The word of God in english by Ryken

[evangelist6589]

I have had it for almost 10 years and have yet to read it. It still looks brand new. Can someone tell me what this book is about and if its worth a read?

 

[matt wade]

There's a neat place called Amazon.com. It has summaries of books and even reviews. I think that they might have discovered a pretty good business model to sell books. You should check them out.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1581344643/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[JonC]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=68953

 

[annsni]

There's a neat place called Amazon.com. It has summaries of books and even reviews. I think that they might have discovered a pretty good business model to sell books. You should check them out.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1581344643/?tag=baptis04-20

If one has the book, can't they read the summary on the cover?

 

[annsni]

http://bit.ly/Y3zf0t

 

[Van]

To cut to the chase, this book offers a reasoned rejection of dynamic equivalence translation philosophy.

According to Ryken, here are some of what goes into the best translation versions:

1) Accuracy
2) Fidelity to the words of the original.
3) Clarity
4) Theological Orthodoxy - avoid theologically driven (agenda driven) translations that manipulate the text to support doctrine.
5) Preservation of alternate possible interpretations.
6) Preservation of the full exegetical potential of the original text.
7) A good translation does not patronize readers. Translators should not see themselves as priests, doling out truth to the masses.
8) Transparency to the original text.

The book presents several other goals of translation, but the above gives you the basic idea.

 

[Rippon]

Ryken's book is quite poor as I have demonstrated in my thread dealing with the subject.

For books actually done by real scholars who translate try these :

How To Choose a Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark Strauss. In just 170 pages it gives good, practical, sensible information.

For a much more extensive treatment try The Challenge Of Bible Translation. it is edited by Scorgie, Strauss and Voth. However, among its contributers are D.A. Cason, Dick France, Andreas Kostenberger, Doug Mooo and Moises Silva. Its 428 pages are excellent in every way.

One Bible, Many Versions is by Dave Brunn. I can't give it enough praise. It informs a layperson very well. And a few scholars have recognized its value too.

 

[Van]

To review Mr. Rippon's demonstration concerning Dr. Ryken, go here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=68953

It seems it is ok to disparage scholars (i.e. as not real scholars) if they advocate against dynamic equivalence. A member of the translation committee for the ESV should not be misrepresented, putting words in his mouth he never uttered.

 

[Rippon]

To review Mr. Rippon's demonstration concerning Dr. Ryken, go here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=68953

It seems it is ok to disparage scholars (i.e. as not real scholars) if they advocate against dynamic equivalence.

Ryken is not a Bible scholar. He is not a translator. He is quite insufficient for the task to which he assigned himself.

A member of the translation committee for the ESV should not be misrepresented, putting words in his mouth he never uttered.

You cite the thread in which I devoted my time and attention to for many posts. Yet you say that I have misrepresented him. That is your misrepresentation. You can't tell the truth for even a moment Van. I quoted many of Ryken's lines. You simply don't know when to remain silent --people might be able to think you could possibly be wise. But you have opened your mouth and proven how foolish you are. I have not put words in his mouth. You need to heed Exodus 20:16:

YOU SHALL NOT GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR.

 

[Van]

Here is what Dr. Ryken said:

Secondly, blurring the distinction between translation and interpre-
tation sets a limit on the full interpretation of the Bible. To see how this
works, we can compare translations of a line from Psalm 24:10:
• “the LORD of hosts” (ESV and other essentially literal translations).
• “our Lord, the All-Powerful” (CEV).
• “the LORD Almighty” (NIV, NLT).

A literal translation reproduces the original with the rendition
“LORD of hosts.” These “hosts” are the armies or citizens of heaven (or
Israel)—created beings who are under God’s command. By preserving
the image implied in the epithet as we find it in the original and leaving
it open to interpretation (instead of transforming it into an interpretation), the literal rendition allows multiple meanings. To be the leader of hosts requires power, but it implies much besides, just as the epithet “president of the United States” implies much beyond the fact that the president is a powerful figure.

The bolded section of this quote was ripped out and cited as one of five places where Rippon claimed Dr. Ryken view was:

LR seems to think that in the the ESV text a precise job was done to insure an almost exact reproduction of the original into English. He is very wrong.

Note that the quote of Dr. Rippon says absolutely nothing about claiming the ESV "an almost exact reproduction of the original."

Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon presents the views of others is naive.

Here is where Mr. Rippon cited the supposed support for his claim:

141:"A literal translation reproduces the original..."
145: "Translators who strive to reproduce the actual words of the original text..."
146: "A translation that aims to reproduce the words of the original..."

He added to the claim of support in post #7 as follows:

217 : ...[A] translation that reproduces the very words of the original text [has] logic on its side..."
218 : "Translating the very words of the original allows readers to be confident that they have before them what the Bible actually says..."

 

[Rippon]

Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon presents the views of others is naive.

Take your toys and leave your sandbox.

Obey the commandment of Exodus 20:16 :

YOU SHALL NOT GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR

 

[Van]

The second supporting citation, according to Mr. Rippon, was from page 145.

Here is what Dr. Ryken actually said:

My concern here is what theory of translation most
nearly corresponds to the interpretive principle of listening to the text.
My own answer to that question is that an essentially literal trans-
lation most nearly approximates the practice of a reader’s listening to a
text. Translators who strive to reproduce the actual words of the origi-
nal text are like readers assimilating the words of a text. Translators who strive to give more than the text—to impose an interpretation in place
of what the text says—are like readers who have moved beyond their
first task to further interpretive activities.

And yet again, absolutely no support is found for claiming Dr. Ryken said or implied that the ESV "an almost exact reproduction of the original text."
Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon presents the views of others is naive.

 

[Rippon]

[speaking evil/slander is not allowed ]

 

[Van]

Shall we look at the third citation to see if we can find where Dr. Ryken said or implied the ESV "an almost exact reproduction of the original text?"

If we ask what translation theory most closely approximates the act of listening to a text, the answer is obvious. A translation that aims to reproduce the words of the original is most akin to the act of a reader’s humility before a text and a reader’s desire to receive the text as it really is. By comparison, translators who are not content to translate what the original text says—who incessantly go beyond the actual words of the original text—violate the spirit of what I have termed receiving the text.

So we have three in a row where the citation did not support the claim. Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon presents the views of others is naive.

 

[Van]

Not only does a translation that reproduces the very words of the original text have logic on its side (translation of ideas rather than words being an illogical notion); it is also the only type of translation that respects and obeys other important principles regarding the Bible.

This is the fourth citation claimed to provide support for Dr. Ryken saying or implying that the ESV "an almost exact reproduction of the original."

The last and final citation claimed to support that Dr. Ryken said or implied that the ESV "an almost exact reproduction of the original" is the following from page 218:

Translating the very words of the original allows readers to be confident that they have before them what the Bible actually says,
whereas dispensing with the words of the original sets readers afloat in a hypothetical Bible that may or may not be what the Bible actually says.

Again, five out of five, there is no support for Mr. Rippon's assertion that Dr. Ryken seems to think the ESV "an almost exact reproduction of the original.

Case closed.

 

[Dr. Bob]

And thread with petty personal invectives closed as well. :BangHead: