When are paraphrases appropriate?

in popular usage, paraphrase refers to an extremely loose or idiomatic translation, on the opposite end of the line fr an Interlinear or a transliteration.

technically, tho, paraphrases happen everytime one language is translated into another. every single time. that's becos languages r different fr each other (otherwise they'd be the same language, duh, n to repeat the KJBO mantra, things that r different cannot be the same!) in a hundred different ways. any time we map across diff languages, we use diff vocab choices, diff syntax choices, idiom choices, punctuation choices, etc.

in other words, we paraphrase.

 

the last part is pejorative n has no basis either lexically or in reality.

in fact, literalness does more in "avoiding the issue of accuracy altogether" than paraphrase, which seeks to produce the Closest Natural Equivalence of meanings across languages.

bottom line is how one defines "accuracy."

 

Paraphrasing is not a problem, if it is identified as such. All preaching, authoring, commenting etc. is paraphrasing. When we quote a verse and then say, "What this means is..." we are paraphrasing. It is a good thing and appreciated. The problem happens when a paraphrase is presented as, "This is what God said". The Living Bible (for example) is a very good paraphrase and well worth reading and having. It is NOT the Bible, it is a commentary on the Bible and it's author is clearly identified as Kenneth Taylor and NOT God. This is why they should never be a "new Christians ONLY Bible". It's use in the pulpit is OK if it is identified as such.

It is nitpicking nonsense to say that all translation is paraphrasing. Translation is an attempt (good or bad) to say what the other language SAID, a paraphrase is an attempt (good or bad) to say what the other language MEANT. It is the difference between a quote and a rendering of the "gist" of the thought behind it. Both are good things but they aren't anywhere near the same thing.

 

all of the above which, of course, is not true.

the King's word, in whatever language--with or without like grace--is still the word of the King. yea, even the meanest translation, if i might paraphrase the KJB's translators, IS the very word of God.

to claim that the paraphrasing done by the KJB's translators is somehow the word of Myles Smith or Bancroft is patent nonsense.

NOT even the KJB--nor even most "literal" versions--"say what the other language SAID." without paraphrase, it's gibberish, n they know it.

but none can argue if u continue referring to the popular, if pejorative, use of "paraphrase."

 

thank u for sharing ur definition (n Oxford's). i think it speaks well for itself.

nowhere does it suggest the Form is conformed to--fact, or truth, is. fact n truth r greater than mere words. yes, words carry facts n truths in the language they're written in, but in translation, u can't (n shouldn't) carry across the words. u shd carry across the TRUTHS n FACTS--hence, the need for meaning-based translation.

another name of which is "paraphrase."

n i'll just leave it at that.

 

Isn't it both? The whole purpose of words is to communicate thought.

 

Dr. Bob, I typically enjoy and appreciate your posts, but NASB an example of DYNAMIC equivalence?????

 

sigh

i guess i'll just let the experts (professional linguists/translators) speak:

check these out:

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/glossn.htm#paraphrase

check out the links there for the NON-TECHNICAL use of the term.

 

all of the above which, of course, is not true.

the King's word, in whatever language--with or without like grace--is still the word of the King. yea, even the meanest translation, if i might paraphrase the KJB's translators, IS the very word of God.

to claim that the paraphrasing done by the KJB's translators is somehow the word of Myles Smith or Bancroft is patent nonsense.

NOT even the KJB--nor even most "literal" versions--"say what the other language SAID." without paraphrase, it's gibberish, n they know it.

but none can argue if u continue referring to the popular, if pejorative, use of "paraphrase." </font>[/QUOTE]Specifically, which part of what I said is not true? You quoted me but, your comments had nothing to do with what I said and seemed top be comments about others. Were you commenting on another poster?

Translation does NOT equal paraphrase. These are two different words with two different meanings.

Example: Bonjour is French, it is translated "good day". "Bon" means "good" and "jour" means day as in soup-du-jour. If I asked you what that Frenchman said and you told me "good day" then that would be translating. If, on the other hand you told me he said "Hello", THAT would be a paraphrase because you made no effort to tell me what he said, just what he meant (right or wrong). On the third hand, if you told me he said "good day" and that that is the French way of saying "hello" (among other things) then you would have educated me on the truth.

You cannot paraphrase one language into another. You must first translate and THEN paraphrase.

 

Dr. Bob Thanks, I just discovered what I am. I am not a KJVO, nor am I an MVO, I am a FEO (Formal Equivalence Only). I didn't know how to phrase it but that is exactly what I am. Since I can't read, understand, or swim in the deep waters of the original languages then I must settle for the next best thing I can have. I have the KJV, NASB, The Englishman's Greek New Testament and I am sure others.

 

Good question. Obviously, if a literal translation is not a paraphrae then a paraphrase is not a literal translation.