Would YOU Translate with these Rules?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Jun 2, 2003.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Those who worked on the AV1611 had 15 strict guidelines and rules. As I looked at them, I thought, "I wouldn't have worked under those conditions."

    Would you? Which ones would you buck against? Clip this list (summarized and in modern English) and add your "yea" or "nay" to each

    1. Use with as little alteration the Bishops Bible

    2. The names retained as they were commonly used

    3. Keep old ecclesiastical words such as church and baptize

    4. If a word had different definitions, use those from the church fathers

    5. No chapter/verse divisions altered

    6. No marginal notes allowed except to explain some Greek and Hebrew

    7. Cross references should be limited and only in the margin

    8. All in a sub-group translate same chapter, then compare and make final bible book

    9. Each sub-group send final bible book to other sub-groups for comparison and change

    10. Sub-groups should mark places where they disagree and send them to others for input

    11. If any especially difficult passage is found, contact scholars for input

    12. Letters to be sent for help and input from any clergy skilled in translation

    13. Directors of each sub-group were University deasn and professors in the Hebrew of Greek

    14. Other than Bishop's Bible, translations to be used when they agree better with the original language were Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva

    15. Three or four great church leaders NOT involved in translating will be overseers of entire project
     
  2. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Use with as little alteration the Bishops Bible

    Maybe. If my intent was to make a whole new translation, no. If it was to revise the BB, yes.

    2. The names retained as they were commonly used

    No. If the common used were wrong, then they should be changed. I guess the names they are referring to are Biblical names, such as cities and personal names.

    3. Keep old ecclesiastical words such as church and baptize

    Interesting. It is good for recognition sake, but if it is misleading (such as baptize) it should be changed. Of course, MVs transliterate words as well, such as Hades and Sheol.

    4. If a word had different definitions, use those from the church fathers

    Hmm....I think they should be considered, but not the default. They were humans too. Context seems to best dictate the appropriate meaning.

    5. No chapter/verse divisions altered

    Okay, unless something obviously belong in a different chapter or verse. (Such as some of the OT divisions seem to be a little off, the beginning of a chapter seemed to go with the end of the previous chapter. I am not saying to just move verses around at will.)

    6. No marginal notes allowed except to explain some Greek and Hebrew

    That seems fine. Unless there is something that obviously needed to be noted. Cross references should be allowed as well.

    7. Cross references should be limited and only in the margin

    Fine. (Doesn't this go against the previous rule? :confused: )

    8. All in a sub-group translate same chapter, then compare and make final bible book

    That is okay. I would prefer everyone working together at the same time on the same text.

    9. Each sub-group send final bible book to other sub-groups for comparison and change

    I don't really see the need for this. The other group would not have translated the book, so how could they have a basis for changes?

    10. Sub-groups should mark places where they disagree and send them to others for input

    I don't mind getting opinions of others. But they should have translated the text in question.

    11. If any especially difficult passage is found, contact scholars for input

    Call me silly, but I would want scholars' input for all of it.

    12. Letters to be sent for help and input from any clergy skilled in translation

    No problem with this. I would take into account their expertise when weighing their input.

    13. Directors of each sub-group were University deasn and professors in the Hebrew of Greek

    No problem.

    14. Other than Bishop's Bible, translations to be used when they agree better with the original language were Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva

    I don't have a problem with consulting others. But I wouldn't just lift their translation, unless their was no more accurate way to render it. :D I would put more of an emphasis on any existing original language texts rather than on the other English translations. Also would consult Ancient Translations as well.

    15. Three or four great church leaders NOT involved in translating will be overseers of entire project

    As long as these men were of blameless character and had no obvious outside motives.

    Neal

    [ June 03, 2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]
     
  3. Bartholomew

    Bartholomew
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why not? The Bishops Bible was derived from the excellent work of Tyndale.
    Well MVers tell us we have to have things that are "understandable", so that makes perfect sense.
    Well if this is wrong, show me someone on BB who doesn't use them. I mean, if "baptize" is obscure and shouldn't be used, why is this a "BAPTIST Board"? Why do we have "BAPTIST only" sections? Hmmm...
    Makes more sense than using those of secular/occultic literature.
    I was under the impression that they were just instructed not to change them UNLESS there was very good reason. But the chapters and verses were there to identify passges, so keeping them the same helps them continue their purpose.
    That's so it wasn't filled with Calvinistic additions (e.g. Geneva Bible), a very good thing in my opinion...
    Where do you want them?
    Excellent idea. [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Well, Dr. Bob, you're always telling us how important the Hebrew and Greek are, so this should satisfy your concerns.
    All extremely good Bibles, blest to the English people by God. And this brings up the main point: the AV was NOT a new translation as such, but was an attempt to piece together the BEST parts of all the previous translations - to BUILD upon what was already there. In light of this, and the fact that it was providentially blest by God far more than any of its predecessors, there is good reason to believe that it is indeed the perfected and preserved word of God.
    I thought John Bois was one such overseer, and that he helped translate some of the appocrypha? But I may be wrong. But I don't see a great problem with this point. Who would YOU suggest oversee it?

    Overall, I think they are very sensible principles, and ones which should make us consider that perhaps the KJV is the best, after-all.
     
  4. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you getting at here, D-Bob?
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you?

    Assuming I had a knowlegeable grasp on Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and contemporary English, I'd take the TR and translate it from scratch into contemporary English. If it disagrees with other versions already in English, it would be of little concern. Translations already in existence are not authoritative, if the texts they were translated from are still in existence.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I just came across these "guidelines" and was personally appalled. NO WONDER they came up with the "translation" they did. Couple of points (from the first 7 or so on their list) jumped out at me and my integrity as a translator:</font>
    • Very little of the AV1611 was original. It was revisions of revisions of other translations.</font>
    • Name retention from these earlier versions meant we have Osee and Elias to confuse</font>
    • Old ecclesiastical words allowed erroneous anglican theology to go unchecked. How many gajillion times I've wished that "baptidzo" was accurately translated "immersed"? And "ecclesia" as "assembly"?</font>
    • Rather than use "church fathers" as a source, how about the Hebrew and Greek?</font>
    • No marginal notes allowed except to explain some Greek and Hebrew. One of the GREATEST BLESSINGS is a "study Bible" like the Geneva Bible that helped clarify the English with marginal notes.</font>
    • Cross references limited again keeps the Bible from being its own best interpreter and puts the onus on the preacher/church to tell you what God really is saying. Anglicans love that.</font>
    Hence I thought some "only" types would jump on how wonderful it was to have these rules and some "mv" types would jump all over it.

    Guess I'm disappointed when I put up hoops and NOBODY jumps!! [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...