Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite Bible version

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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
    sigpic
    "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

    Comment


    • #32
      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.

      It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

      Comment


      • #33
        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
        sigpic
        "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

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

          Comment


          • #35
            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
            sigpic
            "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

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Clete View Post
              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.
              Taking license is the hallmark of dynamic equivalence and sometimes results in a blatant error like this one but most often in hidden ones.

              Formal equivalence reduces or eliminates possible errors. In the KJV, for example, the use of "ye" for plural is formal equivalence. It is the only English word that exactly represents the original. The word is in the dictionary. Let's use it when the need arises.

              Originally posted by Clete View Post
              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
              Thanks for the article. I recognize having read some of this before now. But it mostly deals with how proficient he was with German and his defense of inserting 'allein' into the German text because that is how Germans speak. I will have to take his word for that.
              I notice that English translators did not follow his example.
              Last edited by George Affleck; March 20th, 2019, 11:50 PM.
              Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

              It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
                Taking license is the hallmark of dynamic equivalence and sometimes results in a blatant error like this one but most often in hidden ones.

                Formal equivalence reduces or eliminates possible errors. In the KJV, for example, the use of "ye" for plural is formal equivalence. It is the only English word that exactly represents the original. The word is in the dictionary. Let's use it when the need arises.



                Thanks for the article. I recognize having read some of this before now. But it mostly deals with how proficient he was with German and his defense of inserting 'allein' into the German text because that is how Germans speak. I will have to take his word for that.
                I notice that English translators did not follow his example.
                It seems like we're mostly in agreement except that I think it's overstating it to say that "taking license is the hallmark of dynamic equivalence".

                Also, the reason they shouldn't ever use the word "ye" in an English translation is because no one ever uses that word and most wouldn't have any idea that it is plural word. There are perfectly good ways of communicating plurality without using that specific word, people do it every day without ever uttering the word "ye". It was terrific for the 17th century because that's how people spoke in those days but that isn't the case today, whether it's in the dictionary or not.

                Clete
                sigpic
                "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

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  It seems like we're mostly in agreement except that I think it's overstating it to say that "taking license is the hallmark of dynamic equivalence".

                  Also, the reason they shouldn't ever use the word "ye" in an English translation is because no one ever uses that word and most wouldn't have any idea that it is plural word. There are perfectly good ways of communicating plurality without using that specific word, people do it every day without ever uttering the word "ye". It was terrific for the 17th century because that's how people spoke in those days but that isn't the case today, whether it's in the dictionary or not.

                  Clete
                  I agree that we are mostly in agreement - lol. We are most agreeable fellows; don't you think?

                  I would like you to give me an example or two of how to communicate plurality succinctly without using the word that is, in our language, the perfect one?

                  When a language is established, should we then have a revision of the Bible every few years to bring it up to date with current vernacular? If so, what standard for vernacular should be used? British? American? West coast valley girls? Rap? I see this as the tail wagging the dog.

                  For 250 years, in America, the language was learned by using the KJV as, not only a religious standard but, an English text book. We have completely turned this around so that we now subjectively decide "what we like" instead of what is best for us. Any discussion about versions begins and ends with personal preference, and we think that is just fine. The result has been chaos and disunity; something the Bible warns us against. Is not the cry of the enemies of God that they will enact laws to protect their right to do what they want?

                  For all our advancements, we are worse off; it's not working for us, just against us. We are not taught to get wisdom, we are encouraged to invent it.
                  Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

                  It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
                    I agree that we are mostly in agreement - lol. We are most agreeable fellows; don't you think?
                    Umm, yeah! Of course!


                    I would like you to give me an example or two of how to communicate plurality succinctly without using the word that is, in our language, the perfect one?
                    There is no need for "the perfect one" word. If "ye", "thee", "thou" and "thine" where in common use today, they very likely would have different meanings than they did back in the 16th century. In fact, from what I understand, the use of these words was already beginning to fade when the King James was first published and these more formal words were used as a way of making the bible intentionally seperate from the more common or "vulgar" use of the English language.

                    The bottom line is that all of these words have been transmuted over time to the single English word "you" and/or "yours" and as such, other words are added in order to convey plurality like "You all must..." or "several of you" or else the context itself conveys the plural meaning. If you're a business consultant addressing a board of directors and you say, "You're going out of business inside of thirty days.", there's no need to say, "You and you and you and you and you are all going out of business..." The plural is understood by the context.

                    Of course, you know all of this already because you speak English. The point here, however, is simply that there is no need to find the perfect word. All that is necessary is to convey the proper meaning. And there is no advantage to using words who's dictionary meaning might make them "the perfect word" if that word is not used by the people reading the translation. If people have to go get the dictionary out to figure out what your translation means, then you've done a less than spectacular job of translation.

                    When a language is established, should we then have a revision of the Bible every few years to bring it up to date with current vernacular? If so, what standard for vernacular should be used? British? American? West coast valley girls? Rap? I see this as the tail wagging the dog.
                    I think periodic revision would be wise. That's one reason I like the New King James so well. It's not like revision needs to be done every other year or anything like that. And there is no need for a "standard vernacular" either. Let the people doing the translating figure out how they want to do the translation and then let the quality of the product determine if they chose correctly. It's not like anyone could enforce such a standard anyway nor does there appear to have been a need for it up til now so why start down that road in the first place?

                    Of course this means that there will be a wide variety of translations for people to choose from and that the public will have to make a decision as to which they prefer and why. Some will choose poorly and others more wisely but I'm not afraid of that. Even the worst of the widely available translations of the bible aren't so poor that the message of the bible fails to be conveyed and the one's that exist that are intentional perturbations of the original are all widely known as such (e.g. Joseph Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible or JW's New World Translation, etc.) and even they aren't so wildly wrong that one couldn't easily discern the gospel from them.

                    For 250 years, in America, the language was learned by using the KJV as, not only a religious standard but, an English text book. We have completely turned this around so that we now subjectively decide "what we like" instead of what is best for us. Any discussion about versions begins and ends with personal preference, and we think that is just fine. The result has been chaos and disunity; something the Bible warns us against. Is not the cry of the enemies of God that they will enact laws to protect their right to do what they want?

                    For all our advancements, we are worse off; it's not working for us, just against us. We are not taught to get wisdom, we are encouraged to invent it.
                    You have a very cynical view here. First of all, the primary reason that the KJV was used was because it is what was available. It's not like there were a big bunch of options and even if there were a few options here and there, the reason why the KJV was so overwhelmingly prominent was because it was the version that people preferred. There were, in fact, several revisions of, you might even call them versions of the King James Bible. No one has used a real 1611 KJV in centuries and even the King James Bible itself was a revision of the Bishop's Bible that has been prodoced less than a decade before and which was a revision of its original 1568 edition.

                    Further, the plethora of available versions that we have available today is because the King James was leaving something to be desired in a sufficient number of people that someone decided it was worth their while to produce a new translation which not only sold like hotcakes but has, as a result, allowed bible publishers to produce bibles in languages that would never have been produced if not for good old fashioned market forces. Capitalism and the profit motive is a very good thing!

                    This conversation has made me want to reread the excellent Battle Royale XIV which is all about the King James Bible. If you haven't read that, you totally should. I know you're not a KJV only guy but its still just jock full of cool history and amazing information.

                    Clete
                    Last edited by Clete; March 21st, 2019, 02:11 PM.
                    sigpic
                    "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

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Clete View Post
                      Umm, yeah! Of course!



                      There is no need for "the perfect one" word. If "ye", "thee", "thou" and "thine" where in common use today, they very likely would have different meanings than they did back in the 16th century. In fact, from what I understand, the use of these words was already beginning to fade when the King James was first published and these more formal words were used as a way of making the bible intentionally seperate from the more common or "vulgar" use of the English language.

                      The bottom line is that all of these words have been transmuted over time to the single English word "you" and/or "yours" and as such, other words are added in order to convey plurality like "You all must..." or "several of you" or else the context itself conveys the plural meaning. If you're a business consultant addressing a board of directors and you say, "You're going out of business inside of thirty days.", there's no need to say, "You and you and you and you and you are all going out of business..." The plural is understood by the context.

                      Of course, you know all of this already because you speak English. The point here, however, is simply that there is no need to find the perfect word. All that is necessary is to convey the proper meaning. And there is no advantage to using words who's dictionary meaning might make them "the perfect word" if that word is not used by the people reading the translation. If people have to go get the dictionary out to figure out what your translation means, then you've done a less than spectacular job of translation.


                      I think periodic revision would be wise. That's one reason I like the New King James so well. It's not like revision needs to be done every other year or anything like that. And there is no need for a "standard vernacular" either. Let the people doing the translating figure out how they want to do the translation and then let the quality of the product determine if they chose correctly. It's not like anyone could enforce such a standard anyway nor does there appear to have been a need for it up til now so why start down that road in the first place?

                      Of course this means that there will be a wide variety of translations for people to choose from and that the public will have to make a decision as to which they prefer and why. Some will choose poorly and others more wisely but I'm not afraid of that. Even the worst of the widely available translations of the bible aren't so poor that the message of the bible fails to be conveyed and the one's that exist that are intentional perturbations of the original are all widely known as such (e.g. Joseph Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible or JW's New World Translation, etc.) and even they aren't so wildly wrong that one couldn't easily discern the gospel from them.


                      You have a very cynical view here. First of all, the primary reason that the KJV was used was because it is what was available. It's not like there were a big bunch of options and even if there were a few options here and there, the reason why the KJV was so overwhelmingly prominent was because it was the version that people preferred. There were, in fact, several revisions of, you might even call them versions of the King James Bible. No one has used a real 1611 KJV in centuries and even the King James Bible itself was a revision of the Bishop's Bible that has been prodoced less than a decade before and which was a revision of its original 1568 edition.

                      Further, the plethora of available versions that we have available today is because the King James was leaving something to be desired in a sufficient number of people that someone decided it was worth their while to produce a new translation which not only sold like hotcakes but has, as a result, allowed bible publishers to produce bibles in languages that would never have been produced if not for good old fashioned market forces. Capitalism and the profit motive is a very good thing!

                      This conversation has made me want to reread the excellent Battle Royale XIV which is all about the King James Bible. If you haven't read that, you totally should. I know you're not a KJV only guy but its still just jock full of cool history and amazing information.

                      Clete
                      Actually, not true; I am a KJV guy. The only thing I am not is a KJV ONLY guy.
                      These people believe that the KJV is inspired. I do not because I don't believe that any version, not even the original autographs are inspired.

                      What I have settled on, however, is that the KJV is, demonstrably the Word of God to English speaking people.
                      I often refer to other versions to get perspective and to deepen my understanding of a passage but I view them as commentaries and not serious translations.

                      I took great interest all along the line with the Battle Royalle KJV. I followed it nearly every day.
                      The comments are on this thread: http://theologyonline.com/showthread...cussion-thread
                      The thing I learned more than anything else was how sneaky and underhanded Bob Enyart is.
                      As you get into it you may see what I am talking about.

                      Although I don't go quite as far as Will Kenny, I appreciated everything he said.
                      I think he was also careful not to call the KJV inspired, but I forget now.
                      Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

                      It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
                        Actually, not true; I am a KJV guy. The only thing I am not is a KJV ONLY guy.
                        Yeah, that's what I said, only without the capital letters.

                        These people believe that the KJV is inspired. I do not because I don't believe that any version, not even the original autographs are inspired.

                        What I have settled on, however, is that the KJV is, demonstrably the Word of God to English speaking people.
                        I often refer to other versions to get perspective and to deepen my understanding of a passage but I view them as commentaries and not serious translations.
                        Wow! That's basically KJV onlyism, right? Not rabidly so, but still pretty much KJV only.

                        I took great interest all along the line with the Battle Royalle KJV. I followed it nearly every day.
                        The comments are on this thread: http://theologyonline.com/showthread...cussion-thread
                        The thing I learned more than anything else was how sneaky and underhanded Bob Enyart is.
                        As you get into it you may see what I am talking about.

                        Although I don't go quite as far as Will Kenny, I appreciated everything he said.
                        I think he was also careful not to call the KJV inspired, but I forget now.
                        Bob Enyart is the single most intellectually honest person I have ever met. He is honest to the point of near self-destruction and he is anything but underhanded. When he says, "Do right and risk the consequences." he means it and leads by example.

                        I am not related to Bob Enyart at all but you may as well have insulted by brother. I owe that man more than I could ever repay in at thousand lifetimes. You have no call or reason to say such things about a man who loves God with literally every fiber of his being and has more bible knowledge in his little finger than most will ever have.

                        The only people I've ever seen say such things are those who have heard (or read) his arguments and have no response to his argument and no ability to rebut a single point but just simply don't want to be convinced and so cast dispersion upon the man making the arguments.

                        Never once have I discovered an exception. I'm going to read your comments on that thread you linked to and we'll see if you're an exception to this general rule. If, however, you're not an exception, you'll find yourself permanently on my ignore list (as it seems the whole of TOL will be eventually).

                        Clete
                        sigpic
                        "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

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Clete View Post
                          Yeah, that's what I said, only without the capital letters.


                          Wow! That's basically KJV onlyism, right? Not rabidly so, but still pretty much KJV only.


                          Bob Enyart is the single most intellectually honest person I have ever met. He is honest to the point of near self-destruction and he is anything but underhanded. When he says, "Do right and risk the consequences." he means it and leads by example.

                          I am not related to Bob Enyart at all but you may as well have insulted by brother. I owe that man more than I could ever repay in at thousand lifetimes. You have no call or reason to say such things about a man who loves God with literally every fiber of his being and has more bible knowledge in his little finger than most will ever have.

                          The only people I've ever seen say such things are those who have heard (or read) his arguments and have no response to his argument and no ability to rebut a single point but just simply don't want to be convinced and so cast dispersion upon the man making the arguments.

                          Never once have I discovered an exception. I'm going to read your comments on that thread you linked to and we'll see if you're an exception to this general rule. If, however, you're not an exception, you'll find yourself permanently on my ignore list (as it seems the whole of TOL will be eventually).

                          Clete
                          If you are looking for what I am talking about, it is at the beginning of post 18 of the KJVO Battle Royale thread.

                          Instead of advancing real reasons why the KJV cannot be inspired, he begins with a smear campaign attempting to tie his opponent to Ruckman by association. He knows that he is appealing to people who will back him with their emotions instead of facts and logic. I abhor this kind of underhandedness. Guilt by association does not sit very well with me. Enyart lost all credibility for me right at this point.
                          Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

                          It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
                            If you are looking for what I am talking about, it is at the beginning of post 18 of the KJVO Battle Royale thread.

                            Instead of advancing real reasons why the KJV cannot be inspired, he begins with a smear campaign attempting to tie his opponent to Ruckman by association. He knows that he is appealing to people who will back him with their emotions instead of facts and logic. I abhor this kind of underhandedness. Guilt by association does not sit very well with me. Enyart lost all credibility for me right at this point.
                            I don't believe you. This is an excuse!

                            Bob made no such guilt by association as you suggest between the two at all. The connection Bob makes has to do with the flatly stupid idea that God's commandments are somehow contingent upon the vagrancies of various human legal codes. Bringing up Ruckman had to do with demonstrating where that line of thinking leads, which Bob states quite clearly when he says, "This attempt to prop up the KJV and provide cover for Ruckman’s sin is upended by realizing that God’s commandments are His commandments and the meaning doesn’t change a whit regardless of how governments or cultures change." An excellent and irrefutable point, by the way.

                            You're fishing for reasons to reject Bob's arguments. In fact, what's more likely is that you stopped reading any of his argument after you discovered this excuse. Not that reading any further was necessary, Bob had proven his case before his opening post was finished.

                            One thing's for certain, if discernment was dynamite, you couldn't blow the fuzz off of a peach.
                            sigpic
                            "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

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X