Top Three Bible translations

[rlvaughn]

I get that. But the question with taking the Lord's name in vain is not whether it is offensive to humans or not, but does it use the name of God in a way that is not needed.

Right. The standard of right and wrong, good and evil, holds regardless of what men think, and whether they call good evil or evil good.

However, in terms of human interaction, we do have to deal with the taking of offense, as Rippon2 seemed to with "God forbid." If my memory is still intact, I can't say I remember anyone ever before referring to this as taking God's name in vain (though this might be my limited experience). 8 centuries of Christian Bible translators seem not to have noticed it, though they may be wrong. I don't know the philosophy of new translations that avoid it, though I'd guess they are trying to be more word-for-word than idiom for idiom. The older translators seemed to be going for a sort of "optimal equivalence," translating a Greek idiom with what they saw as a parallel English idiom.

 

[John of Japan]

Right. The standard of right and wrong, good and evil, holds regardless of what men think, and whether they call good evil or evil good.

However, in terms of human interaction, we do have to deal with the taking of offense, as Rippon2 seemed to with "God forbid." If my memory is still intact, I can't say I remember anyone ever before referring to this as taking God's name in vain (though this might be my limited experience). 8 centuries of Christian Bible translators seem not to have noticed it, though they may be wrong. I don't know the philosophy of new translations that avoid it, though I'd guess they are trying to be more word-for-word than idiom for idiom. The older translators seemed to be going for a sort of "optimal equivalence," translating a Greek idiom with what they saw as a parallel English idiom.

Don't worry about Rippon. He's going to be that way regardless.

I do have a fellow prof who thinks "God forbid" is taking the Lord's name in vain. Personally, I'd have to research the usage of the phrase in 1611 to come down on one side or the other.

I do have to say, though, that "God forbid" is an idiom, but "May it not be" (me genoito in Greek) is not. So the KJV translators rendered an idiom for a non-idiom, which is often problematic.

 

[rlvaughn]

As to me genoito being an idiom (or not), I will defer to you at this point, with the caveat that I feel certain I have read other Greek scholars who said it is. However, I don't have any evidence of that before me at the moment.

 

[rlvaughn]

In my 14 year history on the BB I have always had the same stance regarding it --that it is an offensive term, and that it is an unnecessary dynamic equivalent.

Thanks for the clarification re your history. My comment related to your more recent history (since January 2020), in which you and Yeshua1 are continually tit-for-tatting about formal and dynamic equivalence.

 

[Yeshua1]

Don't worry about Rippon. He's going to be that way regardless.

I do have a fellow prof who thinks "God forbid" is taking the Lord's name in vain. Personally, I'd have to research the usage of the phrase in 1611 to come down on one side or the other.

I do have to say, though, that "God forbid" is an idiom, but "May it not be" (me genoito in Greek) is not. So the KJV translators rendered an idiom for a non-idiom, which is often problematic.

I would just be suggesting that Paul would be saying "God forbid" as ther strongest way of stating that could never be happening!

 

[Yeshua1]

Greater than what it actually says though?

I think that Paul would have been so sure about could not be happening, 'God Forbid" alerts us to that!

 

[Reformed1689]

I think that Paul would have been so sure about could not be happening, 'God Forbid" alerts us to that!

But it isn't what the text says.

 

[Rippon2]

Thanks for the clarification re your history. My comment related to your more recent history (since January 2020), in which you and Yeshua1 are continually tit-for-tatting about formal and dynamic equivalence.

No, you are mistaken. It has revolved around complete falsehoods regarding the NIV. The accusations that he has leveled at the NIV, and of course, its translators, have been made up bunk. If it's not in the text --it is completely untrue. Why would a professing Christian continue to say entirely false things about Scripture? That's the definitive meaning of Scripture twisting. It's not a matter of differing opinions.

 

[Yeshua1]

But it isn't what the text says.

I agree, I am just suggesting that it would not be violating taking our Lord's name in vain if used though...

 

[John of Japan]

As to me genoito being an idiom (or not), I will defer to you at this point, with the caveat that I feel certain I have read other Greek scholars who said it is. However, I don't have any evidence of that before me at the moment.

Translating idioms is perhaps the most problematic area of any form of translation, since an idiom is a word or phrase which does not carry the literal meaning. Very few even of scholars know how to define the idiom properly. For example, I have a book of English

My point is, me genoito does mean exactly what it says, though it is in what is called the "Greek idiom." It is important to understand the difference between an idiom as a figure of speech, and the "idiom" of a certain language.

 

[rlvaughn]

No, you are mistaken.

What you perceive you are accomplishing and what the average BB reader takes away from it may be quite different.

 

[Yeshua1]

What you perceive you are accomplishing and what the average BB reader takes away from it may be quite different.

John of japan I would wager knows a lot more about the technical/textual side of the scriptures then pretty much most of us here!

 

[rlvaughn]

Translating idioms is perhaps the most problematic area of any form of translation, since an idiom is a word or phrase which does not carry the literal meaning. Very few even of scholars know how to define the idiom properly. For example, I have a book of English

My point is, me genoito does mean exactly what it says, though it is in what is called the "Greek idiom." It is important to understand the difference between an idiom as a figure of speech, and the "idiom" of a certain language.

Thanks. Looks like something that could prove helpful got cut off in the middle of your post.

 

[McCree79]

I don't think you mean as a adverb.

I do actually.

He seems to be suggesting we can use "god" to add emphasis. Such as a substitute for "strongly" forbid.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

I do actually.

He seems to be suggesting we can use "god" to add emphasis. Such as a substitute for "strongly" forbid.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It would be Paul appealing to the highest authority to stress that it cannot ever happen!

 

[John of Japan]

Very few even of scholars know how to define the idiom properly. For example, I have a book of English

Oops. I didn't finish this statement. I was going to say that even a book of English idioms proclaims that an idiom must be two or more words: “An idiom...consists of more than one word.” However, in the book there are many one-word idioms, such as “arms” (weapons), “axe” (used when firing someone), “baloney.”

I can give several other "scholarly" examples of definitions that say that an idiom is more than one word: Nida and Tabor's book, and two different dictionaries of linguistics that I have. But that's wrong, so it's not surprising that certain Greek scholars think that me genoito is an idiom.

 

[John of Japan]

I do actually.

He seems to be suggesting we can use "god" to add emphasis. Such as a substitute for "strongly" forbid.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Okay, I see what you mean.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks. Looks like something that could prove helpful got cut off in the middle of your post.

Sorry. See Post #156.

 

[Rippon2]

What you perceive you are accomplishing and what the average BB reader takes away from it may be quite different.

What you have misunderstood as a difference of translational philosophies means that you haven't been paying attention. If others on the BB feel as you do, then there is a brain deficit here. I would hope otherwise.

 

[rlvaughn]

What a hoot! But you are partially right; when y'all drone on and on, people stop paying attention.