What Is "Literal"?

[Rippon]

In another blog post by Dr. Mounce from Nov. 3,2017 he says:

"It is time that Bible marketers stop this deceptive claim, that their 'literal' translation of the Greek reflects the structure of the Greek. The CSB makes up a term, 'optimal equivalence,' which really doesn't mean anything. [It is] a formal equivalent translation sitting between the ESV and NIV. I like the CSB, but that is what it is."

 

[Rippon]

From 10/16/17 Dr. Mounce says:

"...words do not have a literal meaning, we translate meaning, not form..."

 

[agedman]

You poor delusional fellow.

Rippon, why are you so mean spirited?

I don’t recall you having that in the past, or am I thinking of someone else?

Of course, I usually see you mentioning others grammar or spelling, but even that is typically done in kindness.

So, this kind of catches my eye as not worthy of you.

So, I asked.

 

[agedman]

Interesting link that gives first hand (NIV) rational for revisions.

The 2011 Revision of the NIV

(Link furnished earlier in a post by Yeshua1)

 

[Rippon]

Rippon, why are you so mean spirited?

I am not. You are mean to say that. ;-)

I was simply pointing out that Y1 is a poor, delusional fellow.

You need to follow along agedman. Read Y-1's posts --especially 13,18 and 33.

Then read my responses in posts 34 and 37.

That simple exercise in reading will set you straight.

 

[Rob_BW]

In another blog post by Dr. Mounce from Nov. 3,2017 he says:

"It is time that Bible marketers stop this deceptive claim, that their 'literal' translation of the Greek reflects the structure of the Greek. The CSB makes up a term, 'optimal equivalence,' which really doesn't mean anything. [It is] a formal equivalent translation sitting between the ESV and NIV. I like the CSB, but that is what it is."

I like Mounce, but JoJ showed us that "optimal equivalence" wasn’t just a fancy name slapped on to wow people.

A Glossary of Translation Terms

 

[Yeshua1]

In another blog post by Dr. Mounce from Nov. 3,2017 he says:

"It is time that Bible marketers stop this deceptive claim, that their 'literal' translation of the Greek reflects the structure of the Greek. The CSB makes up a term, 'optimal equivalence,' which really doesn't mean anything. [It is] a formal equivalent translation sitting between the ESV and NIV. I like the CSB, but that is what it is."

More literal than the Niv, and less than the Esv?

 

[Yeshua1]

I like Mounce, but JoJ showed us that "optimal equivalence" wasn’t just a fancy name slapped on to wow people.

A Glossary of Translation Terms

Nkjv used that term first though in their translation!

 

[McCree79]

More literal than the Niv, and less than the Esv?

It would be better to say more formal than the NIV, but more functional(or dynamic) than the ESV. However, the way you use "literal", your statement is correct.

*The word "literal" often causes confusion and misrepresentation amoung some people.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

You are into evasion. I'm calling you on it. Tell me what translations indicate that women should be pastors. And if you find such a version spell out the passages. I say you are peddling the same old false charges that you have been doling out for years with never an acknowledgement that you are engaging in complete falsehood.

Absolutely FALSE and you know it. If you are a believer you should never lie about such a thing.

Change your ways.

Some seem to indicate that there was a woman named as an Apostle among them, and that Paul was allowing for women to be pastors!

 

[Rob_BW]

It would be better to say more formal than the NIV, but more functional(or dynamic) than the ESV. However, the way you use "literal", your statement is correct.

*The word "literal" often causes confusion and misrepresentation amoung some people.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Bible Translations, the only topic where people will use the word literal figuratively.

(Just joking, of course.)

 

[Yeshua1]

It would be better to say more formal than the NIV, but more functional(or dynamic) than the ESV. However, the way you use "literal", your statement is correct.

*The word "literal" often causes confusion and misrepresentation amoung some people.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Formal would be a good way to state this!

 

[McCree79]

Some seem to indicate that there was a woman named as an Apostle among them, and that Paul was allowing for women to be pastors!

But was that "apostle" the office of apostle or just "one sent out" as a representative of the church. Even if Junia is indeed a woman and listed as "outstanding" amoung the apostles...which does appear to be a possibility...complimentarism does not hinge on this verse, nor does it do damage to it. We can easily see Junia as more of a missionary who is serving with her husband.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

But was that "apostle" the office of apostle or just "one sent out" as a representative of the church. Even if Junia is indeed a woman and listed as "outstanding" amoung the apostles...which does appear to be a possibility...complimentarism does not hinge on this verse, nor does it do damage to it. We can easy see Junia as more of a missionary why is serving with her husband.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

I do see her as being listed among them in the sense you suggested, but not that she was a Apostle!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

He's waiting for the time that he can throw it in the trash.

Correct.

So he indeed is foolishly condemning the entire work.

There are other perfectly good Bibles available, so why would I use a new one unless it is a clear improvement?
It isn't and I won't.

In fact there is a plethora of translations on the Critical Text. There is no real reason or purpose for them. I rather suspect that some, at least, are after their share of the lucrative Bible market.

 

[Yeshua1]

Correct.

There are other perfectly good Bibles available, so why would I use a new one unless it is a clear improvement?
It isn't and I won't.

In fact there is a plethora of translations on the Critical Text. There is no real reason or purpose for them. I rather suspect that some, at least, are after their share of the lucrative Bible market.

This is why I would love to see the new Nas when it comes out in their equivalent of the Esv study bible!

 

[Rippon]

I like Mounce, but JoJ showed us that "optimal equivalence" wasn’t just a fancy name slapped on to wow people.

A Glossary of Translation Terms

The term is a marketing ploy --nothing more or nothing less. It's not a quantified fixed formula.

 

[Rippon]

There are other perfectly good Bibles available, so why would I use a new one unless it is a clear improvement?
It isn't and I won't.

Don't be so self-centered. I was making the point that others (that means not you) could benefit from having it. It would do something good for the kingdom of God. However, throwing it in the wastebasket would be dishonoring to the Lord. It is His Word that you would be ditching as if it was a worthless piece of trash. That's disgraceful and runs counter to your work with the Gideons. Think about it --the very principles of the Gideons you would be willing to abandon just because you have some petty disagreements with a Bible translation.

There are many people in the world with no translation of any portion of the Word of God and some with a fraction of it. But you with contempt think throwing the CSB in the trash is a noble act. As I said, that's disgraceful.

 

[Rippon]

An 'essentially literal' translation--either lexically or syntactically --is a myth. It is ultimately irrelevant whether an adverb is replaced by a prepositional phrase or a participle replaced by a verb. The question that matters is, "is the meaning reproduced?'

Page 17, 'Literal Meaning' Fallacy by Mark L. Strauss

 

[Rippon]

All Translation is Interpretation

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.

Translation is, therefore, always a two-step process: (1) Translators must first interpret the meaning of the text in its original context. Context here means not only the surrounding words and phrases, but also the genre (literary form) of the document, the life situation of the author and the original readers, and the assumptions that these authors and readers would have brought to the text. (2) Once the text is accurately understood, the translator must ask, How is this meaning best conveyed in the receptor language? What words, phrases, and idioms most accurately reproduce the author's message? Translation is more than a simple replacement of words.

Since all translation involves interpretation, it follows that no translation is perfect. There will always be different interpretations of certain words and phrases, and no Bible version will always get it right. Furthermore, differences between languages mean that every translation represents an approximation of the original meaning....

[ Taken from pages 30 and 31 of How to Choose a Translation for all Its Worth by Fee and Strauss.]

(The bold print is mine.)