Top Three Bible translations

[Reformed1689]

Have you noticed that even in your favorite translations footnotes say "Heb. …." If it was so vital to include the phraseology why not put it in the text? Answer, because it's unwieldly; awkward. In an English equivalency it's not necessary to say all of that. A briefer form of words many times communicates the meaning clearly; whereas Biblish does not.

Not sure what you are talking about. There is no footnote on Esther 4:5

 

[Rippon2]

Not sure what you are talking about. There is no footnote on Esther 4:5

I was obviously speaking of the many occurrences within translations of these kind of footnotes. But there is indeed a footnote for that reference in the NET Bible.

 

[Reformed1689]

I was obviously speaking of the many occurrences within translations of these kind of footnotes. But there is indeed a footnote for that reference in the NET Bible.

You are all over the place. Might I add that I find it interesting how you bash people who disagree with your point of view because they are overly subjective on Bible translations when, in fact, you are the same way yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about in many cases on these threads just throwing in pure conjecture. You are welcome to your opinions, but don't portray them as the absolute way things are when it is demonstrably false.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are all over the place. Might I add that I find it interesting how you bash people who disagree with your point of view because they are overly subjective on Bible translations when, in fact, you are the same way yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about in many cases on these threads just throwing in pure conjecture. You are welcome to your opinions, but don't portray them as the absolute way things are when it is demonstrably false.

Be very careful that you do not get tagged as being a Niv "hater", and get on his bad side!

 

[Reformed1689]

Be very careful that you do not get tagged as being a Niv "hater", and get on his bad side!

I couldn't. Because I use and enjoy the NIV as well as the NLT.

 

[Yeshua1]

I couldn't. Because I use and enjoy the NIV as well as the NLT.

I use the 1984 Niv, not the 2011,so still am "hater"by Him!

 

[Rippon2]

You are all over the place.

On any given thread a wide variety of things are brought up. So anyone participated has to keep up. Perhaps you are lagging behind?

But normally the phrase of "being all over the place" means vacillating on a particular issue. I have been consistent, so I think you are confused.

You had said there was no footnote for Esther 4:5. That was kind of a ill-considered remark because you obviously can't speak for most translations. I pointed out that the NET had a footnote for that verse. But you didn't feel inclined to acknowledge your ill-founded remark.

If you had paid closer attention to my post #76, you would not have said such a silly thing. In that post I was not referencing one translation in particular; I was speaking of the fact that most translations have footnotes. Many translations state that in Hebrew it says this or that. Therefore, the translators felt that which was in the footnotes should not be in the text. What is rendered in the text suffices because on many occasions what the footnotes states is awkward, or wordy, or unnecessary. Lots of times it's just biblish.

 

[Rippon2]

I use the 1984 Niv, not the 2011,so still am "hater"by Him!

"Hater [sic] by Him. Are you speaking of God?

 

[Reformed1689]

f you had paid closer attention to my post #76, you would not have said such a silly thing. In that post I was not referencing one translation in particular; I was speaking of the fact that most translations have footnotes. Many translations state that in Hebrew it says this or that. Therefore, the translators felt that which was in the footnotes should not be in the text. What is rendered in the text suffices because on many occasions what the footnotes states is awkward, or wordy, or unnecessary. Lots of times it's just biblish.

You said in my favorite translations. And that is incorrect, my favorite translations do not footnote that verse as you say on Esther 4:5.

 

[Rippon2]

In that post (#76) I was not referencing one translation in particular; I was speaking of the fact that most translations have footnotes. Many translations state that in Hebrew it says this or that. Therefore, the translators felt that which was in the footnotes should not be in the text. What is rendered in the text suffices because on many occasions what the footnotes states is awkward, or wordy, or unnecessary. Lots of times it's just biblish.

I was emphasizing the principle that nearly all translations have these alternatives in the footnotes. I wasn't referencing one particular translation, or one particular passage.

 

[Reformed1689]

 

[Reformed1689]

@Rippon2 so what was quoting yourself supposed to accomplish?

 

[Rippon2]

@Rippon2 so what was quoting yourself supposed to accomplish?

To reiterate what you were clearly not comprehending.

 

[Reformed1689]

To reiterate what you were clearly not comprehending.

Oh no, I comprehended exactly what you said. Read the FLOW of the conversation, then read your quote. You responded directly to me, we were discussing Esther 4:5 specifically, then you said MY FAVORITE TRANSLATIONS include a footnote that says "hebrew says etc...." which they do not. May not have been what you meant, but it is definitely what you said, and to belittle me because I understood what you actually said, and not what you may or may not have meant, is ridiculous.

 

[John of Japan]

According to Webster, "bastard" is not a bad word. But those on the forum seem to think different.

Definition of BASTARD

What's really bad is that they changed it in such a way as to make it seem I said "bitch" when I didn't.

Definition of BITCH

and Webster does consider that to be offensive.

Many consider "Hell no!" to be offensive. Yet, Webster's disagrees.

Definition of HELL

What makes a cuss word a cuss word is usually the other person who takes offense.

If "God forbid" is short for "I pray to God the he will forbid that", I don't see it as offensive. It's very similar to "God bless".

Now cussing out a person is not a good thing to do, but I don't agree with Rippon's attempt to "win" an argument by trying to twist something into something bigger than it is.

Actually, Rippon notwithstanding, it is not a dictionary that decides if a word or phrase is offensive. That is decided by how people use it. In linguistics, such terms are called taboo words. All of the terms you have mentioned are considered taboo words because they are offensive to a wide variety of people, including probably the vast majority of those who frequent the BB (including me).

Here is a definition: “a word known to speakers but avoided in some, most, or all forms or contexts of speech, for reasons of religion, decorum, politeness, etc.” (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 400.)

 

[rlvaughn]

Here is a definition: “a word known to speakers but avoided in some, most, or all forms or contexts of speech, for reasons of religion, decorum, politeness, etc.”

Do you also find "God forbid" to be taboo?

 

[Yeshua1]

On any given thread a wide variety of things are brought up. So anyone participated has to keep up. Perhaps you are lagging behind?

But normally the phrase of "being all over the place" means vacillating on a particular issue. I have been consistent, so I think you are confused.

You had said there was no footnote for Esther 4:5. That was kind of a ill-considered remark because you obviously can't speak for most translations. I pointed out that the NET had a footnote for that verse. But you didn't feel inclined to acknowledge your ill-founded remark.

If you had paid closer attention to my post #76, you would not have said such a silly thing. In that post I was not referencing one translation in particular; I was speaking of the fact that most translations have footnotes. Many translations state that in Hebrew it says this or that. Therefore, the translators felt that which was in the footnotes should not be in the text. What is rendered in the text suffices because on many occasions what the footnotes states is awkward, or wordy, or unnecessary. Lots of times it's just biblish.

Glad to see that others can see thru some of your bluster in regards to the Niv 2011!

 

[Yeshua1]

"Hater [sic] by Him. Are you speaking of God?

No, yourself!

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, Rippon notwithstanding, it is not a dictionary that decides if a word or phrase is offensive. That is decided by how people use it. In linguistics, such terms are called taboo words. All of the terms you have mentioned are considered taboo words because they are offensive to a wide variety of people, including probably the vast majority of those who frequent the BB (including me).

Here is a definition: “a word known to speakers but avoided in some, most, or all forms or contexts of speech, for reasons of religion, decorum, politeness, etc.” (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 400.)

this is why not always wise to literally translate into English certain words , as think old Kjv used "piss" in a passage, but not same in modern versions!

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh no, I comprehended exactly what you said. Read the FLOW of the conversation, then read your quote. You responded directly to me, we were discussing Esther 4:5 specifically, then you said MY FAVORITE TRANSLATIONS include a footnote that says "hebrew says etc...." which they do not. May not have been what you meant, but it is definitely what you said, and to belittle me because I understood what you actually said, and not what you may or may not have meant, is ridiculous.

Sometimes I wonder if I am not the only one here that has a "comprehension problem"