User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 41

Thread: Favorite Bible version

  1. #16
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,593
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    closest to the original.
    Literal usually refers to how true the words are, and possibly if it is word for word.

  2. #17
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    41
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    The King James Version and while this might be controversial to some the Joseph Smith Translation, but he did not complete it so that's why I tend to read mostly the King James Version.

    Sent from my VS501 using Tapatalk

  3. #18
    Over 1500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,780
    Thanks
    206
    Thanked 324 Times in 270 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    29853
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolguar View Post
    The King James Version and while this might be controversial to some the Joseph Smith Translation, but he did not complete it so that's why I tend to read mostly the King James Version.
    Mormons use the KJV.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  4. #19
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    41
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Mormons use the KJV.
    Fun fact: The church of Jesus Christ use the kjv because it provides a good common ground with other Christian religions and Joseph Smith didn't finish the translated book. Just some tid bits of info.

    Sent from my VS501 using Tapatalk

  5. #20
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,669
    Thanks
    1,050
    Thanked 1,021 Times in 604 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    529348
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Literal usually refers to how true the words are, and possibly if it is word for word.
    The word literal means "as written, genuine, real" and has little to do with a subjective evaluation of how true the words are.
    Like many words in English, if we use them wrongly often enough, a new meaning eventually becomes popular. But the number one antonym for literal is actually "counterfeit".

    The reason this is important is because some find a false dichotomy in Christianity; those who interpret spiritually and those who interpret literally. This is a misuse of the word literal and is responsible for all kinds of needless misunderstandings. The opposite of spiritual is physical.

    Often it is misused as a synonym for "that which is physical as opposed to spiritual" which it is not. There are many literal truths which are also spiritual.

    Close synonyms to literal are: word-for-word, accurate, real.
    When BR interchanges "literal" with "closest to the original" he is using the meaning correctly.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    glorydaz (March 16th, 2019)

  7. #21
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,593
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    The word literal means "as written, genuine, real" and has little to do with a subjective evaluation of how true the words are.
    Like many words in English, if we use them wrongly often enough, a new meaning eventually becomes popular. But the number one antonym for literal is actually "counterfeit".

    The reason this is important is because some find a false dichotomy in Christianity; those who interpret spiritually and those who interpret literally. This is a misuse of the word literal and is responsible for all kinds of needless misunderstandings. The opposite of spiritual is physical.

    Often it is misused as a synonym for "that which is physical as opposed to spiritual" which it is not. There are many literal truths which are also spiritual.

    Close synonyms to literal are: word-for-word, accurate, real.
    When BR interchanges "literal" with "closest to the original" he is using the meaning correctly.
    It is interesting.

    Words have meaning.

    What is word for word called?

  8. #22
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,669
    Thanks
    1,050
    Thanked 1,021 Times in 604 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    529348
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    It is interesting.

    Words have meaning.

    What is word for word called?
    A word-for-word translation does not alter the grammar at all; the same order is kept.
    But this means that it may not sound right or have the same meaning in the target language.
    This is the style of an interlinear text translation.


    A literal translation preserves the meaning of the words, as does the above, but also rearranges them so that it is syntactically correct in the target language.

    However, I was commenting only on the English word "literal" and not necessarily in translations.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  9. #23
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,593
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    A word-for-word translation does not alter the grammar at all; the same order is kept.
    But this means that it may not sound right or have the same meaning in the target language.
    This is the style of an interlinear text translation.


    A literal translation preserves the meaning of the words, as does the above, but also rearranges them so that it is syntactically correct in the target language.

    However, I was commenting only on the English word "literal" and not necessarily in translations.
    It doesn't necessarily pertain to a translation. Thought for thought is dynamic equivalence.

  10. #24
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,669
    Thanks
    1,050
    Thanked 1,021 Times in 604 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    529348
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    It doesn't necessarily pertain to a translation. Thought for thought is dynamic equivalence.
    I don't know, now, what you mean by "It". The comments I have made about the word "literal" have not been aimed at the subject of translation, but rather, at the subject of scriptural interpretation, for a start, within the English language. It is only when we understand the real meaning of the word in our own language can we then apply it to the subject of translation.

    But I will comment on dynamic equivalence and it's cousin functional equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is not thought for thought at all. It is commentary, personal opinion, supplemental information masquerading as a translation and includes far more of the translator's personality than is realized.

    Basically, translations of this sort are far too dependent on preconceptions, ego, greed and limited linguistic knowledge. It is assumed by these translators that those who have come before have not sufficiently excelled at their task and only they can sort out what God really said. And make a buck along the way.

    Formal equivalence, on the other hand, should be the highest goal; regardless of the difficulties involved. It is the closest to "literal" because literal means "not counterfeit". There must be times, when reading the Bible in our language, that our culture interferes with our understanding to such an extent that we are forced to dig and dig and dig some more until we understand the true meaning of the original almost as if we knew the source language itself; but in our own language. A simple example of this is the use of the word "charity" in 1 Cor 13 by the KJV translators. Were it not for the use of this English word, much of Paul's intent, a characteristic of the word "agape", and an important insight of language nuance would be largely lost to generations. (no time to expand on this)

    We need to be able to read, in English, what was said in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This is where the translations of the last 2 centuries have substantially failed. We have increasingly demanded the facilitation of drive-thru religion. Grab-and-go theology; and our Christian culture is suffering because of it. Formal equivalence is the closest thing to "literal" translation (using this loosely) that can be found.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  11. #25
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,386
    Thanks
    596
    Thanked 6,462 Times in 3,424 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147767
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    closest to the original.
    It is closest to the original if you mean a word for word translation. The difficulty, however, with word for word translations is that words are used differently in different language and often have different meanings depending on how they are used. There are aplications where the NASB would prove useful but different languages just don't use words the same way and so word for word translation often miss or can confuse the meaning behind those words. This is why I think nearly any other translation is superior than the NASB for everyday reading.

    To give a very simplistic example of the difference let's translate something from Spanish to English.

    "Casa Bonita"

    The NASB would have translated that "house beautiful" but the correct translation into English would be "beautiful house" because of the way English uses adjectives. Word order is way more important in English than is nearly any other language and the NASB doesn't completely ignore this but it serves as an easy to understand example of the sort of issues that can come up with word for word translations.

    Martin Luther made a similar (but way better) observations about translating the bible into German (what follows is, of course, an English translation of his German letter)...

    For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I am to follow these donkeys, they will lay the original before me literally and translate it thus: "Aus dem uberfluss des hertzen redet der mund" [out of the excessiveness of the heart the mouth speaks]. Tell me, is that speaking German? What German could understand something like that? What is "the excessiveness of the heart"? No German can say that; unless, perhaps, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too generous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be correct. "Excessiveness of the heart" is no more German than "excessiveness of the house, "excessiveness of the stove" or "excessiveness of the bench." But the mother in the home and the common man say this: "Wes das hertz vol ist, des gehet der mund über" [What fills the heart overflows the mouth]. That is speaking good German of the kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always successfully. The literal Latin is a great obstacle to speaking good German.

    For another example, the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: Ut quid perditio haec? and in Mark 14, Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est? According to these literalist donkeys I would have to translate it, "Warumb ist dise verlierung der salben geschehen?" [Why has this loss of ointment occurred?] But what kind of German is this? What German says "loss of the ointment occurred"? And if he understands it at all, he would think that the ointment is lost and must be looked for and found again, though even that is obscure and uncertain enough. Now if that is good German why do they not come out and make us a fine, new German Testament and let Luther's Testament alone? I think that would really bring out their talents. But a German would say Ut quid, etc., this way: "Was sol doch solcher unrat?" [What is the reason for this waste?] or "Why this extravagance?" Perhaps even, "it is a shame about the ointment." That is good German, in which one can understand that Magdalene had wasted the ointment she poured out and had been wasteful. That was what Judas meant, because he thought he could have used it better.

    Again, when the angel greets Mary, he says: "Gegruesset seistu, Maria vol gnaden, der Herr mit dir" [Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you]. Up till now this has simply been translated according to the literal Latin. (7) But tell me, is that good German? Since when does a German speak like that, "du bist vol gnaden" [you are full of grace]? One would have to think about a keg "full of" beer or a purse "full of" money. Therefore I translated it: "du holdselige" [thou pleasing one]. This way a German can at least think his way through to what the angel meant by his greeting. Now the papists are throwing a fit about me corrupting the Angelic Salutation, yet I still have not used the most satisfactory German translation. Suppose I had used the best German and translated the salutation: "Gott grusse dich, du liebe Maria" [God greet you, dear Mary], for that is all the angel meant to say, and what he would have said if he had greeted her in German. Suppose I had done that! I believe that they would have hanged themselves out of their fanatical devotion to the Virgin Mary, because I had so destroyed the Salutation.
    An Open Letter on Translating - By Martin Luther, 1530

    If any of you haven't read that open letter by Martin Luther, it is well worth the read!

    Resting in Him,
    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

  12. #26
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,593
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    I don't know, now, what you mean by "It". The comments I have made about the word "literal" have not been aimed at the subject of translation, but rather, at the subject of scriptural interpretation, for a start, within the English language. It is only when we understand the real meaning of the word in our own language can we then apply it to the subject of translation.

    But I will comment on dynamic equivalence and it's cousin functional equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is not thought for thought at all. It is commentary, personal opinion, supplemental information masquerading as a translation and includes far more of the translator's personality than is realized.

    Basically, translations of this sort are far too dependent on preconceptions, ego, greed and limited linguistic knowledge. It is assumed by these translators that those who have come before have not sufficiently excelled at their task and only they can sort out what God really said. And make a buck along the way.

    Formal equivalence, on the other hand, should be the highest goal; regardless of the difficulties involved. It is the closest to "literal" because literal means "not counterfeit". There must be times, when reading the Bible in our language, that our culture interferes with our understanding to such an extent that we are forced to dig and dig and dig some more until we understand the true meaning of the original almost as if we knew the source language itself; but in our own language. A simple example of this is the use of the word "charity" in 1 Cor 13 by the KJV translators. Were it not for the use of this English word, much of Paul's intent, a characteristic of the word "agape", and an important insight of language nuance would be largely lost to generations. (no time to expand on this)

    We need to be able to read, in English, what was said in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This is where the translations of the last 2 centuries have substantially failed. We have increasingly demanded the facilitation of drive-thru religion. Grab-and-go theology; and our Christian culture is suffering because of it. Formal equivalence is the closest thing to "literal" translation (using this loosely) that can be found.
    By it I was simply relating to what you said.

    I believe that you have it wrong here. Dynamic equivalence is thought for thought. Something else is word for word. You said functional and formal. I do not know which it is.

  13. #27
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,669
    Thanks
    1,050
    Thanked 1,021 Times in 604 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    529348
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    By it I was simply relating to what you said.

    I believe that you have it wrong here. Dynamic equivalence is thought for thought. Something else is word for word. You said functional and formal. I do not know which it is.
    No, dynamic equivalence is said to be thought for thought but it is not.

    Thought for thought is not possible and does a dis-service to the reader who thinks only in his own language. Translations of this sort try to deny the readers their thought processes by guiding them toward a certain interpretive conclusion about a text. The Bible was never meant, in my opinion, to be easy. This whole modern idea of dumbing it down is wrong.

    Thought for thought is dependent on knowing intimately the mind of the author of the source language; his life experiences, cultural pressures, moods, vocabulary, etc. But the mind of the author at a particular moment, cannot be fully known; we must rely only on the words and phrases to give us any insight that might be available. Therefore, translate the words and phrases, not what you may think the author was thinking.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  14. #28
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,593
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    No, dynamic equivalence is said to be thought for thought but it is not.

    Thought for thought is not possible and does a dis-service to the reader who thinks only in his own language. Translations of this sort try to deny the readers their thought processes by guiding them toward a certain interpretive conclusion about a text. The Bible was never meant, in my opinion, to be easy. This whole modern idea of dumbing it down is wrong.

    Thought for thought is dependent on knowing intimately the mind of the author of the source language; his life experiences, cultural pressures, moods, vocabulary, etc. But the mind of the author at a particular moment, cannot be fully known; we must rely only on the words and phrases to give us any insight that might be available. Therefore, translate the words and phrases, not what you may think the author was thinking.
    The NIV (the New International Version) is dynamic equivalence or thought for thought. The idea is that a word for word translation suffers in regard to giving the true or full meaning.

  15. #29
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,669
    Thanks
    1,050
    Thanked 1,021 Times in 604 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    529348
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    The NIV (the New International Version) is dynamic equivalence or thought for thought. The idea is that a word for word translation suffers in regard to giving the true or full meaning.
    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.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  16. #30
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,593
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    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.
    Fair enough. I like the NASB (the New American Standard Bible).

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