Translation practice

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 12, 2010.

  1. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This quote was made in another thread. I though it worthy of debate, but it is off topic. What are your thoughts? Is this a true history of translation?

    From what I have read missionaries have not translated from English, but from Greek and Hebrew.

    Is a translation of a translation an acceptable translation?

    I would agree that it is better than nothing, but is that really a trustworthy Bible?
     
    #1 NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2010
  2. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    A translation of a translation is a paraphrase :)

    Seriously, how can you get a step past the translation and it still be a translation? You're right in that it's better than nothing. But still, I have mixed feelings about it.

    What if someone were to translate the KJV using up to date English? Would that product be a reliable translation?
     
  3. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom is dead on about it being a paraphrase, and that is being kind.

    No, it wouldn't.
     
  4. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    The scriptures themselves are a translation. Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic, not Greek. When Joseph spoke to his brothers he spoke Egyptian, but we have his words in Hebrew. Nebuchadnezzar and many others spoke other languages but we have their words in Hebrew.

    Mark 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.

    Here is a translation from a translation. In Hebrew it was "the place of a skull", in Aramaic it was Golgotha, but it was translated to Greek, and now we have it in English. I had no difficulty understanding this verse.

    If God can accurately translate one language to another, why can't we?
     
    #4 Winman, Aug 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2010
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    So you would advise those who do translation work to ignore the Traditional Text body and only use the KJT for their work?

    Do you have any evidence that most translation work in the world has been done from the KJT instead of Greek and Hebrew?
     
  6. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL! How wrong can you be?

    While Jesus and the apostles may have spoken Aramaic, the scriptures were recorded in Greek... which was the trade language of the day. If they had been written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek you would be correct, but that wasn't the case. The same for others in the bible.

    Why can't we? Because we don't have the Holy Spirit giving us His inspired words. Simple, huh?
     
  7. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    When you read the words of Jesus and the apostles, they were speaking in Aramaic. The Greek NT is a translation. When the Ethiopian eunuch read the scriptures, that was a translation of Hebrew to Greek, yet the scriptures themselves declare the texts he was reading to be scripture.

    Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

    The Ethiopian eunch was reading a translation, but the scriptures say he was reading "scripture".

    Matt 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?

    Jesus was not speaking Greek here. And the verse itself shows it is translating his words.

    You don't have to be inspired to translate one language to another.
     
    #7 Winman, Aug 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2010
  8. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,969
    Likes Received:
    128
    Are you comparing yourself to God?

    The simple answer is because God is perfect and we are not.

    Rob
     
  9. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Winman, you confuse apples and bowling balls. The English translation of the Greek/Hebrew mss is a translation in the receptor language from the source language/documents. What I took C4K to ask is this: is it appropriate to use a receptor language as a source document for translation purposes? I believe source documents are preferable for source documents. You may very well disagree, and I believe you'd have a very hard time holding to a Biblical doctrine of inspiration in the process, but then again I believe that anyway, so we won't go down that road again. We just disagree.

    So when someone reads the TNIV translation, are they reading scripture?
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,087
    Likes Received:
    218
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Win, you look foolish in your attempt to "defend" your beloved.

    Jesus spoke Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. BUT when it was BREATHED BY GOD into our Scripture, it was the inspired Greek. It wasn't a "translation" of what was said. It was 100% God breathed.

    So THAT is the base. From it, the Word can be (trustworthily) translated into every language. But translations are the work of men and 100% fallible. No translation is perfect (even the much-worshiped ones) This is the difference between a translation and the original Greek text.

    MAN did not translate Jesus words (in whichever of the 3 dialects He spoke at that time). God INSPIRED the renderings perfectly. Huge difference.

    Jerome translated the Eastern Greek into the common Western Latin but it had many weaknesses. Wycliff translated the Latin translation into late Middle English AD1385. The weaknesses of the Latin were MAGNIFIED in the English and more nuances lost.

    Translators use source documents. Period. They do not use translations or even late conflated copies of copies of copies (another grave error in modern Bible translation by some.
     
  12. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dunno, but I'm sure it was funny!
     
  13. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am quite aware that God translated the scriptures and gave the inspired words to the NT writers.

    But the point is, if God can accurately translate from one language to another, why can't man?

    That is my question to those here, if God can accurately translate one language to another, then why can't man?
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Man can - simple enough. He has done it over and over again through the centuries.

    John of Japan is doing it even now. However, he is using Greek texts (he is working on the NT), not another translation.

    That is not, however the subject of this thread.

    You still have not presented even the most basic evidence that most translations in history have been from the KJT as you stated earlier. Could you help me see that evidence please?
     
    #14 NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2010
  15. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know what that proves. The Jehovah's Witnesses have translated the NWT into over 90 languages, does that make it correct?

    It is difficult to find out how many foreign bibles are based on the TR but there are many. The Trinitarian Bible Society says at it's website that it has distributed part or all of scripture to 118 nations. They use only the Masoretic Text and the TR (Scrivener's).

    Let me ask you this though, how many languages did God give the OT scriptures in? Saying God will preserve his word is not a promise to publish the scriptures in every language. We have the scriptures in English today because we have translated the Hebrew into English.

    So, this is a clever distraction, preservation does not argue that the preserved and inerrant scriptures be given in all languages. But once you have that preserved and inerrant text you can then translate it into other languages.

    Another fallacious argument.
     
  16. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking of fallacious... :rolleyes:
     
  17. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a convincing argument you present.

    When God promised to preserve his scriptures, he did not promise to preserve it in every langauge. No, he promised to preserve it to all generations, that is, it would always exist in the world. That it would need to be translated goes without saying.

    Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
    20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


    When we are commanded to go to all nations and teach them, it is a given that the scriptures must be translated into that langauge, or else the people taught the language of the teacher. So that the Word of God would and should be translated is assumed by scripture.
     
    #17 Winman, Aug 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2010
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Please stop dodging this - you made the claim in another thread that most translation work has been done by missionaries translating from the KJT. If that is true you should be able to prove it.

    Here is your claim in your words;

    Can you prove it or will you admit that you were in error?
     
    #18 NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2010
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    It is less trustworthy than a translation made from the original languages.

    This is obvious because there is enough lost information in semantic subtleties and nuances in a one-to-one translation much less a two-to-one translation.

    Here is one example out of a many just going from the Koine to English.

    John 11:35 Jesus wept.​

    From the koine edakrusen ho iesus (Literally "wept the Jesus" or "made tears the Jesus").

    edakrusen - From dakrouo.

    However, earlier in the passage:
    John 11
    32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
    33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,
    34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.​

    The English root here is the same as in John 11:35 (To weep).

    In the koine account Jesus was doing something different than Mary.​

    That koine word for Mary's weeping is klaio and carries the idea of wailing and lamentation.​

    The word for the weeping of Jesus (dakrouo) indicates a silent weeping with tears streaming down His face, the word literally meaning - to make tears, a verb form of the noun "tears" dakru.​

    The significance? Well for one thing it shows His controlled human emotional turmoil and compassion beyond just a self centered wail and lamentation for the loss of Lazarus. ​

    The point: Even in a one-on-one this distiction is usually lost and IMO takes away from the human persona of Jesus Christ.​

    I have only seen one translation that caught the moment in English with words to the effect "and tears were streaming down the face of Jesus".​

    Here it takes 9 words to say in English what koine says in three (counting the definite article).​

    In a two-on-one, even going back to the source, the nuances are lost completely.​

    This is just one example of a multitude.​

    HankD​
     
  20. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    This completely destroys your KJVO beliefs right here.
     

Share This Page

Loading...