called The Limits of Functional Equivalence --pages 91,92)
Those who are throwing"garbage" around on the Niv 2011 really liked the Niv 1984, and do have real concerns on the revision!
that is the big problem with functional translations though, as they at times attempt to make it more readably and understandable, but at the expense of giving to us exactly what the intended meaning really was!
again, even formal translations have in place more functional readings, but point is what is the over all main emphasis, formal or functional?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Of course that is subjective though...
But the point is, as you as have admitted, that you have thrown garbage around about the NIV. Garbage of course means totally fictional, made up claims, that are completely baseless. In other words lies. As I have constantly insisted for the last decade and one half --if it's not in the text of the NIV --your accusations have been lies all along. Christians are commanded to tell the truth. Take that to heart.
I showed have quoted that term, as my point is that what you insist is garbage, many would see as being the truth about problems in the Niv 2011!
What does one do with garbage. You throw it away. It needs to be discarded. Your statements about the NIV for the last 15 years needs to be tossed aside, because they reek of sin. Christians need to be truthful. You have shown a distinct lack of integrity. You need to confess and repent of your lies regarding to the NIV and not pass the buck to anyone else. You are responsible for you sins. Get rid of your garbage. It stinks.
Your attitude towards me and others who have expressed concerns regarding the Niv 2011 is the real "garbage"
Wlle sed. Where is Jerome?