What Constitutes a Valid Translation?

[Ed Edwards]

I checked this link and disagreed with its comments. Many comments by NIV Accuracy Defined are not true. I do not recommend it becaise of its dishonesty.

As typical, Brother Askjo, any validity in your comments are lost in the generality of your statement. I highly recommend the document and thank Sister Annsni for reporting it.

Thank you both: Brother Askjo & Sister Annsni, you both add proofs to my signature block statement:

 

[John of Japan]

Is this rendering all "translations" or paraphrases of scripture invalid?

I happen to read most of the so-called translations for their reading ease. I particularly like the J.B. Phillips New Testament in Modern English. J.B. Phillips was an English Anglican Vicar who was liberal to the core, but I enjoy the New Testament and benfit greatly from it in reading modern English as it relates to the Greek NT from any source. I often quote it in sermons and teaching.

I'm not sure what you mean by "translations" in quotes, but yes, to me all paraphrases of the Bible are invalid as translations. You can call them interpretations or commentaries, and that's fine, but they are not what the Bible says but what the paraphraser thinks the Bible says.

That's just the nature of a paraphrase. If as a professional hired to translate from Japanese to English (or vice versa) I were to paraphrase an important business document, I shouldn't be surprised if the business people who hired me were to never hire me again once they figured it out! :type:

I remember when the RSV came out and translated the KJV "virgin" with "maiden". The translation was prolly correct to the Hebrew and context, but fundamentalists viewed it as denying the virgin birth, which was later related in the New Testament. Hence, a very decent translation was totally ignored and castigated by many people.

I remember the RSV also, though I was a little boy. Yes, as far as the translation itself goes it was pretty true to the original. But as you say the Is. 7:14 rendering of almah as a young woman doomed it in conservative/fundamental circles. I've studied out the problem myself and personally I believe that almah always should be translated virgin. I further believe that the translators allowed their liberal presuppositions to overrule their semantic sense.

Benefit from all, throw out that which is incorrect, in your opinion and get on with it. My KJV has so many marginal notations of corrections it is almost unreadable, but I still love it.

Cheers,

Jim

Same with my first Shinkaiyaku Japanese Bible.:thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

I'm not sure what you mean by "translations" in quotes, but yes, to me all paraphrases of the Bible are invalid as translations. You can call them interpretations or commentaries, and that's fine, but they are not what the Bible says but what the paraphraser thinks the Bible says.

Aside from the Phillips NT and the old Living Bible from 1971 (and Clear Word)there haven't been any true Bible paraphrases around in the last half century to my knowledge.Those fighting against paraphrases should join another battle.Now among the more formally-equivalent versions there is a good bit of paraphrasing;but if one would characterize even the more functionally-equivalent translations as paraphrases that would not be accurate.

Just because someone translates in a more formally-equivalent direction does not mean that they are immune from personal interpretation.Translation = interpretation.(I had a thread on that some time ago.)No one can claim that they have the best translational style while other methods are not as faithful to God.

BTW,what is the fine distinction between "what the Bible says" and what someone thinks the Bible says?

 

[Deacon]

I still have a copy of Pearl S. Buck's, Story Bible in my shelf, in the Bible section to boot.

I purchased it soon after I was saved, gives a good general sence of the story of the Bible.

It wouldn't be my choice for study but it serves its purpose.

There are plenty of places where the Septuagint paraphrased sections of the Hebrew Scriptures, it was considered a valid version by the early church for centuries.

Rob

 

[Jim1999]

My knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is not sufficient to translate scripture. I can under stand words and phrases, but I am really dependant on the true scholars of the language.

I do believe, however, that the whole word in any English translation can be worked out in contextual criticism.

I am more dependent on a full knowledge of theology. Never allow one verse to determine a theological viewpoint, and yet one verse can cause one to seek further knowledge in the word to arrive at truth.

My example of Isa 7:14 is evidence of this. Whilst the Hebrew almah can rightly be interpreted as maiden (being the feminine of 'elam,,a young lad...) the right understanding comes from the New Testament where it is rightly understood as virgin. Further, if we understand culture then we also understand that a maiden is a virgin in fact, being hidden from men.

So, one word does not a translation make.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[John of Japan]

Aside from the Phillips NT and the old Living Bible from 1971 (and Clear Word)there haven't been any true Bible paraphrases around in the last half century to my knowledge.Those fighting against paraphrases should join another battle.Now among the more formally-equivalent versions there is a good bit of paraphrasing;but if one would characterize even the more functionally-equivalent translations as paraphrases that would not be accurate.

Just because someone translates in a more formally-equivalent direction does not mean that they are immune from personal interpretation.Translation = interpretation.(I had a thread on that some time ago.)No one can claim that they have the best translational style while other methods are not as faithful to God.

Hey, I don't live in America and I don't work much in English, so I really don't pay much attention to the American scene. In fact, I'm bothered by the fact that many Americans seem to run from one translation to another. Just find one you love, stick to it and live it and obey it!

The fact is, there have been several paraphrases in Japanese over the years, and that is what concerns me, not American paraphrases. So no, I'm not going to go join another battle and leave the paraphrases alone.

And by the way, I'm not trying to insult you, but I'm not really convinced you understand what a paraphrase is. Do you understand the linguistic definition I gave in a previous post? :saint:

BTW,what is the fine distinction between "what the Bible says" and what someone thinks the Bible says?

Fine distinction? Surely you jest! I'll back translate John 3:16 from a Japanese paraphrase and show you the difference. I'll even give the Japanese original for you! The Gendaiyaku says:

神は、そのひとり子でいますイエス・キリストをこの世に遣わされ、十字架上で私たちの罪の身代わりとして死なせるほどに、私たちを愛してくださった。それは、イエス・キリストを信じる人が誰であろうと、滅びることが泣く、救われるためなのである。

"God sent his only Son Jesus Christ to this world, and to the extent that he made his Son die on the cross in the place of our sin, God loved us. So, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will not perish, but will be saved."

Now, if anyone, absolutely anyone on this forum can't find several ways this rendering messes things up, I'll be very surprised! But this is a paraphrase, and this is what the translator thought the verse meant. :tonofbricks:

 

[John of Japan]

My knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is not sufficient to translate scripture. I can under stand words and phrases, but I am really dependant on the true scholars of the language.

I do believe, however, that the whole word in any English translation can be worked out in contextual criticism.

I am more dependent on a full knowledge of theology. Never allow one verse to determine a theological viewpoint, and yet one verse can cause one to seek further knowledge in the word to arrive at truth.

My example of Isa 7:14 is evidence of this. Whilst the Hebrew almah can rightly be interpreted as maiden (being the feminine of 'elam,,a young lad...) the right understanding comes from the New Testament where it is rightly understood as virgin. Further, if we understand culture then we also understand that a maiden is a virgin in fact, being hidden from men.

So, one word does not a translation make.

Cheers,

Jim

Well, there were other problems with the RSV according to some of my Granddad's writings. For example, he says they did a lot of emendation of the Hebrew text. (I have this criticism in a pamphlet by Robert Gromacki also.) He also says that only one translator (Kyle Yates) was conservative, and he was mostly inactive because he took a pastorate Again, since the RSV used a modern Greek text, many objected to such things as leaving out Christ's blood in Col. 1:14. I don't have time myself to check out more than that. The RSV is a dead issue with me.

Once again, I work in Japanese, so I'm concerned about Japanese translations. A recent Japanese NT translation was so liberal that it had two sections for Pauline letters: "Letters by Paul" and "Letters Purporting to be by Paul." And there are other serious problems with it.

There is a fairly recent cooperative Bible between the Catholics and liberal Protestants (hardly a conservative in the group) which is now extremely popular here. While it is brilliant in some places, it is very uneven, and you can see the liberal bias.

I have a real problem with born again Christians pushing translations by liberals. I would never do so. What if my church people heard me pushing a liberal translation and decided it was okay to read other stuff by these guys? As a pastor I have a duty to protect my people, my flock, from false teachers, from wolves.

 

[John of Japan]

I still have a copy of Pearl S. Buck's, Story Bible in my shelf, in the Bible section to boot.

I purchased it soon after I was saved, gives a good general sence of the story of the Bible.

It wouldn't be my choice for study but it serves its purpose.

There are plenty of places where the Septuagint paraphrased sections of the Hebrew Scriptures, it was considered a valid version by the early church for centuries.

Rob

Rob, you must be aware that while the Greek NT quotes often from the LXX, there are many times where the NT writer would evidently do his own translation from the Hebrew. Now if God meant us to think that the LXX was completely reliable--an LXX-Only position, if you will--then surely God would have inspired only the use of the LXX in the NT, instead of the writers sometimes correcting it.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... But as you say the Is. 7:14 rendering of almah as a young woman doomed it in conservative/fundamental circles. I've studied out the problem myself and personally I believe that almah always should be translated virgin...

John (and every one), I did not wish to sidetrack this thread so please look for a new topic based on questions I have about Isaiah 7:14. Thanks

 

[Ed Edwards]

I checked this link and disagreed with its comments. Many comments by NIV Accuracy Defined are not true. I do not recommend it becaise of its dishonesty.

I found some good/true things there:

Accuracy Defined and Illustrated: "An NIV Translator Answers Your Questions (Kenneth L. Baker, 1995)

http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf

appendix C: // At 400A.D., for example, the "majority' rests with the minority families. //

Amen, Brother Baker -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

[TCGreek]

The more I read the TNIV it's the more I'm left amazed at its accuracy and relevancy in today's world.

TNIV for president!

 

[Rippon]

The more I read the TNIV it's the more I'm left amazed at its accuracy and relevancy in today's world.

TNIV for president!

I'm in agreement.The TNIV constitutes a valid translation.

 

[dfj]

Good Thing

I'm in agreement.The TNIV constitutes a valid translation.

I'm Glad to see that they left Mark 16:17-18 in their Translation.

 

[Rippon]

I'm Glad to see that they left Mark 16:17-18 in their Translation.

Most English translations have that section on the same page as Holy Writ.But it is acknowledged to be a tradition and not considered to have been in the original autographs.Many translations merely bracket those sentences and have a disclaimer at the bottom of the page.The TNIV sections it off and has it printed in what looks like one third of the regular type.The footnote says:[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnessses do not have Mark16:9-20.]

 

[TCGreek]

I'm in agreement.The TNIV constitutes a valid translation.

Rippon, I try reading other versions to see if I might switch from the TNIV one day, but I've found none.

The TNIV works for me.

 

[TCGreek]

Most English translations have that section on the same page as Holy Writ.But it is acknowledged to be a tradition and not considered to have been in the original autographs.Many translations merely bracket those sentences and have a disclaimer at the bottom of the page.The TNIV sections it off and has it printed in what looks like one third of the regular type.The footnote says:[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnessses do not have Mark16:9-20.]

Rip, you're you spot on!

 

[EdSutton]

Personally, I consider no English (or any other language , for that matter) translation entirely "valid," in the sense that I do not believe any accurately convey to a 100% certainty, in every instance of a word and/or phrase, the exact sense of the Hebrew and/or Chaldee/Aramaic, and/or Greek languages, as the writers were inspired to pen down the "God-breathed-out" words of Scripture. And this is despite the best intentions and attempts of translators, FTR.

Therefore, this is not an indictment against any version or translation, per se, but simply an acknowledgment that no two languages are identical, a primary Biblical case in point, the Hebrew vs. Greek renderings of the three vs. two identifications of God and Lord. The Hebrew word(s) [El/Elohim (God)] generally render fairly straightforward into the Greek word [God (theos)] from the Hebrew. However the Hebrew word(s) [Yah/Yahweh (often rendered LORD, in English)] by contrast to another word(s) [Adon/Adonai (Lord)] proves a bit more problematic, and a single Greek word [Kurios (Lord)] has to do "double duty", as it were, without fully expressing the OT differences. This is clearly shown in Matt. 22: 42-45, where, although we can figure out this reference, to Ps. 110:1, benefited by the translators, the Greek word is the same- kurios.

This is even more apparent in English. Not all idioms accurately translate, verbatim; NT (at least) verb tenses are 'clouded,' voices are 'silenced,' moods are 'hidden,' and/or any and all the above are non-existent, from one language to another, in some instances, without "adding to" (or "taking away from") Scripture, in order to provide the sense.

Over against that, I consider any and all translations as "valid" where the accurate sense of the language is conveyed in a word or phrase. That even extends to versions I have little to no use for, on any regular basis, generally preferring all "formal equivalence" versions. Yet I have no hesitancy to cite such varied versions as GNB, MSG, D-R, Liv., NWT, etc., when they happen to be appropriate, and do so, for in those instances, I consider them to be fully valid, even though overall, I would definitely consider them far less valid, than some others. I actually recall one instance where the MSG was one of only two (easily accessible, to me) versions that accurately expressed the Greek language (don't remember the verse or the other version, now), where no 'major' "formal equivalence" version did the same, much to my own surprise.

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

Personally, I consider no English (or any other language , for that matter) translation entirely "valid," in the sense that I do not believe any accurately convey to a 100% certainty, in every instance of a word and/or phrase, the exact sense of the Hebrew and/or Chaldee/Aramaic, and/or Greek languages, as the writers were inspired to pen down the "God-breathed-out" words of Scripture. And this is despite the best intentions and attempts of translators, FTR.

Therefore, this is not an indictment against any version or translation, per se, but simply an acknowledgment that no two languages are identical, a primary Biblical case in point, the Hebrew vs. Greek renderings of the three vs. two identifications of God and Lord. The Hebrew word(s) [El/Elohim (God)] generally render fairly straightforward into the Greek word [God (theos)] from the Hebrew. However the Hebrew word(s) [Yah/Yahweh (often rendered LORD, in English)] by contrast to another word(s) [Adon/Adonai (Lord)] proves a bit more problematic, and a single Greek word [Kurios (Lord)] has to do "double duty", as it were, without fully expressing the OT differences. This is clearly shown in Matt. 22: 42-45, where, although we can figure out this reference, to Ps. 110:1, benefited by the translators, the Greek word is the same- kurios.

This is even more apparent in English. Not all idioms accurately translate, verbatim; NT (at least) verb tenses are 'clouded,' voices are 'silenced,' moods are 'hidden,' and/or any and all the above are non-existent, from one language to another, in some instances, without "adding to" (or "taking away from") Scripture, in order to provide the sense.

Over against that, I consider any and all translations as "valid" where the accurate sense of the language is conveyed in a word or phrase. That even extends to versions I have little to no use for, on any regular basis, generally preferring all "formal equivalence" versions. Yet I have no hesitancy to cite such varied versions as GNB, MSG, D-R, Liv., NWT, etc., when they happen to be appropriate, and do so, for in those instances, I consider them to be fully valid, even though overall, I would definitely consider them far less valid, than some others. I actually recall one instance where the MSG was one of only two (easily accessible, to me) versions that accurately expressed the Greek language (don't remember the verse or the other version, now), where no 'major' "formal equivalence" version did the same, much to my own surprise.

Ed

Ed, I see your point, but get this: the Jews of the Diaspora and the Early believers made good use of the LXX.

Every translation project involves a bit of interpretation, because we going from one language to another and decisions have to be made about syntaxes, idioms, and so on.

But we still have to learn to trust the process. :thumbs:

 

[John of Japan]

Here's the thing about the Septuagint. Would an English translation along the same lines, with the same faults, be considered an acceptable translation in 2008 America? I highly doubt it. Very few Americans would make it their Bible. But then there are now literally hundreds of Bible translations in English, with dozens of translations available right now. It's a mad competition in America with huge bucks for the winner--the publisher of the most popular Bible.

When the LXX was being used at the time of Christ, there was nothing else available in the OT in Greek. (Aquila's version didn't appear until the 2nd century AD.) So in this sense bringing the LXX into a discussion about valid 21st century English translations is a non sequiter--it just doesn't compute!

Consider this. There are many tribes and nations around the world with just one Bible translation ever, or maybe just one still in print. That translation may be good, adequate or quite poor. It doesn't matter if we think such a version to be valid or not, a good translation or a poor one, formal equivalence or functional equivalence. It's all they have. It's their Bible.

Add to that the literally thousands of tribes and languages with no Bible, not the slightest bit of Scripture translated into their language. And here American Christians are, wondering which Bible to try out next and spend big bucks on. And are they obeying the last command of Christ, to reach the world? May the tribe of missionary Bible translators increase.

 

[John of Japan]

Most English translations have that section on the same page as Holy Writ.But it is acknowledged to be a tradition and not considered to have been in the original autographs.Many translations merely bracket those sentences and have a disclaimer at the bottom of the page.The TNIV sections it off and has it printed in what looks like one third of the regular type.The footnote says:[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnessses do not have Mark16:9-20.]

But here's the thing: they all include it, every single one of them, even if they put it in brackets, as does every NT I have in Japanese or Chinese. (Not just "most": I dare you to find a single NT that doesn't have it.) And all the Greek NTs include it, every single one. (I have several Nestle's, UBS, several TRs, MT, Byz., W&H and others.) So I believe the Lord has preserved it, never mind what Man does. :saint: