What Is a Paraphrase?

[John of Japan]

I think we have taken this thread as far as it will go. We had 4 posters, and all have finished just about where we started.

I did have to dig out a few old books I hadn't looked at in years though. So that is a good thing.

Cheers friends, and thank you for this little diversion.

Jim

Thanks for your contributions, Jim! I'm glad you enjoyed the thread and were stimulated to do a little study.

I agree that the thread has gone about as far as it will go. I've done my best to give my side of the argument, and I think you and Rippon have brought out some good quotes and points. We'll agree to disagree at this point.

 

[Jim1999]

John, I don't think we disagree totally, but we follow a slightly different direction and end up at the same end; truth.

If we had devious ends because of our approaches, I should be very much concerned. I dislike nastiness, so I would not like that end.

Yes, I did have to do a little digging, and that was a good thing. Sometimes when we get older we tend to slack off a little and it is good to get a little shaking at times.

Perhaps I know what I want to believe and have settled into that position. I ran all these gamuts some 50-60 years ago. It is like those who get all excited about liberal theology to-day. I was there when it was a real fight, so I am not so shocked when some bloke makes an outlandish statement about it.

I did enjoy hearing from you lads who are working in a different language and I appreciate the relative importance of rightly understanding the language, the culture and the people themselves in the presentation of God's precious word.

Cheers, and rich blessings as you labour in His love,

Jim

 

[John of Japan]

John, I don't think we disagree totally, but we follow a slightly different direction and end up at the same end; truth.

If we had devious ends because of our approaches, I should be very much concerned. I dislike nastiness, so I would not like that end.

Yes, I did have to do a little digging, and that was a good thing. Sometimes when we get older we tend to slack off a little and it is good to get a little shaking at times.

Perhaps I know what I want to believe and have settled into that position. I ran all these gamuts some 50-60 years ago. It is like those who get all excited about liberal theology to-day. I was there when it was a real fight, so I am not so shocked when some bloke makes an outlandish statement about it.

I did enjoy hearing from you lads who are working in a different language and I appreciate the relative importance of rightly understanding the language, the culture and the people themselves in the presentation of God's precious word.

Cheers, and rich blessings as you labour in His love,

Jim

Thanks for your good words, brother. I appreciate you! :wavey:

 

[Rippon]

(1) I started out with every intention of having a great discussion with you. Then you appeared to be asking me to post Dr. Price's discussion, so I did, thinking I was doing you a favor and you would be grateful. Evidently you don't think you requested that, so you were not grateful for what I thought was a favor. That's all I was saying. You evidently didn't follow all of that, so maybe I didn't communicate well.

I did request that you post Dr.Price's views on the subject and am appreciative that you did.

However,you still don't quite comprehend that your comment had nothing at all to do with my original post about mentioning English paraphrases.

(2) Thus, because of what I perceived to be your attitude, I reacted emotionally in some posts. I'm sorry that you believe I said things that were not true about you and used a double standard. I didn't think I was at the time and didn't mean to. Forgive me.
[/quote]

Forgiven.But don't let a perceived slight rile you up.

One of the double standards to which I am referring is that you feel it is perfectly fine to denigrate functionally-equivalent versions -- but you will not tolerate criticisms of the more form-driven ones.

(I am not mixing up paraphrases with dynamically-equivalent ones here.)

I have never denigrated form-driven versions on this thread or elsewhere.The translators/revisors behind the more prominent English versions are fine men with solid credentials.

 

[Rippon]

I did enjoy hearing from you lads who are working in a different language and I appreciate the relative importance of rightly understanding the language, the culture and the people themselves in the presentation of God's precious word.

Jim,you may be under the impression that I have language skills that I really don't possess.JoJ is the one gifted in languages and translating the Bible into Japanese.I have no such talents in the Korean tongue unfortunately.That fact hasn't hindered me from gospelizing (is that a word?)though.I have given away many NIrV's and some NLTse's.I speak mainly with those more conversant in English.

 

[Goldie]

At best, a paraphrase is a commentary, it's not inspired. It is neither a translation, nor a version, in other words, it's out of the heart and mind of MAN.
Nuf said. "The Message" is a good example

What does God actually say about His true Word?

“...for thou hast MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME” - Psalm 138:2

 

[Rippon]

At best, a paraphrase is a commentary, it's not inspired. It is neither a translation, nor a version, in other words, it's out of the heart and mind of MAN.
Nuf said. "The Message" is a good example

What does God actually say about His true Word?

“...for thou hast MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME” - Psalm 138:2

No paraphrase is inspired.No translation is inspired.No version, whether one of the KJV's nor any other Bible is inspired -- only the original autographs are inspired.

I don't think that The Message is a representative model of a paraphrase.It's quite a bit more free than a number of paraphrases in the last couple of centuries.

 

[Rippon]

I had already cited Dr.Henry Hammond's Paraphrased New Testament(1653).It had a rather scholarly reputation.Dr.Gill,Dr.Poole and Matthew Henry all cited it approvingly as I recall.Many others probably did as well.BTW,Dr.Hammond was an Arminian but that didn't stop these men from recognizing the scholarship behind Hammond's work.

George Abbott (1603-1648) had Job Paraphrased.

Richard Baxter had a paraphrase of the Psalms.

James Merrick had Psalms Paraphrased In English Verse back in 1765.

According to Curt Daniel Daniel Whitby and Philip Doddridge had Bible paraphrases.

B.H.Carroll released An Interpretation of the English Bible.It had a great deal of paraphrase.

The list could seemingly go on for quite a while of significant Bible paraphrases before the 20th century.

John Lightfoot (1602-1675) had a paraphrased New Testament Commentary.

Thomas Boston (1676-1732) had a paraphrase on the book of Galatians.

Just thought I would remind folks that paraphrases were common in the past,and not lightly dismissed.

 

[Rippon]

This is where I was saying that some in Church History relied on Bible paraphrases.

In the 7th century Caedmon paraphrased most of the Bible in the language of the ordinary person.

Around 1000 Aelfric translated a lot of the Bible into an idiomatic form.

The Venerable Bede (in the early 8th century)used paraphrase when he translated small sections of the Bible.

Everyone did not have access to a copy of a Vulgate.Many could not even read Latin.These paraphrases proved valuable to the common person.

More of the same.

 

[Rippon]

Introduce BBers to the ideas that paraphrase and translation are different, that many linguists and translators (including me) do not consider paraphrase to be a form of translation, and paraphrased versions are full of additions and errors because exegesis is secondary or even non-existant in such versions.

Dave Black,in his unblog of August 21,2013 said: "Let us suggest that translators should never be afraid of the word 'paraphrase'...Accurate translation requires more than a word-for-word rendering."


________________________________________________________
By the way, all BB'ers should pray for him and his wife Becky who is dying of cancer.