if we hold to Verbal inerrancy, should we not use Formal translations?

[John of Japan]

Those who argue for "meaning over form" like Fee and Strauss, following Nida, are apparently unaware of the linguistic fact that form holds nuance and sometimes complete meaning (in particles, for example). I could give hundreds of examples, but it should be sufficient to point out that the Greek tenses indicate aspect more than time, especially in participles and infinitives.

 

[Yeshua1]

Those who argue for "meaning over form" like Fee and Strauss, following Nida, are apparently unaware of the linguistic fact that form holds nuance and sometimes complete meaning (in particles, for example). I could give hundreds of examples, but it should be sufficient to point out that the Greek tenses indicate aspect more than time, especially in participles and infinitives.

I am still wondering what a thought for thought translation would be.

 

[John of Japan]

I am still wondering what a thought for thought translation would be.

Like The Message. "Thought for thought" usually ends up as paraphrase.

 

[37818]

A word is often translated by a phrase in the target language. In Hebrew to English it is more so than Greek to English. Assist in translation words.

 

[rsr]

If you are serious about verbal inerrancy, you should learn Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic) and not rely upon translations.

 

[John of Japan]

A word is often translated by a phrase in the target language. In Hebrew to English it is more so than Greek to English. Assist in translation words.

Thus is not "thought for thought" unless there is an equivalent in the target language that is ignored. Many times there is no word in the target language that is equivalent, so a phrase is necessary. This is true for translating "justify" into Japanese, which has no equivalent, but must use the phrase "to make righteous."

 

[Yeshua1]

Like The Message. "Thought for thought" usually ends up as paraphrase.

Why would that be a good translation principle?

 

[Yeshua1]

A word is often translated by a phrase in the target language. In Hebrew to English it is more so than Greek to English. Assist in translation words.

Amplified Bible?

 

[Yeshua1]

If you are serious about verbal inerrancy, you should learn Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic) and not rely upon translations.

Tried to do such in the Koine Greek, but never attempted biblical Hebrew!

 

[Rippon2]

"But why a literal translation is necessarily more in keeping with the doctrine of verbal inspiration, I am quite at a loss to know....The Holy Spirit who inspired the words of Scripture equally inspired the syntax and the idioms. Ultimately what we want of a translation is a rendering that means what the original means, both in denotation and connotation....The question to ask of any particular rendering is simply this : Is this the best possible translation of the passage, taking into account the meaning of the words of both languages, their syntax, their idioms, how this rendering is understood as compared with how a reader of the original text would understand what he read (and even that is a tricky test), and so forth." ( taken from The King James Version Debate ; A Plea For Realism by D. A. Carson, page 90)

 

[Yeshua1]

Thus is not "thought for thought" unless there is an equivalent in the target language that is ignored. Many times there is no word in the target language that is equivalent, so a phrase is necessary. This is true for translating "justify" into Japanese, which has no equivalent, but must use the phrase "to make righteous."

Isn't that what the Amplified Bible tries to do?

 

[John of Japan]

Why would that be a good translation principle?

It wouldn't.

 

[John of Japan]

Isn't that what the Amplified Bible tries to do?

Not really. The Amplified tries to give several definitions or ways of translating difficult passages and words. It doesn't do a very good job, and my Japanese translation partner rejected the Japanese version of it. I understand there is a revision out there, but I haven't seen it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not really. The Amplified tries to give several definitions or ways of translating difficult passages and words. It doesn't do a very good job, and my Japanese translation partner rejected the Japanese version of it. I understand there is a revision out there, but I haven't seen it.

Its based off the Nas I think!

 

[Yeshua1]

Not really. The Amplified tries to give several definitions or ways of translating difficult passages and words. It doesn't do a very good job, and my Japanese translation partner rejected the Japanese version of it. I understand there is a revision out there, but I haven't seen it.

It was giving additional words in order to make more of a commentary on scripture text!

 

[Rippon2]

"Some critics have claimed that the only way to protect the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is to translate literally. This, of course, is linguistic nonsense. The translation that best preserves the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is one that clearly and accurately communicates the meaning of the text as the original author intended it to be heard. The Greek idioms that Paul or John or Luke used did not sound awkward, obscure or stilted to their original readers. They sounded like normal idiomatic Greek. Verbal and plenary inspiration is most respected when we allow the original meaning of the text to come through." (taken from Bible Translation And The Myth Of 'Literal Accuracy,' by Mark Strauss)

 

[Rippon2]

The following is from Bill Mounce's blog dated September 2 last year. The article is called Formal Equivalence Theory.
This is just a snippet :

"My view of 'verbal plenary inspiration' means that the meaning conveyed by every word is from God and should be reflected in the translation; however, if inspiration applied only to the words, then none of us would or should be reading English Bibles since these inspired words are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek."

And the above is basically what rsr said in past #25.

 

[Yeshua1]

The following is from Bill Mounce's blog dated September 2 last year. The article is called Formal Equivalence Theory.
This is just a snippet :

"My view of 'verbal plenary inspiration' means that the meaning conveyed by every word is from God and should be reflected in the translation; however, if inspiration applied only to the words, then none of us would or should be reading English Bibles since these inspired words are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek."

And the above is basically what rsr said in past #25.

We should seek to get what the closest equivalent from Koine Greek and Hebrew to English is whenever possible!

 

[Rippon2]

Bill Mounce Nov. 8, 2019 Words, and Word of God.

Snippets will follow from his blog.

"Some say that because Scripture is the Word of God, then we are required to translate word for word. I believe in verbal plenary inspiration. This means that God's inspiration extends to all (;plenary') the words ('verbal') of Scripture. But I do not think that this mandates the type of translation theory.

"Just because we believe in verbal, plenary inspiration does not necessarily dictate which translation philosophy we follow. The Word of God is true. The Word of God is ex;pressed in words and sentences and grammar and punctuation. But to equate 'Word' and 'word' is not accurate.

"We omit some words since they perform grammatical functions...We move words around to make sense. None of this means one translation camp has a higher or lower view of Scripture."