Why Would the More Literal translations NOT be best ones?

[John of Japan]

From the Preface of the ESV:Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literary precision and readability, between "formal equivalence" in expression and "functional equivalence" in communication,and the ESV is no exception.

From the Preface to the HCSB: Optimal equivalence: This approach seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence.

The difference is in the definition. I've seen a wide variety of definitions of "word for word." My definition of a word for word translation is one that seeks to represent every word of the original in the target language. So without knowing what the writers of these prefaces mean by their statements, I can't comment.

 

[John of Japan]

As I said before,there is no simple coincidence. The ISV borrowed,with no acknowledgement huge swaths of God's word translation.

If you feel this strongly about it you should contact them yourselves. Their website has a contact page, and Dr. Black can be accessed through the SEBTS website. But Dr. Black was the base translator, so his work was revised over and over. Chances are he won't have a clue what you are talkin about.

 

[Rippon]

A Perfectly Good Thread Should Not Go To Waste

From a website called www.evangelicalBible.com

Why The English Standard Version

"The NIV follows neither a word-for-word translation philosophy nor a thought-for-thought philosophy ...the NIV is a solid translation that is more 'word-for-word' than 'thought-for-thought.' "

I think the above needs to be repeated ... so I did!

 

[Revmitchell]

[attack on an accurate translation of God's Word snipped]

 

[Rippon]

From the Preface of the ESV:Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literary precision and readability, between "formal equivalence" in expression and "functional equivalence" in communication,and the ESV is no exception.

From the Preface to the HCSB: Optimal equivalence: This approach seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence.

From the book :Which Bible Translation Should I Use? E.Ray Clendenen represents the HCSB. He says on page 155 :"The optimal equivalence philosophy of the HCSB,then,makes naturalness of expression a priority..."

 

[Batt4Christ]

I am WAY late to this thread - but feel compelled to pipe in... maybe I can keep this short and sweet!

Translation is not a simple matter of substituting words from one language in place of the other language. Grammar rules are rarely the same, often there are not exact/direct substitutions, and even when there are - the end result is often rathe awkward, and almost never even gets close to English grammar. And then you are still stuck often with what seems to be meaningless lines of words and fragmented phrases.

So one must also be able to carry over the meaning (which unfortunately can easily be tainted by opinion).

So - literal foundation is important, but it must still be comprehensible. That's why I like the NASB and the ESV.

 

[Rippon]

So - literal foundation is important, but it must still be comprehensible. That's why I like the NASB and the ESV.

I agreed with much that you posted which I have not quoted. Dave Brunn,in his book : One Bible,Many Versions, has an adjustment flowchart with different configurations on several pages.

When it comes to translation he says:

Is adjustment required by the grammar?
Is adjustment required for correct meaning?
Is adjustment required for clarity of meaning?
Is adjstment required for stylistic naturalness?

See pages 91,93 and 94.

If we call these steps 1,2,3 and 4. I think the NASB and ESV are around step one. Perhaps 1.5. The NIV is around number 3,and the NLT goes with #4.

 

[John of Japan]

I agreed with much that you posted which I have not quoted. Dave Brunn,in his book : One Bible,Many Versions, has an adjustment flowchart with different configurations on several pages.

This looks like a good book. I note that it is just out. Thanks for mentioning it; I'm going to buy it. Have you read it all yet? It looks to be pretty conservative, at least in theology, since the author is with New Tribes.

When it comes to translation he says:

Is adjustment required by the grammar?
Is adjustment required for correct meaning?
Is adjustment required for clarity of meaning?
Is adjstment required for stylistic naturalness?

See pages 91,93 and 94.

If we call these steps 1,2,3 and 4. I think the NASB and ESV are around step one. Perhaps 1.5. The NIV is around number 3,and the NLT goes with #4.

I really don't think you can call these steps, or a way of evaluating whole translations. To me they are things to be considered for each separate passage translated. And I agree with them, except that they don't mention the times when ambiguity should be preserved in the translation, though I'm sure he deals with that in the book. (Side note: such adjustments are called "shifts" in translation theory.)

 

[Rippon]

This looks like a good book. I note that it is just out. Thanks for mentioning it; I'm going to buy it. Have you read it all yet? It looks to be pretty conservative, at least in theology, since the author is with New Tribes.

Yes,I have read the entire book. I own it. But I noticed that the local library already has a copy.

Yes, he is conservative. Some of those who endorsed his book are D.A.Carson, Ellis Deibler Jr.,Darrell Bock Richard Schultz of Wheaton College,and Gaylen Leverett of Liberty University.

I really don't think you can call these steps, or a way of evaluating whole translations. To me they are things to be considered for each separate passage translated. And I agree with them, except that they don't mention the times when ambiguity should be preserved in the translation, though I'm sure he deals with that in the book. (Side note: such adjustments are called "shifts" in translation theory.)

No,I don't think those "shifts" (as you said) can be a way of evaluating whole translations.

On pages 136 --141 he has a section Dealing With Ambuities although he touches on the subject in various places.

 

[Yeshua1]

This looks like a good book. I note that it is just out. Thanks for mentioning it; I'm going to buy it. Have you read it all yet? It looks to be pretty conservative, at least in theology, since the author is with New Tribes.



I really don't think you can call these steps, or a way of evaluating whole translations. To me they are things to be considered for each separate passage translated. And I agree with them, except that they don't mention the times when ambiguity should be preserved in the translation, though I'm sure he deals with that in the book. (Side note: such adjustments are called "shifts" in translation theory.)

My concern with "updating" translations is when they choose to not have propiation, atonement etc , theologically based words used, is there any way tohave it so that we can keep those, maybe tie them back into the OT contex, or else do expanded word definitions/cross references to where they come from?

 

[Rippon]

My concern with "updating" translations is when they choose to not have propiation,[sic] atonement etc , theologically based words used, is there any way to have it so that we can keep those, maybe tie them back into the OT context, or else do expanded word definitions/cross references to where they come from?

The Wycliffe translations didn't have propitiation. It is not sacrosanct. I think that William Tydnale invented it from the latin base.Other words or phrases can be used instead of this antiquainted word.

What translations are you thinking of that do not have the word atonement?

Instead of using the word justified,do you have a problem with the use of the phrase right standing with God?

 

[John of Japan]

My concern with "updating" translations is when they choose to not have propiation, atonement etc , theologically based words used, is there any way tohave it so that we can keep those, maybe tie them back into the OT contex, or else do expanded word definitions/cross references to where they come from?

In my mind, whether or not you use the traditional theological terms depends on the main skopos (goal, purpose) of the translation. If it is designed to be used as a main translation for churches, then the traditional terminology would be important. If it is designed for study, evangelism, etc., then different terminology would be an option.

 

[Greektim]

Interesting that these "theological" words were simply common words in Greek. Why does propitiation or justification have to be in the text? B/c they are special? Or is it really that we have a sentimental attachment to them? I love the words myself. But they were common words (salvation for deliverance, gift for grace, pity for mercy, release for forgiveness, satisfaction for propitiation, and forensic terms for righteousness/justification, etc.).

Words I think are more important are the theologically loaded words like regeneration or inspiration in which they are invented words or strange compounds.

 

[Rippon]

Interesting that these "theological" words were simply common words in Greek. Why does propitiation or justification have to be in the text? B/c they are special? Or is it really that we have a sentimental attachment to them? I love the words myself. But they were common words (salvation for deliverance, gift for grace, pity for mercy, release for forgiveness, satisfaction for propitiation, and forensic terms for righteousness/justification, etc.).

Good stuff above.

The following is from the Fee and Strauss book How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth. :

The long and short of all this is that there is no perfect solution, and translators will continue to grapple with bridging the gap between the biblical world and our own. The best solution, however, is probably not to use obscure Latin-based terms (like "propitiation"),which are meaningless to most readers and which, in any case, have no etymological connection to the Greek terms being used (in ths case, the hilas-roots). (page 59)

 

[Yeshua1]

Interesting that these "theological" words were simply common words in Greek. Why does propitiation or justification have to be in the text? B/c they are special? Or is it really that we have a sentimental attachment to them? I love the words myself. But they were common words (salvation for deliverance, gift for grace, pity for mercy, release for forgiveness, satisfaction for propitiation, and forensic terms for righteousness/justification, etc.).

Words I think are more important are the theologically loaded words like regeneration or inspiration in which they are invented words or strange compounds.

isn't this really saying that due to modern Christian being much less literate as reagrds to the Bible and doctrines of the Faith, many persons simple don't have a clue to what those terms mean in a biblical sense/meaning?

 

[Rippon]

isn't this really saying that due to modern Christian [sic]being much less literate as reagrds [sic]to the Bible and doctrines of the Faith, many persons simple [sic]don't have a clue to what those terms mean in a biblical sense/meaning?

Antiquated words,especially the Latin-based ones are not so special that they have to be preserved. Other phraseologies are just,if not more appropriate.

Hint: When you constantly complain of low literacy rates please use standard English grammar and spelling. Your case won't win any fans otherwise.