Featured Really? Scripture is being translated from English to other languages?

No, that's not the point. We are not talking about translations having errors or not. Go back one page and re-read the OP. you are way off base here. We are not discussing if the KJV is perfect. We are discussing translating from English vs translating from the original language.

 

If a translation accurately reflects it's source, then if that accurate translation is also accurately translated into yet a third language, why MUST there be error?

Are you telling me John 11:35 cannot be accurately translated from one language to another?

John 11:35 Jesus wept.

Now, do you insist this verse in English could not possibly be translated correctly into any other language? If a translator were to translate John 11:35 using only the English translation for a reference, do you insist it cannot agree with the original Greek text?

 

You know, you fellas would do a lot better in debate if you would just give specific examples. Show why a translation made from English into another language (you pick the language) must misrepresent the original Greek.

 

Glad to help!

Here's some more info. A Greek scholar friend of mine wrote just wrote me that he recently spoke for about an hour to a Wycliffe rep. The typical Wycliffe field translator nowadays is using the New Living Translation, believe it or not! (They do, however, temper this by comparing their work to the NASV.) He said that most Wycliffe translators don't know Greek or Hebrew, so out of necessity translate from English.

My impression from my reading and research has been that Wycliffe translators are much more likely to be trained in linguistics than in Biblical languages. In fact, that is the entire emphasis of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, the Wycliffe sister organization. Frankly, I think that is a mistake. While a basic knowledge of linguistics is important for analyzing a tribal language and putting it into written form, many of them go beyond that basic knowledge and get degrees in linguistics. They would be better served by studying the original languages and translation theory, in my opinion.

 

OK, how do these scriptures prove that if a person were to translate from an English version of scripture that it would misrepresent the original Greek?

Now, if the English version did not accurately represent the original Greek it goes without saying that a translation from that English would not represent the Greek.

But I am asking, if a person were to translate from an ACCURATE English version to another language, then why would that translation misrepresent the original Greek?

Neh 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

I do not see how this verse supports your view. We are told to study the scriptures. When Jesus said Paul was kicking against the "pricks" most persons today would not understand what a prick is. So you have to study to understand the scriptures.

If a person were to translate this English word "pricks" to another language, likewise those persons would have to study to know what this word means.

I do not understand how Daniel 5 supports your view that a translation must be error, Daniel was able to accurately translate the writing he saw on the wall which was in Hebrew. He was able to tell the Babylonians exactly what these words meant in their language. This supports my view.

Mar 5:41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.

How does this support your view? According to Barnes Notes, Jesus spoke Syro-Chaldaic here. And then we are told exactly what it means. Again, this supports my view, not yours.

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Again, these words are accurately translated, how does this support your view?

Maybe I am missing something, but all these examples seem to support my view and refute yours. Maybe you can explain to me how these scriptures refute my view, because I'm not seeing it.

 

Yes, you have completely missed my point. My point was that there are many Scriptures on translating, but Acts 2 was not about translating.

I mentioned some of those Scriptures in passing to prove my point, but that was not intended to prove my point, and they don't prove your point either. None of these Scriptures discuss the methodology and/or accuracy of a double translation.

 

Well, it's a good thing you did not pick these scriptures to prove your point, because if you ask me, they support my view and refute yours.

And I beg your pardon, I hardly believe the word of God would lie. The scriptures told us EXACTLY what was said.

 

Yeah, the point of the thread is that you tried to make me look like I made false statements that the NIV was used to translate into other languages. I did not make those statements, Chick did.

When you found out it was true you never apologized did you? Didn't quite work out like you planned did it?

 

What on the earth are you talking about? What point of mine are you imagining these Scriptures are refuting?

And what in the world are you saying about how I believe the word of God would lie? I don't have a clue what you are talking about. I've said nothing remotely like that.

 

I was replying to this comment of yours;

You said none of these scriptures discuss the methodology and or accuracy of a double translation. Well of course they don't, and I don't think you could produce scripture that does, the scriptures are not a college course on translating.

But it goes without saying that the word of God is accurate.

Mar 5:41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.

When this verse tells me that "Talitha cumi" means "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise." I believe that to be exactly what those words mean. It is accurate.

It seems to me that these scriptures all show that scripture can be translated from one language to another and be accurate. That is why I think all of these examples you provided support my view and argue against yours.

 

That you would represent me as believing that accurate Scripture translation is impossible shows the depth and breadth of your pool of ignorance of translating in general and Bible translating in particular. (Which ignorance I commend you for openly admitting.) I've never said anything like this on the BB. You simply don't know how translators talk.

Furthermore, I have an essay on my son's blog saying exactly the opposite in contradiction to various scholars, "Is Translation Possible?" at http://paroikosmissionarykid.blogspot.jp/search/label/Bible%20translation. (Look halfway down the page.)

Let this be the start of your research on translation. Get back to me when you've done the necessary study to understand the subject somewhat. Otherwise you will continue to misunderstand me, and that's no fun.

 

Swoosh! You missed the point Crabby. You and I are on the same side on this issue.

 

Closed at the request of OP author