User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Favorite Bible version

  1. #31
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,380
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 6,449 Times in 3,416 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147767
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    I agree that your statement is true but not with the concept.
    The problem is that sometimes ideas are inserted that are not there because the translator(s) likes the idea.

    Example Mat 12:33NIV, Mat 12:33KJV

    The Greek text does not contain the idea that making the tree good causes the fruit to be good. It just conveys that good trees and good fruit go together, and that bad trees and bad fruit go together. This was an idea that the translators of the NIV inserted.

    Formal equivalence is superior to dynamic equivalence in my view.
    The insertion of ideas that are not there does not occur because of a fundamental flaw in the idea of dynamic equivalence but because of intellectual dishonesty and/or simple errors on the part of the translators, whether intentional or otherwise.

    Besides, even if it were true (which it isn't) that dynamic equivalence automatically means that ideas that aren't actually there will be inserted, how would it be preferable to adopt a system that is flatly guaranteed to not communicate ideas that definitely are there because the system translates the text word for word, which by it's very nature ignores the nuances and common usage of both languages?

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (Yesterday)

  3. #32
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,666
    Thanks
    1,047
    Thanked 1,021 Times in 604 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    529348
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    The insertion of ideas that are not there does not occur because of a fundamental flaw in the idea of dynamic equivalence but because of intellectual dishonesty and/or simple errors on the part of the translators, whether intentional or otherwise.

    Besides, even if it were true (which it isn't) that dynamic equivalence automatically means that ideas that aren't actually there will be inserted, how would it be preferable to adopt a system that is flatly guaranteed to not communicate ideas that definitely are there because the system translates the text word for word, which by it's very nature ignores the nuances and common usage of both languages?

    Clete
    Well, either you didn't read what I said prior or you think that formal equivalence is the same as word for word which it is not.
    Formal equivalence, not dynamic equivalence, includes all of the nuances, culture, idioms, metaphors, perceptions, perspectives; in short, the linguistic distinctives of the source language and expresses them in the target language. But it adds nothing that is not there. If it is impossible to duplicate in the target language, a particular concept, because the words do not exist or to do so would convey the wrong message, the word or phrase is rendered as to be faithful to the author and the burden of correct interpretation is handed over to the reader in the target language.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  4. #33
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,380
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 6,449 Times in 3,416 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147767
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    Well, either you didn't read what I said prior or you think that formal equivalence is the same as word for word which it is not.
    Formal equivalence, not dynamic equivalence, includes all of the nuances, culture, idioms, metaphors, perceptions, perspectives; in short, the linguistic distinctives of the source language and expresses them in the target language. But it adds nothing that is not there. If it is impossible to duplicate in the target language, a particular concept, because the words do not exist or to do so would convey the wrong message, the word or phrase is rendered as to be faithful to the author and the burden of correct interpretation is handed over to the reader in the target language.
    No, I hadn't read what you said before but I'm somewhat sceptical of your take on this.

    If "all of the nuances, culture, idioms, metaphors, perceptions, perspectives; in short, the linguistic distinctives of the source language" are included then what in the world is the difference? How is that not, in effect, a thought for thought translation?

    Take for example the common English sentence, "It's time to hit the road.". If I were to translate that into another language with a set of words that conveyed anything other than that it was time to leave then it would be a poor translation, but a literal translation might make someone think that it was time to get some sledge hammers out and start pounding pot holes in the street.

    When translating from one language to another it is the meaning of the words that is important, more so than the words themselves, is it not?


    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (Yesterday)

  6. #34
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,666
    Thanks
    1,047
    Thanked 1,021 Times in 604 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    529348
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    No, I hadn't read what you said before but I'm somewhat sceptical of your take on this.

    If "all of the nuances, culture, idioms, metaphors, perceptions, perspectives; in short, the linguistic distinctives of the source language" are included then what in the world is the difference? How is that not, in effect, a thought for thought translation?

    Take for example the common English sentence, "It's time to hit the road.". If I were to translate that into another language with a set of words that conveyed anything other than that it was time to leave then it would be a poor translation, but a literal translation might make someone think that it was time to get some sledge hammers out and start pounding pot holes in the street.

    When translating from one language to another it is the meaning of the words that is important, more so than the words themselves, is it not?


    Clete
    Let me give you an example.

    1Sa 24:3KJV, 1Sa 24:3NIV, 1Sa 24:3ESV, 1Sa 24:3NASB

    Some translators have added something that is not in the Hebrew, thinking that they are doing the reader a favour. They translated it as if Saul went into the cave to urinate but one of the English definitions of relief is the discharge of either bladder or bowels.

    Not only that, it is difficult to imagine how David was able to cut off part of Saul's skirt while Saul was performing this task, but not if he went in to lie down and rest.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  7. #35
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,380
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 6,449 Times in 3,416 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147767
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    Let me give you an example.

    1Sa 24:3KJV, 1Sa 24:3NIV, 1Sa 24:3ESV, 1Sa 24:3NASB

    Some translators have added something that is not in the Hebrew, thinking that they are doing the reader a favour. They translated it as if Saul went into the cave to urinate but one of the English definitions of relief is the discharge of either bladder or bowels.

    Not only that, it is difficult to imagine how David was able to cut off part of Saul's skirt while Saul was performing this task, but not if he went in to lie down and rest.
    But that is not an example of dynamic equivalence but rather an example of the translator taking license. If it's an incorrect translation then it's the translator's error not an error that is systemic to the notion of dynamic equivalence.

    It seems to me that the attitude that Martin Luther had concerning how one should translate the Bible is the correct one to have. Regardless of what you call it, his goal was to be as faithful to the original as his mind was capable of being while still translating the Bible into what he called "good German", which is just the German language the way it was correctly and commonly used in his day.
    Luther gives several examples in his letter about the topic, which I've linked to below. If you haven't read it, you really should. It is very much worth the read and happens to do an excellent job of communicating just the sort of attitude and approach one should have when attempting a translation of the Bible.

    An Open Letter on Translating - By Martin Luther, 1530

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us