Translational Differences

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by sdnesmith, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. sdnesmith

    sdnesmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, let's look at an example of translational differences. Consider this sentence in Spanish.

    Joe tiene un coche rojo.

    Translated directly into English, it reads: Joe has a red car. This is a word for word translation.

    What if I were to say: Joe has a car that is red.
    The meaning stays the same, but it is no longer a word for word translation. The word for word spanish translation would be: Joe tiene un coche que es rojo. Interestingly, the word que can also be translated who, whom, which, or what depending on the context.

    My point is that the original sentence (Joe tiene un coche rojo) does not have to be translated word for word to convey the same meaning. The following translations all convey the same meaning.

    Joe has a red car.
    Joe has a car that is red.
    Joe has a car. The car is red.
    Joe's car is red.
    Joe has a car that is red colored.

    Many KJVO's claim that modern versions change doctrine by omitting, adding, or changing certain words in the verses. Please show me specifically where my NIV states that Jesus was NOT born of a Virgin, that Jesus was NOT sinless, that Jesus did NOT atone for my sins, that Jesus did NOT die on the Cross, that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, that Jesus did NOT ascend into Heaven, and that Jesus is NOT coming again to take His Church to be with Him.

    It is not my intention for this post to degrade into a discussion of the corrupted Alexandrian line of manuscripts, the evils of Westcott and Hort textual criticism, etc. It is merely to point out the the original Greek manuscripts can be translated many ways and still maintain the same meaning. The Greek text is NOT defined by the English translation, whether it be King James English or 21st Sentury English. After spending four years of my life steeped in the belief system that is KJVO, it is my opinion that if the EXACT manuscripts used to translate the King James Bible in 1611 were still available today for translation into modern English, it would be rejected by KJVO's as not being the "true" word of God.

    Shawn
     
  2. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shawn, your point is exactly the point I have been trying to make. Individual "words" do not make a translation good or bad. It is the "context" and the entire "message".

    The "Word of God" is not individual Greek or Hebrew Words which cannot be translated "word for word". All a person has to do is look at an interlinear Bible with Word for Word subscript to understand that it makes little sense. The "Word of God" is the message from God and it can be repeated in different ways and still be "THE WORD OF GOD". [​IMG]
     
  3. Trotter

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ditto, Phillip.

    Oh, and, Shawn? The word for word literal translation is "Joe has a car red". Spanish puts the adjectives after the noun.

    Just thought I'd put in my two cents worth. Donde es banjo?

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  4. sdnesmith

    sdnesmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, Trotter, I guess that would be considered an error in translation. I better not try to learn Greek!

    Shawn
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Those are good points, Shawn.

    The reason we point out such things in the KJV as the addition of the words, "the image of" in Romans 11:4 is to illustrate to the readers that the KJV has the VERY SAME THINGS, such as the addition of words for clarity, that the KJVOs like to blast other versions for having. The words "the image of" are NOT found in any known ancient Greek mss of Romans, and they are NOT necessary to clarify the translation. But they don't alter the message of the verse whatsoever. There were images of Baal, so there's no error of definition in the added words. We just wanted to show the KJVOs have absolutely NO grounds for condemning another BV for clarifying its translation by adding words, since the KJV translators did the exact same thing. They used "unicorn" for the hebrew 're'em', which means a large, strong animal, in several places. Does that change the message? Not at all. Even though WE know there's little possibility that the horse-like creature of mythology we call unicorn actually existed, the people of 1611 weren't so sure, and the unicorn was supposed to be strong enough to toss an elephant with its horn. However, most MVs read, "wild ox" for re'em, which IS definitely a real animal, and is quite large & strong. Again, no harm, no foul. NEITHER side in the versions discussions will get anywhere in arguing against either renderings.
     
  6. Trotter

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    What gets me is that KJVO's scream that the MV's differ from the KJV by such-and-such number of times, when almost all of these are deletions of "and" and different word choices (with the same meaning).

    If the KJVO crowd would shut up and actually read one of these 'corruptions' to see what it really says, they would be surprised to find it says the same thing. But then, I ain't gonna hold my breathe for that, either.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted a new thread where we can actually look at some of these words and verses. All of you can help in the discussion. I opened it for KJVo's to place the things they feel were left out of MV's. You may post things that were added.

    Let's put to rest some of the KVJo arguments once and for all.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Certain embellishments are necessary. Say you're a translator for a Japanese news agence whose job it is to translate American news items into Japanese for broadcast in Tokyo. You read, "Donald Trump flew from NYC to LA today." Now, the meaning of this sentence is immediately grasped by an English-using American, but if it were literally translated, it would puzzle many Japanese not fluent with American English. The same would apply if the English read, "Donald Trump took a plane from NYC to LA. The Japanese might wonder just how trump took the plane, whether it was an AIRplane or some other kind, and he/she might not be familiar with American abbreviations for the names of American cities. This is NOT stupidity on the Japaneses' part; its their unfamiliarity with the USA, same as very few Americans could name all of Tokyo's wards, or know the name of the river which flows through the midst of Tokyo. (the Sumida River).Therefore, the translator would render it, "Donald Trump rode in an airplane which was flown from New York City to the city of Los Angeles."

    Both Japanese and English are modern languages, used by peoples with the same levels of civilization and technology, but yet, when translating one into the other, a liberal amount of paraphrasing is often necessary. The problems mount in translating an ancient work into a modern language. there are, for example, objects and customs familiar in earlier times that we are almost ignorant of, and we don't know what the ancient writer was talking about if the work is literally translated. And this is true even for more modern times, and in the same language. For example, ask anyone what a sackbut is.(It is the medieval forerunner of the modern trombone.)


    Which brings us to another very strange KJV rendering.The AV translators translted the Aramaic 'sabbaka', which is actually a 4-stringed instrument similar to the lyre, not the sackbut, the form of trombone known in 1611. Most other versions read "lyre, harp, trigon" for this word.

    However, this doesn't change the meaning of the verse one bit. The context was that the people were to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's idol when the music played. Perhaps "Arioch & the Chaldean Cloggers" played quite lively tunes!
     

Share This Page

Loading...