Needlessly Loose Translation Choices

[Van]

No, rather they were trying to convey what the original intent means to us today, and at times they missed the mark, but did not intentionally set up to make a bad translation!

Yet another demonstration of non comprehension.

 

[Van]

So the Nasb missed the mark also?

Why not take a look at how the NASB translates six different Greek words with one English word. Might that result in restricting the intended meanings in the inspired text. What if the text read, the water is cold, and in another verse it said the water was warm, and I translated both verses as the water was wet.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not take a look at how the NASB translates six different Greek words with one English word. Might that result in restricting the intended meanings in the inspired text. What if the text read, the water is cold, and in another verse it said the water was warm, and I translated both verses as the water was wet.

You are asking them to do what the KJV team did,in translating the same word all the time?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another demonstration of non comprehension.

The irony of that statement is very amusing!

 

[Van]

You are asking them to do what the KJV team did,in translating the same word all the time?

Yet another demonstration of non-comprehension.

 

[Van]

The irony of that statement is very amusing!

Yet another demonstration of non-comprehension.
The topic of this thread is needlessly loose translation choices with the question as to why?
None of the contributors have addressed that topic. If you compare the various translations you will find they tend to make the same choices (CSB, NIV, NLT, ISV, GW, ESV and Weymouth) all mistranslated G2638 as surprise. Could "group think" be affecting their choices?

 

[Rippon]

You are asking them to do what the KJV team did,in translating the same word all the time?

The KJV did no such thing. Have you ever read the Preface by Miles Smith?

 

[Rippon]

If you compare the various translations you will find they tend to make the same choices (CSB, NIV, NLT, ISV, GW, ESV and Weymouth) all mistranslated G2638 as surprise. Could "group think" be affecting their choices?

Better than suffering under Van-think.

 

[Van]

Needlessly loose translations are not better than clear and accurate literal translations, footnoted as needed to avoid ambiguity.
A certain group in dire straits may have fallen into a bunker mentality, but Biblical Truth will prevail. But that requires we stand up for clear and accurate translation, over and against the corruptions of loose translations. Beware the war on God's Word, the war on Christ, and the war on Christmas.

Group think: a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics

Bunker mentality: a state of mind especially among members of a group that is characterized by chauvinistic defensiveness and self-righteous intolerance of criticism

 

[McCree79]

A certain group in dire straits may have fallen into a bunker mentality, but Biblical Truth will prevail. But that requires we stand up for clear and accurate translation, over and against the corruptions of loose translations. Beware the war on God's Word, the war on Christ, and the war on Christmas.

You have used this thread to question the CSB renderings and have equated them "loose" here and on other threads. You have accused the CSB of altering God's word as well. Are you no saying they (CSB translation committee--- with Tom Schriener and David Allen leading the team) have declared war on the word of God? Why mention the war on Christ and Christmas? Why associate those ideas with your idea that the CSB is loose. You have failed to provide distinction that "loose translations" are not responsible for this.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

More you, you and you posting without addressing the topic.
1) Does the CSB engage in loose translation choices, i.e. surprise at 1 Thess. 5:4? Yes, the Greek word does not include "surprise" in its historical range of meanings.
2) Did I say anyone "declared war" on God's word? Nope God's word says they will secretly introduce destructive heresies.
3) Has anyone offered a reason for these obvious translation problems. Group think anyone?

Here is an example of shifting away from an accurate translation in order to appeal to a market segment

. Because "tongues” is an appropriate translation and is the word used in every other major English Bible translation,the CSB Translation Oversight Committee elected to adopt the traditional rendering and avoid any appearance of theological bias.

Of course if you don't think speaking in tongues is a modern day heresy, then you would have no problem.

 

[Rippon]

Thanks, you made two of the points of the thread, if sarx was translated concordantly, then one English word or phrase would be used when the meaning intended was physical material (flesh of a body) and another would be used when the meaning intended was associated with sin. Additionally, if sarx is only used to convey those two meanings, then only two sets of distinctive English words or phrases would be needed, not twenty-eight. Twenty-eight would be the result of needlessly loose translation.

You don't understand Van. Sarx cannot be translated with just two words or phrases. No translation that I am aware of does what you want. Maybe you have a screw loose. ;-)

 

[Rippon]

I get it, you like loose translations that alter God's words.

You really need to knock it off Van.

 

[Van]

More off topic, you, you and you posts from Mr. Rippon. Apparently Mr. Rippon likes needlessly loose translations, I certainly have not seen where examples of corruptions due to loose translation have been offered.

 

[rsr]

Here is an example of shifting away from an accurate translation in order to appeal to a market segment Of course if you don't think speaking in tongues is a modern day heresy, then you would have no problem.

That's a canard. Tell me how I Corinthians 14:2 should be translated literally.

 

[Van]

One of the issues in translation is the introduction of ambiguity. And where there is ambiguity, diffing interpretations, all or all but one bogus, are found in the various versions.

The one speaking language not to people, but is speaking to God, for no one is hearing, and even to the Spirit he is speaking secrets. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

 

[Van]

1 Corinthians 14:2 literal translation:
For the one speaking language not to people, nevertheless is speaking to God, for no one is hearing, and even to the Spirit he is speaking secrets. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

Sorry for the double post but the edit feature timed out.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another demonstration of non-comprehension.
The topic of this thread is needlessly loose translation choices with the question as to why?
None of the contributors have addressed that topic. If you compare the various translations you will find they tend to make the same choices (CSB, NIV, NLT, ISV, GW, ESV and Weymouth) all mistranslated G2638 as surprise. Could "group think" be affecting their choices?

Interesting that you are comparing here translations who are formal and more dynamic, so why would both of them be using same word for word process even?

 

[Yeshua1]

More you, you and you posting without addressing the topic.
1) Does the CSB engage in loose translation choices, i.e. surprise at 1 Thess. 5:4? Yes, the Greek word does not include "surprise" in its historical range of meanings.
2) Did I say anyone "declared war" on God's word? Nope God's word says they will secretly introduce destructive heresies.
3) Has anyone offered a reason for these obvious translation problems. Group think anyone?

Here is an example of shifting away from an accurate translation in order to appeal to a market segment Of course if you don't think speaking in tongues is a modern day heresy, then you would have no problem.

Do you understand that what you call "loose translating" would be actually the translators choosing to translate it that way based upon their understanding on how to translate, ant trying to corrupt the Bible intentionally?

 

[Yeshua1]

More off topic, you, you and you posts from Mr. Rippon. Apparently Mr. Rippon likes needlessly loose translations, I certainly have not seen where examples of corruptions due to loose translation have been offered.

There are sections in the Bible where it is best not to do a strict word for word though, such as Idioms, and just because a translation is not strictly formal does not mean a bad translation!