why Is Being a Literal translation seen as being "wooden/bad?"

[DaChaser1]

why would literal versions get tagged as being wooden, not so good to use for study, while less literal versions seen as being sperior to study bible in?

 

[annsni]

I don't think that it's that it's bad for study but that it's not good for reading. It makes it difficult to follow a thought in a sentence. It's like trying to follow someone's thoughts who is speaking English when English is not their first language. It just doesn't flow well and so is a bit more difficult to follow.

 

[mandym]

Depends on you world view. Conservatives see it just the opposite. The theological left would agree with it. Best I can tell the left like to have a lot of wiggle room. But it is in complete error to suggest that your scenario is the common view.

 

[go2church]

How many books would you read if they were consistently described as "wooden"?

 

[Greektim]

why would literal versions get tagged as being wooden, not so good to use for study, while less literal versions seen as being sperior to study bible in?

My thing w/ literal is that first it doesn't really describe much. Does it mean that it sticks closer to the denotative meaning of words and word order and such? Does it mean that it gives the most basic, smallest amount of meaning that is bound up in the morphology and grammar and syntax of the words?

OR

Do is a literal translation one that communicates the connotative meanings? Do we simplify idioms that would otherwise be unclear? Do we include grammatical nuances and thus add from the base-meaning to the implied meaning (things like aktionsart and verbal aspect)?

Translation philosophy and theory is so much more than functional vs. formal.

 

[thomas15]

How many books would you read if they were consistently described as "wooden"?

Refresh my memory,

Were you the one who stated that the ESV is an "essentially wooden" translation?

 

[DaChaser1]

My thing w/ literal is that first it doesn't really describe much. Does it mean that it sticks closer to the denotative meaning of words and word order and such? Does it mean that it gives the most basic, smallest amount of meaning that is bound up in the morphology and grammar and syntax of the words?


OR

Do is a literal translation one that communicates the connotative meanings? Do we simplify idioms that would otherwise be unclear? Do we include grammatical nuances and thus add from the base-meaning to the implied meaning (things like aktionsart and verbal aspect)?

Translation philosophy and theory is so much more than functional vs. formal.

Are you asking IF one should consider as being an actually literal version one such as the NASB contrasted to say the NIV 2011?

As you are contrasting the twin views of translation from greek to English held by those who did those 2 versions!

 

[DaChaser1]

Refresh my memory,

Were you the one who stated that the ESV is an "essentially wooden" translation?

Wooden refers to style of the writing, NOT its substance though!

Sometimes 'wooden' actual comes closer to conveying the intended meaning of the author to one easier to read and 'flows' better!

 

[preacher4truth]

why would literal versions get tagged as being wooden, not so good to use for study, while less literal versions seen as being sperior to study bible in?

Somewhere along the line a professor or scholar stated the NASB is wooden. Now you have people parroting that. They like the way it sounds to say it, so they repeat it often.

I haven't found this to be true of the NASB. Different reading levels may add to this feeling from others.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Whether God has decreed all things that ever come to pass or not, all that own the being of a God, own that He knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident that if He knows all things beforehand, He either doth approve of them or doth not approve of them; that is, He either is willing they should be, or He is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be is to decree them. - Jonathan Edwards.

That sounds good but it doesn't make sense.

 

[preacher4truth]

That sounds good but it doesn't make sense.

You have to process it as Edwards isn't a quick read. To me it makes good sense and is true, but this isn't in line with the OP.

 

[DaChaser1]

You have to process it as Edwards isn't a quick read. To me it makes good sense and is true, but this isn't in line with the OP.

You find this among the writers of the Bible itself!

Some like Luke /author of hebrews used very stylistic/proper koine Greek to record his books down, while somone llike paul would get 'excited" and start to "squish' his statements together, forcing us to decide where one thought ended and another started up!

 

[DaChaser1]

Somewhere along the line a professor or scholar stated the NASB is wooden. Now you have people parroting that. They like the way it sounds to say it, so they repeat it often.

I haven't found this to be true of the NASB. Different reading levels may add to this feeling from others.

I remember reading this the first time in the book 'How to read the Bible for all its worth", as authors said the NIV was best version to read/study, as NAS too stilted and wooden!

 

[Rippon]

Depends on you world view. Conservatives see it just the opposite. The theological left would agree with it. Best I can tell the left like to have a lot of wiggle room. But it is in complete error to suggest that your scenario is the common view.

To assert that someone who prefers a less literal translation is liberal is hogwash.

 

[Rippon]

Somewhere along the line a professor or scholar stated the NASB is wooden. Now you have people parroting that. They like the way it sounds to say it, so they repeat it often.

And you my dear fellow,have parroted the same old tired lines against the NIV. Just a bunch of recycled garbage.


The NASBU is not as wooden as the older edition. In many places it reads better than the ESV.

 

[preacher4truth]

And you my dear fellow,have parroted the same old tired lines against the NIV. Just a bunch of recycled garbage.


The NASBU is not as wooden as the older edition. In many places it reads better than the ESV.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Which tired lines have I parroted exactly? Are you adding to the discussion/OP, or are you just being pugnacious again?

 

[Rippon]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Which tired lines have I parroted exactly? Are you adding to the discussion/OP, or are you just being pugnacious again?

If you are so unfamilar with your posts --go back to the archives for a rehash.

 

[preacher4truth]

If you are so unfamilar with your posts --go back to the archives for a rehash.

Burden of proof is on you. :wavey: :thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh Heavens, Rippon is back on the board....:laugh:

Been awhile brother, how have you been?

Listen P4T, the guy didn't get the name Rippon for nutin. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[seekingthetruth]

To assert that someone who prefers a less literal translation is liberal is hogwash.

How so? The Bible was written with one message and one only. There is only one interpretation of scripture that is correct. When we make it less literal, we make it open to many interpretations, and stray from the one true interpretaion.

The Bible is intended to convict us of our sins and bring repentence in order to restore fellowship with God...it is NOT intended to please everyone.

IMHO, modern translations are the result of greed for sales, and the people buy them because of this age of 'political correctness' that we live in. Churches are looking for a kinder, gentler , seeker sensitive gospel that appeals to man, but deminishes the true Word of God.

Liberal translations have led to widespread acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, divorce, female pastors, and general heresy in our churches today.

My real problem with modern translations is not so much the translation itself, but the liberal doctrines, acceptance of Biblically condemned sin, and moral decline of their followers. It is the modern liberal church movement that is the real problem, the modern translations are just one side effect of that.

I could see God authorizing a new translation that is easier to understand in our modern language, but I don not believe God has authorized or even endorsed so many versions, especially when they have at least some conflicting scriptures.

John