Needlessly Loose Translation Choices

[Yeshua1]

One has to wonder why you thought that falsehood? Did you read it somewhere? Pick a word, any word. Let's take "perish" in John 3:13.

How about love, is there one English word for 3 different Greek terms?

 

[John of Japan]

Just to clarify, everyone, the word "concordance" in "translating by concordance" does not refer to Strong's (for the strong), Young's (for the young) or Cruden's (for the crude). It is a technical term in translation studies meaning "quality resulting from the effort to translate a given word from the original consistently by a single word in the receptor language" (The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, p. 208).

Van learned this term from me some time ago, and decided it made him sound more authoritative I suppose, but he is using it wrongly in this thread.

Okay, carry on. Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just to clarify, everyone, the word "concordance" in "translating by concordance" does not refer to Strong's (for the strong), Young's (for the young) or Cruden's (for the crude). It is a technical term in translation studies meaning "quality resulting from the effort to translate a given word from the original consistently by a single word in the receptor language" (The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, p. 208).

Van learned this term from me some time ago, and decided it made him sound more authoritative I suppose, but he is using it wrongly in this thread.

Okay, carry on. Merry Christmas everyone.

Just curious on how you view his tirade against the Csb?

 

[John of Japan]

Just curious on how you view his tirade against the Csb?

I try not to view Van's tirades. I don't consider him expert enough to comment on Bible translation. (No offense, Van. )

 

[Yeshua1]

I try not to view Van's tirades. I don't consider him expert enough to comment on Bible translation. (No offense, Van. )

I do understand his concern with a more formal translation such as the Nas/Nkjv as being better to use to study with, but do not agree with him that the Csb team intentionally tried to dilute the scriptures, nor that it is a bad version!

 

[John of Japan]

I do understand his concern with a more formal translation such as the Nas/Nkjv as being better to use to study with, but do not agree with him that the Csb team intentionally tried to dilute the scriptures, nor that it is a bad version!

It's a good translation (I've read the HCSB) from the wrong Greek text.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's a good translation (I've read the HCSB) from the wrong Greek text.

They use the same one as the esv and Nas did, correct?

 

[John of Japan]

They use the same one as the esv and Nas did, correct?

By George, you've got it--Nestle's/USB.

 

[Yeshua1]

By George, you've got it--Nestle's/USB.

27th or 28th though?

 

[Van]

Yet another empty sack post. Will Yeshua1, who apparently does not even know how to use a Lexicon, enlighten us on how many loose translation verses it takes to invalidate a translation. I can answer the question ahead of time, he will dodge the equation. How about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. On and on they post, avoiding any discussion of the topic, intent it seems on obfuscation.

 

[Van]

Just to clarify, everyone, the word "concordance" in "translating by concordance" does not refer to Strong's (for the strong), Young's (for the young) or Cruden's (for the crude). It is a technical term in translation studies meaning "quality resulting from the effort to translate a given word from the original consistently by a single word in the receptor language" (The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, p. 208).
Van learned this term from me some time ago, and decided it made him sound more authoritative I suppose, but he is using it wrongly in this thread.

Yet another mindless claim of mind reading. He then attempts to tell you how I use words, straight out of the liberal left playbook. I defined concordance. Did he quote that? Nope.

One thing for sure, posts like his make him sound less like an authoritative source. Did he provide a verse that could not be translated using the word for word philosophy method? Nope. So what we have here is an empty sack.

 

[Van]

Just curious on how you view his tirade against the Csb?

Yet another false statement, with no quote. On and on these disinformation posters smear those presenting truth.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another false statement, with no quote. On and on these disinformation posters smear those presenting truth.

You have called the Csb here a translation that played fast and loose and adulterated the scriptures though, correct?

 

[Van]

Yeshua1 apparently is unable to quote, so he guesses. He guessed the KJV translated each Greek word to one English word, demonstrating all his comments about lexicons were not based on knowing how to use one. How would you translate philostorgos G5387?

 

[Van]

A factor associated with needlessly loose translation choices is lack of concordance, where the same Greek word meaning is translated using various forms of the same English word or phrase, such as when we see siblings we would understand fellow born anew believers are in view. OTOH, brothers or brothers and sisters could be used, depending on context to indicate a family or Jewish connection. The concept is simple and straightforward.

 

[Van]

↑
1 Corinthians 7:28 one of those really hard passages to translate!

Funny, the NASB managed to translate it, the LEB managed to translate it, and the NKJV managed to translate it. So what exactly is "really hard" to translate?

We have "affliction in the flesh" presenting an obscure meaning. So instead, the translators could insert ""difficult circumstances" and footnote the literal "affliction in the flesh" phrase. Nothing really hard about that!

28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

28 However, if you do get married, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But such people will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

28 But if you marry, you have not sinned, and if the virgin marries, she has not sinned. But such people will have affliction in the flesh, and I would spare you.

Anything wrong with using "however" rather than "but?" Nope
Anything wrong with using "in this life" footnoted as "in the flesh?" Nope
Anything wrong with footnoting "virgin" with "or betrothed woman?" Nope

So the CSB did not "loosely translate" this "problem" verse. Case closed!

 

[John of Japan]

27th or 28th though?

28th I suppose.

 

[Van]

Another reason for translators to go outside the range of historical word meaning might be avoid copyright infringement.

 

[Van]

Another issue seems to be that the translators do not present the minimum scope of the statement. Let's take John 3:19,

19 This is the judgment: The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. (CSB)

Here "rather" could be interpreted as "instead of". Indicating the people did not love the light. But if "rather" was translated "more readily" then the overstatement is avoided. Many of the apparent conflicts in scripture arise from these "expansionist" choices.

 

[McCree79]

Another issue seems to be that the translators do not present the minimum scope of the statement. Let's take John 3:19,

Here "rather" could be interpreted as "instead of". Indicating the people did not love the light. But if "rather" was translated "more readily" then the overstatement is avoided. Many of the apparent conflicts in scripture arise from these "expansionist" choices.

"Rather" is not an overstatement. Look at v.20. They " μισεῖ τὸ φῶς"( hate the light.). Rather is correct. NASB, ESV, LEB and NKJV all agree. How is this an issue?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk