Richard Francis Weymouth Said

[Rippon]

This snippet is from the preface of R.F.Weymouth's New Testament translation. It was written in July of 1902. Other snips will follow in days to come.

An utterly ignorant or utterly lazy man,if possessed of a little ingenuity, can with the help of a dictionary and grammar give a word-for-word rendering, whether intelligible or not,and print 'Translation' on his title page. On the other hand it is a melancholy spectacle to see men of high ability and undoubted scholarship toil and struggle at translation under needless restriction to literality,as in intellectual handcuffs and fetters,when might with advantage snap the bonds and fling them away...

 

[Rippon]

This snippet is from the preface of R.F.Weymouth's New Testament translation. It was written in July of 1902. Other snips will follow in days to come.

For the N.T. Greek,even in the writings of Luke,contains a large number of Hebrew idioms;and a literal rendering into English cannot but partially veil, and in some degree distort,the true sense,even if it does not totally obscure it..by this admixture of Hebrew as well as Greek forms of expression.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Keep 'em comin'. I reading his NT right now.

 

[Van]

This snippet is from the preface of R.F.Weymouth's New Testament translation. It was written in July of 1902. Other snips will follow in days to come.

An utterly ignorant or utterly lazy man,if possessed of a little ingenuity, can with the help of a dictionary and grammar give a word-for-word rendering, whether intelligible or not,and print 'Translation' on his title page. On the other hand it is a melancholy spectacle to see men of high ability and undoubted scholarship toil and struggle at translation under needless restriction to literality,as in intellectual handcuffs and fetters,when might with advantage snap the bonds and fling them away...

I think an ignorant and utterly lazy man would simply flip open one of the many interlinears available to all to look at a word for word "translation" of the Greek.

So is there a "needless restriction to literality" or simply a heartfelt desire to get it right? And if a figure of speech is used in the Greek text, why not simply translate it according to its actual meaning with a footnote that presents the literal rendering? Hardly a restriction worthy of the hyperbole "intellectual handcuffs."

What I see is a concerted effort to rewrite the text, adding in the translator's understanding, and removing the actual message of God.

Lets look at John 3:16, "For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages."

Is "greatly" in anyone's interlinear? Nope. Where did it come from? The translator's understanding of the intended message. Is this not clearly the work of an ignorant yet arrogant man. Did he put the added word in italics? Nope.

Lets look at John 6:29, "This," replied Jesus, "is above all the thing that God requires-- that you should be believers in Him whom He has sent."

How would all the Calvinist's react to this translation of the objective genitive. Can you hear clamoring to put the intellectual handcuffs on when the translation conflicts with man-made doctrine?

 

[Rippon]

From Weymouth

It follows that the reader who is bent upon getting a literal rendering,such as he can commonly find in the R.V. or (often a better one) in Darby's New Testament,should always be on his gurad against its strong tendency to mislead.

 

[Rippon]

What I see is a concerted effort to rewrite the text, adding in the translator's understanding, and removing the actual message of God.

Please elaborate.

Lets look at John 6:29, "This," replied Jesus, "is above all the thing that God requires-- that you should be believers in Him whom He has sent."

How would all the Calvinist's react to this translation...

This Calvinist has no problem with it.

 

[Van]

Please elaborate.

Lets look at John 3:16, "For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages."

Is "greatly" in anyone's interlinear? Nope. Where did it come from? The translator's understanding of the intended message. Is this not clearly the work of an ignorant yet arrogant man. Did he put the added word in italics? Nope.

This Calvinist has no problem with it.

If anyone thinks Rippon is saying Irresistible grace, the effective call, the gift of faith, is bogus because John 6:29 says God requires us to put our faith in Christ, rather than God doing it for us, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you.

 

[Rippon]

Is this not clearly the work of an ignorant yet arrogant man.

You are not exactly the kind of person or scholar to put Weymouth in his place Van.

Did he put the added word in italics? Nope.

So what? The whole italics added thingie is so overblown. It is absurd in translating because so much has to be added or even left out.

If anyone thinks Rippon is saying Irresistible grace, the effective call, the gift of faith, is bogus because John 6:29 says God requires us to put our faith in Christ, rather than God doing it for us, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you.

You are a strange person Van. One verse does not a doctrine make. Any true Calvinist would gladly say that the Lord demands that people repent and believe. Why you think John 6:29 negates the effectual call and the gift of faith is beyond the "call" of reason.