You do know that you are treating the Niv 2011 in same fashion the KJVO do KJV?
-
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
I am calling out your history of complete falsehood regarding the NIV. Never have you produced a single text that supports your vain and sinful accusations. If it's not in the text, it doesn't exist. And you are stuck with being a twister of Scripture.
You mindset does not allow for anyone to point out to you problems with the 2011 NIV!
My mindset does not allow lies to be spouted at will on a fine Bible translation. No lie can be supported if it is not in the text. Will you get that through your thick cerebellum? What you are demonstrating is a lack of integrity.
So must be many others who have had issues with 2011 Revision! Lutherans, SBC,The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, to name a few!
So all of those others are as duped and as much of liars as I am supposed to be?
They have not come up with your sinful mindlessness. None of your reckless accusations are true. You have come up with zilch for proof. Proof must come from the text.
All of them rejected using the Niv2011 die to how it translated passages!
The following snippet comes from The Oxford Essential Guide To Ideas And Issues Of The Bible.
Targums : Robert P. Gordon
"All translations of the Bible are necessarily interpretive to a degree, but the Targums in that they are interpretive as a matter of policy, and often to an extent that far exceeds the bounds of 'translation' or even paraphrase. Even the 'Babylonian' Targums, which over long stretches give the appearance of being fairly literal, often compress in a word or short phrase an illusion to a tradition of interpretation represented elsewhere in rabbinic (usually Talmudic or Midrashic) literature. At those points in the Pentateuch and the historical books where prose gives way to poetry the Targums tend to be more expansive and more pronouncedly 'targumic' in the doctrines and views they superimpose on the biblical text." (p.501)
Targums : Robert P. Gordon
"All translations of the Bible are necessarily interpretive to a degree, but the Targums in that they are interpretive as a matter of policy, and often to an extent that far exceeds the bounds of 'translation' or even paraphrase. Even the 'Babylonian' Targums, which over long stretches give the appearance of being fairly literal, often compress in a word or short phrase an illusion to a tradition of interpretation represented elsewhere in rabbinic (usually Talmudic or Midrashic) literature. At those points in the Pentateuch and the historical books where prose gives way to poetry the Targums tend to be more expansive and more pronouncedly 'targumic' in the doctrines and views they superimpose on the biblical text." (p.501)
"At issue, therefore, in a good translation is where one puts the emphasis: (1) on imitating as closely as possible the words and grammar of the Hebrew or Greek text, or (2) on producing idiomatic, natural sounding English. Or is there some balance between these two?
"....the task of translating into English requires expertise in both languages, since the translator must first comprehend how the biblical text would have been understood by its original readers, and must then determine how best to communicate this message to those whose first language is English....at issue also must be how well nonnative English speakers will understand and use the translation." (taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss, pages 21,22)
"....the task of translating into English requires expertise in both languages, since the translator must first comprehend how the biblical text would have been understood by its original readers, and must then determine how best to communicate this message to those whose first language is English....at issue also must be how well nonnative English speakers will understand and use the translation." (taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss, pages 21,22)
...hmm
Touche!
"A comment should be made here about the word 'paraphrase,' since it is one of the most misunderstood and misused words with reference to Bible translation. The term is often used in a derogatory sense of a translation that is highly idiomatic and so (by implication) misses the meaning of the original. People will say, 'Isn't that just a paraphrase?' and mean 'That is not a real translation --it's too free.' The problem with this definition is that it starts with the incorrect assumption that an accurate translation is necessarily a literal one, and thus an idiomatic one is inaccurate.
"....An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form. This realization makes the popular definition of 'paraphrase' subjective and unhelpful. It would be better to use the term in a neutral sense, meaning 'to say the same thing in different words, usually for the sake of clarification or simplification or simplification.' By this definition all translations paraphrase to one degree or another, since all change Hebrew and Greek words into English ones to make the text understandable. The important question then becomes not whether the text paraphrases, but whether it gets the meaning right.
"We should also note that linguists sometimes use 'paraphrase' in a third sense, contrasting it with 'translation.' While 'translation' is transferring a message from one language to another, paraphrase is rewording a message in the same language....Other functional equivalent versions would be true translations, since they were rendered not from an English version but directly from the Hebrew and Greek." (taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss, pages 31,32)
"....An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form. This realization makes the popular definition of 'paraphrase' subjective and unhelpful. It would be better to use the term in a neutral sense, meaning 'to say the same thing in different words, usually for the sake of clarification or simplification or simplification.' By this definition all translations paraphrase to one degree or another, since all change Hebrew and Greek words into English ones to make the text understandable. The important question then becomes not whether the text paraphrases, but whether it gets the meaning right.
"We should also note that linguists sometimes use 'paraphrase' in a third sense, contrasting it with 'translation.' While 'translation' is transferring a message from one language to another, paraphrase is rewording a message in the same language....Other functional equivalent versions would be true translations, since they were rendered not from an English version but directly from the Hebrew and Greek." (taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss, pages 31,32)
Should the translator be seeking to give forth what he thinks should really mean, or what was really given to us?
Where in Nida's book is any statement that DE translations had been done previously to the TEV? I found no such statement when I read the book. Does Robert Thomas give a page number? For the record, Thomas is not pro-DE, as his other writings indicate.
According to Eugene Nida himself, his theory was entirely new. In fact, the first chapter of his book with Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, is entitled "A New Concept of Translating."
The authors wrote right off the bat, "The new focus, however, has shifted from the form of the message to the response of the receptor. Therefore, what one must determine is the response of the receptor to the translated message. This response must then be compared with the way in which the original receptors presumably reacted to the message when it was given in its original setting." (p. 1)
Thus, in Nida's thinking a translation that does not consider reader response is not DE.
The authors wrote right off the bat, "The new focus, however, has shifted from the form of the message to the response of the receptor. Therefore, what one must determine is the response of the receptor to the translated message. This response must then be compared with the way in which the original receptors presumably reacted to the message when it was given in its original setting." (p. 1)
Thus, in Nida's thinking a translation that does not consider reader response is not DE.
I don't have Nida's book. So I can't provide a page number for you. But it is readily apparent that dynamic equivalence translations were done long before Nida stepped on the scene. Yes, I know that term wasn't used before Nida. but translations were nevertheless using that methodology.
Please clarify. Name a pre-Nida translation and then give an illustration of how the translator did his or her work looking at reader response instead of just translating meaning.
I have numerous quotes from secular translation studies scholars who decried Nida's method. I'll give a few of those.
“Dynamic equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the same as that between the original receivers and the SL message. As an example of this type of equivalence, he quotes J. B. Phillips rendering of Romans 16:16, where the idea of ‘greeting with a holy kiss’ is translated as ‘give one another a hearty handshake all round.’ With this example of what seems to be a piece of inadequate translation in poor taste, the weakness of Nida’s loosely defined types can clearly be seen” (Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies. 3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 1980, 1991, 2002, 33).
“Dynamic equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the same as that between the original receivers and the SL message. As an example of this type of equivalence, he quotes J. B. Phillips rendering of Romans 16:16, where the idea of ‘greeting with a holy kiss’ is translated as ‘give one another a hearty handshake all round.’ With this example of what seems to be a piece of inadequate translation in poor taste, the weakness of Nida’s loosely defined types can clearly be seen” (Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies. 3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 1980, 1991, 2002, 33).