Elephant dung is the best rose fertilizer known to man !
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Translate This
- Thread starter Rippon2
- Start date
Elephant dung is the best rose fertilizer known to man !
I am satisfied with the old NASV and NKJV, along with the ESV as being adequate translations for most purposes. I see no need for yet another translation, unless it would be correcting errors in those I named above, that I don't recognize. While the English language is changing, most of these changes are simply adding new words. I don't see any profound foundational changes coming in our lifetimes.
I remember the changes that occurred when I was a child. I remember new definitions for "cats & chicks, hep, cool, the most', etc. being added to the vocabulary, and new words such as "ginchy" being added. Then came the language of the 60s while I was a teen. Ginchy became boss, coolest, grooviest, baddest, etc. (I still often use '50s-'60s terminology!)
But the old rules of grammar are pretty-well unchanged from what I learned from my parents & in elementary school. Thus, I don't see any need for a new English Bible version, unless proof is found that the current ones are quite-wrong.
I remember the changes that occurred when I was a child. I remember new definitions for "cats & chicks, hep, cool, the most', etc. being added to the vocabulary, and new words such as "ginchy" being added. Then came the language of the 60s while I was a teen. Ginchy became boss, coolest, grooviest, baddest, etc. (I still often use '50s-'60s terminology!)
But the old rules of grammar are pretty-well unchanged from what I learned from my parents & in elementary school. Thus, I don't see any need for a new English Bible version, unless proof is found that the current ones are quite-wrong.
Tell you what. I've briefly taken you off "Ignore" and am going to give you a satisfying reply. First of all, please don't judge me. I'm stubborn, yes, but I do admit that I'm wrong--when I am.
In this case, you are entirely correct that, according to F. F. Bruce quoting The Bible Translator of Oct. 1955, the term "equivalent express" was used years before Nida coined the term "reader response." Happy now? I hope so.
Now I'm going to burst your bubble. I went to the original source, which you can find online, and Rieu says, "Well, when I came to examine the history of Biblical translation, I found that no such principle had been followed through the ages" (p. 153). He then goes on to say, "And the result is that, even in the Authorized Version, we have very often too literal a translation to produce equivalent effect" (p. 154). So Rieu agreed with me that translators before Nida (and Rieu) did not follow the equivalent effect/reader response principle. And he agreed with me that the KJV translators did not use it.
Last edited:
Nice. I appreciate that.
Good, but it's 'equivalent effect' not 'equivalent express.'
The point is that Phillips and Rieu did, in fact, use reader's response to govern their translations. They used that principle before Nida made his 'invention.' I never made mention of the KJV employing that guideline.
Dr. Rieu is to be respected for his knowledge of Bible translations throughout history. However, I will still be on the hunt for translations that do what he claims none did.
(1700s) Alexander Fraser Tytler, Principles of Translation :
books.google.com/books?id=HbsCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14
"I would therefore describe a good translation to be, That, in which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work."
books.google.com/books?id=HbsCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14
"I would therefore describe a good translation to be, That, in which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work."
Last edited:
But he was a "wannabe" who never translated the Bible or anything else, if the list of his works in Wikipedia is to be trusted. There are plenty of translation wannabes out there.
Correction added: he did a translation of Petrarch's "Seven Sonnets" and one of Schiller's Die Räuber.
Hardly the Bible.
Last edited:
It is better to translate what was intended and meant at the time recorded down.....
I think that Dr MacArthor team will be handling the 1995 Nas as Nkjv did Kjv, updating Grammar and wording, but not getting into Inclusive languaging!
The doctored NASB that "Dr" "MacArthor" is rushing out will be known as the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible).
He secured the Lockman Foundation's approval, that will be reflected on the copyright page similar to how Crossway has to acknowledge that its ESV is an adaptation of the liberal National Council of Church's Revised Standard Version.
(@9:15-9:55)
John MacArthor: the text of the Legacy Standard Bible will be "absolutely accurate" ..."it’s our men from the [Master's] University and Seminary who are doing this ‘refining’ translation."
I have confidence that they will not go rushing into Inclusive Language!
It will have less than the ESV. No surprise there. I don't believe it will become very popular because it is so in-house and narrow --at least from the vantage point of the larger Evangelical Community. It needs to be a bit more diverse, with translators from some smattering of different denominations. Aside from the two particular points of emphasis, very little of the canon will be revised. So I don't see how it's going to get much traction. The 2021 NASB product will get the limelight of attention, and hence sales.
You are basically saying that those who desire to own a real accurate translation are the minority among Evangelical Christians?
You are saying completely false things. It is an habitual practice of yours Y.
Yeshua 1 said:
If 10% is all that is possible then, rather obviously, yes.
No major Bible translation goes word-for-word in any sentence.
Leaving aside the article, which works differently in Greek, they almost all do
John 1:1.
En arche en ho logos.
In the beginning was the word.
kai ho logos en pros ton theou.
and the word was with God.
"If the goal of translation is to reproduce the meaning of the text, then it follows that all translation involves interpretation. Some people say, 'Just tell me what the Bible says, not what it means.' The problem with this is that 'what the Bible says' is in Hebrew and Greek, and there is seldom a one-to-one' correspondence between English and these languages. Before we can translate a single word, we must interpret its meaning in context. Of course it is even more complicated than that, since words get their meaning in dynamic relationship with other words. Every phrase, clause, and idiom must be interpreted in context before it can be translated accurately into English."[p.30 of How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss]
You are confused. I had said that no major translation goes word-for-word in any sentence. That means, none do.
You will be repeating yourself in a short amount of time with your "Leaving aside...."
Fee and Strauss give some examples, first from Matthew 1:18 "Translated literally, says that before her marriage to Joseph, Mary was discovered to be 'having in belly' (en gastri echousa). This Greek idiom means she was 'pregnant.' Translating literally would make a text that was clear and natural to its original to its original readers into one that is strange and obscure to English ears.Psalm 12:2 translated literally from the Hebrew, says that wicked people speak 'with a heart and a heart' (or, as some 'literal versions render it, 'with a double heart'). This Hebrew idiom means 'deceitfully.' Translating literally obscures the meaning for most readers. The form must be changed in order to reproduce the meaning." (p.25)