The Word Of God In English ...

128 : "Every possible nuance of meaning that resides in the words of the original must be carried over into the words of a translation."

That's an impossible task. Translation has been described as determing the correct sacrifice to make. "Every possible nuance" is not in the least realistic. A translator can aspire to transfer as much as lies within his power, but someting is bound to be lost in the transfer. A functional equivalent might get some nuances that a more formal one can't quite carry over -- and vice-versa.

 

275 : "Jesus' resolve to go to Jerusalem to face his passion and execution is memorably captured in Luke's formulation,'His face was set toward Jerusalem' (ESV). The sense of resolve is lost in translation that tell us simply that Jesus 'was heading for Jerusalem' (NIV).

However, LR wasn't being honest here. The NIV and TNIV both have :"Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem." The sense of resolve is certainly present!

Mr. Ryken is scoring negative points with his faulty observations.

 

He didn't specify,perhaps.But verse 51 in the NIV's should have satisfied him.

NASB :But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem.

ASV : And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he were going to Jerusalem.

GW : But the people didn't welcome him, because he was on his way to Jerusalem.

Weymouth : But the people there would not receive Him, because He was eviently going to Jerusalem.

 

53 : The NRSV "is not the genuine heir to the RSV, being instead a dynamic equivalent translation... In terms of translation philosophy and literary excellence, the true heir to the RSV is the English Standard Version."

Surprise,surprise! But hey, if the NRSV is so radically different from the ESV --why does it match up with it so often? Perhaps LR envies the literary excellence and stylistic flair of the essentially literal NRSV! It outshines the ESV. There was more care and preparation evidenced in its text than the text of the hastily stitched-together ESV.

 

231 :Mr. Ryken speaks quite ironically when he relates :"I enjoy reading the NEB and REB for a quality that I relish ...namely the sheer quaintness of its expressions. But in terms of understanding what the biblical text really says,this is a great distraction that undermines the clarity of the translation..."

Well, I don't relish the ESV for the quaintness of its expressions. But the ESV does employ an abundance of them in the text. And it is indeed a great distraction which undermines the clarity of the translation.

Remember he had said on the very same page :"Clarity is closely tied to the evolution of the English language,which is changing at a more rapid rate in our day than ever before."

 

I wasn't aware of that Mounce quote. I thought the ESV was based on the 1971 RSV -- not the NRSV.

A "once-over" implies a rush job. The ESV team certainly needs to take their time in the next go-round.

If it starts to grow on me I'll have it excised.

 

184 : "...it is appropriate for a Bible translation to have a slightly archaic feel to it in situations where there are good reasons to retain old fashioned or quaint language."

The above sentiment must have been his guiding literary principle in his retention of so much RSV-speak.

 

165 : Psalm 16:6
ESV : "...the lines have fallen for me in pleasant places."

NIV,TNIV,HSSB,NRSV,MLB (Marg) :"The boundary lines have fallen for me in places."

LR :"...increasing movement away from the original text."

In the NET notes Heb. :measuring lines have fallen for me in pleasant [places];yes,property [or 'inheritance]is beautiful for me.

 

185 : "...the constant process of revision among existing translations,has brought a skepticism that any translation is worthy of trust."

Wow! He is not in favor of updates. He thinks translations should be left as they are. But LR's thinking is faulty. The ESV is a slight revision of the RSV,which was an update of the ASV,which was a revision of the ERV,which was a revsion of the KJV ---etc. etc.

All Bible translations need to be updated -- use more contemporary language, and take advantage of new discoveries and knowledge.

His skepticism is probably shared by only folks with a KJVO mentality.

 

141 : He says that images and figures of speech should stand in their original form.

Is that so? The ESV revisers saw fit to adjust metaphors on a number of occasions.

 

128 :"I can imagine dynamic equivalent translators saying that they do not think of themselves as tampering with the text."

You can imagine, can you,LR? You have the NIV/TNIV and NLT in your sights.

The kind of tampering that goes on is with heretical versions such as the NWT.

Leave your warped opinion about translators of dynamic translations out of the discussion,when it comes to charging them with tampering with the text. That kind of remark has no place in the discussion. It's shameful.

135: "I can imagine dynamic equivalent translators saying that they accept the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration."

There you go on flights of fancy again. Translators of dynamic equivalent translations do indeed believe in verbal and plenary inspiration.

This whole line of attack is disgraceful.The translators of the NIV/TNIV and NLT have written articles on the subject -- they are conservative Bible believing scholars.

You disgrace yourself with lowly tactics.

 

214 : Here he speaks of modern ntranslations in the KJV tradition :NASB,RSV,NKJV,and ESV. He says :"They have used ordinary,standard English language and style..."

Huh?! There are sections in the NT where the ESV uses more current language -- but most of that translation uses anything but ordinary,standard English. The NASB is awkward at times but comes out a bit better than does the ESV. The RSV even claims not to use modern English in its preface. The NKJV uses clunky,archaic language that is just a little more improved than the KJV.

LR, for all his expertise in literature, gets failing marks in judging contemporary language in the above translations.

 

195 : Here he takes dynamic translations to task.

"...a reader has no way of knowing where a translation committee's interpretation has entered the English text..."

Well the same applies to the ESV. There are no indications many times except for footnotes occasionally. A more litertal and a more dynamic rendering may lie side-by-side in the same passage.

What's good for the goose,is also good for the gander.

 

14 :"The current hegemony flowed from two landmark translations based on dynamic equivalent principles. Thery were The Living Bible,a paraphrase published in 1971,and the New International Version (NIV),published in 1978."

Wow! So much misinformation! LR already acknowledged that the old Living Bible was a paraphrase. It is not in the category of dynamic equivalence. And the NIV is not in the category of dynamic equivalence either -- for different reasons. It's a mediating version --a bridge between the more formal and the more functionally equivalent. It is certainly not based on the principles of dynamic equivalence. The old 84 NIV is much closer to the NASB --then to the old Living Bible! LR is being careless in his writing.

16 : He says :"...there was no genuine alternative to the Living Bible and the NIV until the publication of the English Standard Version (ESV) in 2001."

He thinks ultra-highly of the ESV,doesn't he? No other options? How about the MLB,The REB, The NKJ,the NASB,the NRSV etc. L.Ryken is really in error here.