-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Your least favorite version?
- Thread starter SovereignGrace
- Start date
Lets review:
Least favorite = liberal translations
RSV post #2 & 19
Good News and/or Living Bible posts # 3, 5, 8 and 20.
ISV post #4
NWT posts #6 & 8
Clear Word post #8
NIV, Message, Cotton Patch post # 8
Message and Living Bible post # 17
One word for word translation type, KJV was listed in post #13.
And to balance that out all the DE versions were listed as least favorite in post # 12.
Least favorite = liberal translations
RSV post #2 & 19
Good News and/or Living Bible posts # 3, 5, 8 and 20.
ISV post #4
NWT posts #6 & 8
Clear Word post #8
NIV, Message, Cotton Patch post # 8
Message and Living Bible post # 17
One word for word translation type, KJV was listed in post #13.
And to balance that out all the DE versions were listed as least favorite in post # 12.
Behold the DE's were listed as a group and considered least favorite in post #12.
Pay no attention to how Mr. Rippon characterizes the views of others,
I have read the KJV, ESV, NIV, YLT, NASB a pretty good bunch and I like them all. But what little I read of others, it is hard to say how bad they are. I tried the ISV a little and just did not care that much for it.
What is that based upon?
IIRC, I was reading in John and did not like the flow of how it was written. When I read a new version for the first time, I start with the gospel of John.
Hopefully I am not misreading this. Your "literally" was probably supposed to be literal.
The idea that being literal requires a translation to be wooden is a myth. Pay no attention to the sales pitch of DE paraphrases. If you must remove the inspired words, then the result is not less wooden, it is functional non-equivalence.
No, can't say I have. Bruce Metzger had the final say on what was in or out. I wouldn't recommend it as a Bible per se, but I would venture that some people found it helpful and later bought full Bibles with the rest of God's word. I don't think it's on par with Jefferson's Bible, which cut out passages he disagreed with.
For Van's benefit I will quote from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss:
"In functional equivalent versions, words are translated according to their meaning in context rather than according to lexical concordance." (p.27)
"An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form. This realization makes the popular definition of 'paraphrase' subjective and unhelpful. It would be better to use the term in a neutral sense, meaning 'to say the same thing in different words, usually for the sake of clarification or simplification.' By this definition all translations paraphrase to one degree or another, since all change Hebrew and Greek words into English ones to make the text understandable. The important question then becomes not whether the text paraphrases, but whether it gets the meaning right." (p.32)
"In functional equivalent versions, words are translated according to their meaning in context rather than according to lexical concordance." (p.27)
"An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form. This realization makes the popular definition of 'paraphrase' subjective and unhelpful. It would be better to use the term in a neutral sense, meaning 'to say the same thing in different words, usually for the sake of clarification or simplification.' By this definition all translations paraphrase to one degree or another, since all change Hebrew and Greek words into English ones to make the text understandable. The important question then becomes not whether the text paraphrases, but whether it gets the meaning right." (p.32)
LOL, Mr. Rippon, your quote is nonsense. It is a license to redefine words according to the presuppositions of the translator. The actual process is to determine which of the lexiconal meanings best presents the contextual message. Totally different translation philosophy.
I am reminded of a recent thread on denying sin, with the statement, everybody does it.
I am reminded of a recent thread on denying sin, with the statement, everybody does it.
Quotes, they were quotes. And if you regard them as nonsensical, then you must think the opposite is true. For instance, you must think that in functionally equivalent version words are translated according to their lexical concordance. And that would be completely nonsensical. You are the one with irrationality lying at the basis of your beliefs.
Speaking of redefining -- you have completely redefined what Fee and Strauss plainly said. You do that a lot.
Do you ever wonder why so many on the BB repudiate your theology Van?