Idioms

[Rippon]

translation should translate idioms and metaphors and figures of speech, etc, literally and footnote the possible meaning or meanings.

Van, you are being silly again. In John 10:24 the people ask Jesus (literally) "Until when will you take up our souls?"
NASU "How long will You keep us in suspense?" The NASU does not use literal language.

Mark 1:32, translated literally, says that Jesus healed all "those having badly." but it means "those who were sick." The NASU does not speak literally in the text.

In 1 Samueul 10:9 the NASU says that God gave Saul another heart. But the idiom means "to change one's disposition or heart attitude." The NASU did not put the "literal" in the text.

And on and on. Your "principle" just doesn't work in actual practice.

 

[Van]

The NASB is the most literal or one of the most literal translations. Did I say it never tries to translate idiomatically? Nope. So yet another strawman argument, calculated to disparage me (Van you are being silly again) about a position I never took. No quote will be forthcoming.

In post #21, three verses were referenced where the NASB footnoted the literal translation, and presented what was thought to be better way to express the thought in the modern era. The NASB contains lots numbered footnotes that read " Lit. the literal rendition, for example do You lift up my soul." So to take a plus, where the translators were careful to present a more literal rendering, and use it to disparage the NASB is sad indeed. Unlike the NASB, the NET, and the LEB, some other versions provide no footnote.

 

[Rippon]

The NASB is the most literal or one of the most literal translations. Did I say it never tries to translate idiomatically? Nope.

And I did not say that you claimed that it did. No quote will be forthcoming.

But the thing that you constantly emphasize is that Bible versions should translate idioms "literally" within the text and put the meaning in the footnotes.

I have demonstrated that it is not a practical idea. There are too many occasions where it just would not make any sense. Sometimes it it works, but many times it just does not make any sense.

The NASU is a good translation. Yet it is not the be-all-and end-all.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Me, I have an abiding dislike for footnotes in a text only Bible. I want a translation which doesn't rely on footnotes to expand on the basic text. Mind you, there is a place for footnotes in a step above a text only Bible. To me, footnoteing starts to take on the flavor of a study Bible.

 

[Rippon]

Me, I have an abiding dislike for footnotes in a text only Bible. I want a translation which doesn't rely on footnotes to expand on the basic text. Mind you, there is a place for footnotes in a step above a text only Bible. To me, footnoteing starts to take on the flavor of a study Bible.

Well, that won't fly. You have an unreasonable stance. Alternatives sometimes have to be noted. Explanations need to be given. Variants need to be stated. A number of times translators are not sure what some words mean. Take a look at the book of Psalms, for instance. In the NASU you will observe a lot of footnotes indicating that it is unclear what the author was saying. No doctrines hinge on those items however.

It's just a practical thing to have helpful footnotes. I am not in favor of study Bibles. But doing away with foonotes would be unwise.

 

[Van]

But the thing that you constantly emphasize is that Bible versions should translate idioms "literally" within the text and put the meaning in the footnotes.

Yes that is correct. And there are no cases that have been presented where that principle would not work well. On the other hand, cases have been presented where picking an idiomatic rendering presents a questionable translation, i.e. deserving of wrath vice children of wrath.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Did you not read, I limited my dislike to "basic text only" Bibles. I ran in the situation when I read the NKJV for the first time. I had become used to the format of text only KJV (ala the ones published and distributed by the Gideons). Foot and marginal notes have their place in a Believer's Bible tool box. Further, there is no reason not to have more than one translation or edition of a translation on your shelves, other than being able to afford the diversity.

My problem is I want to recommend a Bible without footnotes to a new Believer for his\her first read throughs of Scripture. When they have a bit of maturity, then they can deal with textual footnotes.

Well, that won't fly. You have an unreasonable stance. Alternatives sometimes have to be noted. Explanations need to be given. Variants need to be stated. A number of times translators are not sure what some words mean. Take a look at the book of Psalms, for instance. In the NASU you will observe a lot of footnotes indicating that it is unclear what the author was saying. No doctrines hinge on those items however.

It's just a practical thing to have helpful footnotes. I am not in favor of study Bibles. But doing away with foonotes would be unwise.

 

[Rippon]

Foot and marginal notes have their place in a Believer's Bible tool box.

Well of course.

Further, there is no reason not to have more than one translation or edition of a translation on your shelves, other than being able to afford the diversity.

You mean ;"...other than being unable to afford the diversity."

My problem is I want to recommend a Bible without footnotes to a new Believer for his\her first read throughts of Scripture. When they have a bit of maturity, then they can deal with textual footnotes.

You harbor the belief that having an edition of a translation with footnotes will harm a new believer?

When you use the term "textual footnotes" do you mean textual variants? Or do you mean anything that comments on the verse? There are various helps that enlighten a reader. If you are in the habit of giving out the KJV or even the NKJV to a new believer -- having no footnotes will throw them for a loop. It will be a hindrance to their understanding.

Some new believers come from a church background. Others come from no church background. In the latter I'd give them an NLT. For the first group I'd go with the NIV but footnotes should be included for both kind of candidates.

 

[Rippon]

there are no cases that have been presented where that principle would not work well.

But I have demonstrated that your principle is all wet if you will just note the examples I gave in post 21. The NASU on a number of occasions puts the "literal" in the footnotes and the more understandable rendering in the text. I commend the NASU for that. It just goes agin' the Van principle. ;-)

On the other hand, cases have been presented where picking an idiomatic rendering presents a questionable translation, i.e. deserving of wrath vice [sic] children of wrath.

The NET Bible (a fav of yours) puts both alternatives in the footnotes.

 

[Van]

But I have demonstrated that your principle is all wet if you will just note the examples I gave in post 21. The NASU on a number of occasions puts the "literal" in the footnotes and the more understandable rendering in the text. I commend the NASU for that. It just goes agin' the Van principle. ;-)

The NET Bible (a fav of yours) puts both alternatives in the footnotes.

No the NET does not put "deserving of wrath" in its footnotes. It reads "people characterized by wrath or people destined for wrath." There is no support for the idea that the idiom means "deserving of wrath."

The principle, found for example in the NET where the literal (children of wrath") is footnoted with the possible idiomatic meanings proves that the principle can be used. Therefore the principle is sound and conservative.

 

[Rippon]

No the NET does not put "deserving of wrath" in its footnotes. It reads "people characterized by wrath or people destined for wrath." There is no support for the idea that the idiom means "deserving of wrath."

People are under the sentence of God's wrath. That means they deserve God's anger as the GWT and Weymouth word it. The NIV has "we were by nature deserving of wrath."

Are you under the impression that those under the wrath of God do not deserve the wrath of God?

The principle, found for example in the NET where the literal (children of wrath") is footnoted with the possible idiomatic meanings proves that the principle can be used. Therefore the principle is sound and conservative.

"The principle" is yours. The Van principle says that the literal must be in the text and the meaning should be in the footnotes --not the other way around. How soon you forget your own themes. ;-)

 

[Van]

The principle is found in many translations including the NASB, NET, LEB, and HCSB. The issue is not whether we "deserve wrath" the issue is what was God saying in Ephesians 2:3. His inspired words were "children of wrath."

 

[Rippon]

The principle is found in many translations including the NASB, NET, LEB, and HCSB.

No, you are wrong. The Van principle does not allow the meaning of idioms to be placed in the text --only the "literal."

The issue is not whether we "deserve wrath"

It is a critical issue. If you think people do not deserve wrath then you do not believe the Bible.

the issue is what was God saying in Ephesians 2:3. His inspired words were "children of wrath."

His "inspired words" are found in the Greek --not in a translation.

 

[Van]

No, you are wrong. The Van principle does not allow the meaning of idioms to be placed in the text --only the "literal."

Repeating the mantra "Taint so" adds nothing to the discussion.

It is a critical issue. If you think people do not deserve wrath then you do not believe the Bible.

The issue is non-germane, a lame effort to change the subject.

His "inspired words" are found in the Greek --not in a translation.

The Ephesians 2:3 translation of children of wrath into deserving of wrath is a mistranslation. It is not a literal translation, nor an idiomatic translation, it is a rewrite to make scripture say what it does not say in that verse.

 

[Rippon]

Van, do you wish to renounce your oft-repeated mantra?

From your OP :"I think the best way to handle idioms is to translate them literally, and footnote the possible idiomatic meaning."

You repeated the same idea in post 13 : "...translation should translate idioms and metaphors and figures of speech etc, literally and footnote the possible meaning or meanings."

 

[Van]

Yet another non-germane post calculated to change the subject.

Of course the best way to translate idioms is to present the literal wording in the main text, and footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings in a footnote.

Lets look at the LEB's version of Ephesian 2:3

3 among whom also we all formerly lived in the desires of our flesh, doing the will (a) of the flesh and of the mind, and we were children of wrath (b) by nature, as also the rest of them were.

Footnotes:
a Ephesians 2:3 Or “desires”
b Ephesians 2:3 This phrase is a Semitic idiom which can mean either (1) “children characterized by wrath” or (2) “children destined for wrath”​

 

[Rippon]

Of course the best way to translate idioms is to present the literal wording in the main text, and footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings in a footnote.

There you go. Now that's the Van I know! Of course your favorite version doesn't follow the Van-principle --but you have been known to be inconsistent.

 

[Van]

There you go. Now that's the Van I know! Of course your favorite version doesn't follow the Van-principle --but you have been known to be inconsistent.

Did anyone say any translation version "always" translates idioms literally and then footnotes the possible meaning or meanings? Nope. But that is the best way to handle idioms and several versions such as the NASB, LEB, and NET provide numerous examples.

 

[Rippon]

Did anyone say any translation version "always" translates idioms literally and then footnotes the possible meaning or meanings?

Did I say that you did? Nope. Then why make it up?

But that is the best way to handle idioms and several versions such as the NASB, LEB, and NET provide numerous examples.

Buddy, all three of them do not follow the Van-principle. Many times they put the meaning in the text and put the 'literal' in the footnotes. And that is a good thing. It would be stupid to do otherwise.

 

[Van]

The principle provides the best way to handle idioms. Examples are found in the NASB, LEB and NET.
They all three follow the principle.