Featured "the message"

Reading and studying God's Word isn't supposed to be "easy". It's not difficult, but it requires studious effort, digging deep. To really appreciate and learn one must not simply skim read but must make the extra effort to look up those "hard words" to use other passages as references...the best reference for the Bible IS the Bible! When I was a teenager I owned and read The Living Bible. I realize now it was pablum for the young Christian and as we grow in the Lord we should WANT to dig in, inhale the richness and depth of God's precious Word.

I still have that worn-out Living Bible on my book shelf. I keep it, not to read it, but because of the memories of a teen-aged girl seeking to know the Lord more.

 

But a paraphrase can be from one language to another; it doesn't have to be into the same language. It's quite possible to paraphrase from Greek into Japanese, English or any other language. :type:

 

Think the main problem of the message is that it makes the original living bible read and appear to be a real literal edition, such as a NASB!

its so free, no longer should even have Bible on it!

More as a commentary on the bible!

 

Agreed! And not even a mediocre commentary.

 

But isn't that actually a 3-step process? Doesn't the foreign text have to first be translated (somewhat literally) to determine what the author wrote; then understood and interpreted; before it can be paraphrased (re-worded)?

 

A good translator can do it in one step. I'll show you.

katabanti de autw apo tou orouV hkolouqhsan autw ocloi polloi
So, Jesus came all the way down the mountain, and tons of people just gathered around him and then followed him wherever he went. (Matt. 8:1)

 

The problem that I often see around me is that people want Bibles that are the equivalent of TV dinners. Toss in the microwave for a few minutes and supper is ready. Fast, easy, no effort food for the stomach. They want fast, easy, no effort food for the soul.

The problem with those TV dinners is that they never know what's mixed with the peas and carrots, or what has be added, as filler, to the mashed potatoes.

Much like many attending our Sunday school class. It's quite apparent how many haven't bothered to read the lesson ahead of time. Quite apparent that they haven't studied the scriptures associated with the lesson. Thus, they swallow the lesson's author's viewpoint without question. From them I never hear a politely worded THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THAT!

Our quarterly uses the Holman for the scripture reference. In a recent study, Godhead (KJV) was replaced with the word "fullness". Ever hear a SS teacher try to explain "fullness" according to the lesson author's method of avoiding Godhead or Trinity? It wasn't pretty. It was like explaining/justifying "filler" in TV dinner mashed potatoes. (The SS teacher wasn't as prepared as he should have been either.)

It's sad that so many today desire "pablum" and "convenience" spiritual food, fed to them in small bites without any effort on their part. Thus, they'll eat anything that's fed to them.

 

Yes, a good translator! (Not a 'paraphraser'.)

 

If you don't want to be convinced, I can't convince you of course. :tongue3: But here are quotes proving that well known translators consider paraphrasing to be a form of translation:

“Highly paraphrastic translations result from a theory of interlingual communication which justifies the addition of extraneous material or the need to ‘improve’ on the original by rewriting it.” On Translation, by Jin Di and Eugene Nida, p. 8.

“The translator should not, however, consider that in translating the Bible he is writing a commentary on it. This has frequently been the case. As a result, the substituted words and the paraphrasing have not been careful and faithful renderings of the text. For example, one translator, in an effort to interpret the first chapter of the Gospel of John to his constituency, translated, ‘In the beginning was Christ, and Christ…’ (John 1:1). This is an unjustified rendering of the original text, and though the immediate gain in understandability may seem great, the ultimate loss to the reader of the Bible is much greater.” Eugene Nida, Bible Translating, p. 20.

“Eugene Nida, drawing on research from the American Bible Society, considers the problem of translating between different realities. He argues that solutions need to be ethnological, based on the translator’s acquisition of sufficient ‘cultural information.’ Since ‘it is inconceivable to a Maya Indian that any place should not have vegetation unless it has been cleared for a maize-field,’ Nida concludes that the Bible translator ‘must translate “desert” as an “abandoned place”’ to establish ‘the cultural equivalent of the desert of Palestine’ (Nida 1945:197). Here translation is paraphrase. It works to reduce linguistic and cultural differences to a shared referent. Yet the referent is clearly a core of meaning constructed by the translator and weighted toward the receiving culture so as to be comprehensible there.” Lawrence Venuti in a preface to the 1940’s to 1950’s section in The Translation Studies Reader 2nd ed., which he edited, p. 113.