Your translational standard cannot be applied across the board

Many times in these threads certain claims are made about how translations should be done. Further, claims are made that if these items are not up a given poster's personal standard than that version, or versions are distorting the Word of God. I say nonsense to those baseless charges.

"Any principle upon which we insist for English ought also to be true for any other language. I fear some of our pronouncements would seem a bit foolish in other contexts." ( From a paper by Rod Decker : What Does a Translator Have to Offer the Reader? page 4)

"If the only faithful translation is one that is primarily word-focused like the NASB, ESV or KJV, then most of the world's languages cannot have atruly faithful translation." (Taken from Dave Brunn's book :One Bible, Many Versions page 135)

 

Once again you have proven how poor your comprehension is even when you quote an entire post of mine.

 

A principle is foundational. There are esentials for the Christian faith and there must be foundational principles for Bible translation that apply equally across the board. That is, they must have relevance to any language.

If a principle in English Bible translation does not apply to many other languages --then one must yield and admit that said principle is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

 

On that we are all agreed. But I was making reference to other issues that Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often voice.

No complaint from me on that score. But to get down to the nitty gritty --what exactly does accuracy in Bible translation entail? There are difference of opinion on that.

For instance, accuracy does not = "literal"

 

"As we seek to determine what practices are acceptable in translation, we need to include the evidence that exists in all living languages of the world." (From Dave Brunn's book cited in the OP, p.146)

 

I can't access the site now, but they come down rather hard on every translation but the KJV.

Here's a snip of what was said about the ESV:"...because of the textual basis and translational errors carried over from the RSV it cannot be considered a trustworthy translation of the Bible." That's absurd.

Biblica, which was formerly known as the International Bible Society does quite good work.
In 2015 it published new and revised tranlations for languages with a combined total of 685 million.

Kiswahili revision
Shona, German, French, Swedish, Kurdish Sorani New Testament, and Spanish NVI.

Projects are under way to service 3 billion people; 3 Philippine translations, 12 for Africa, ones for Europe and the Middle East, Spanish and Portuguese, and 7 for India.

Most, if not all use the translational method of the NIV --a mix of formal and functional.

Not a good idea --especially if they want to put it in an equivalent manner to that of the KJV. The translations would be tortured, to say the least. But, a poor translation is better than none at all.