Featured Dynamic Equivalence--Again!

Regarding post #100. JJ has yet to prove that existentialism is foundational in any Bible version of today. No mere assertion will do --only proof from the writings of present day translators and from the texts of English Bible translations.

 

JJ brought up the word gold earlier. Of 15 Bible verses the NIV uses it 444 times. That's more than the NKJV (428) and the old KJV (419)Of the 15 translations the KJV uses the word the least.
Which translations use it the most? NABRE (514) CEB (543) and the winner --the NRSV at 545..I have yet to do a study on which translations (if any at all) use the word in a metaphorical sense. It is very doubtful.

 

The first sentence JJ attributes to Nida. In the second sentence JJ was speaking of the word 'gold' and how the meaning is sometimes altered in a metaphorical sense. But JJ does believe, in the absolute sense that context cannot change the meaning of a word, even in the slightest.

Of course, he is wrong. But I will give some quotes from Bible scholars more knowledgeable than him. These quotes are from the book The Challenge Of Bible Translation with chapters by various authors.

The first quote is from D.A. Carson in his chapter The Limits Of Functional Equivalence In Bible Translation.
"Few translators of any competence would today deny such fundamental priorities as the following :
1. Contextual consistency has priority over verbal consistency (or word-for-word concordance)." [from page 92]

The next quote is from Mark Strauss in his chapter Current Issues In The Gender-Language Debate
"It is context alone that determines which sense of a lexeme is intended within its semantic range." (p.134)

This last quote is from Steven Voth in his chapter Justice And/Or Righteousness.

"...it is necessary to look at the sum total of the contexts in which a given word is used in order to arrive at a more accurate meaning or meanings of a particular lexical unit." (p.326

 

This time I will quote from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss. (Fee died five weeks ago.)

"Translators cannot translate words 'literally", they must translate them according to their meaning in context."(p. 48)

"All translation is interpretation. The translator must first determine the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek term in its context. Then he or she must find and English word, phrase, or clause that reproduces that meaning as accurately and clearly as possible." (p.49)

"The principle again is that translation is not a mechanical replacement of words. It is a careful and measured assessment of their meaning in context." (p. 50)

 

So much for your claim that you would ignore my posts. How long did that last.

 

See, you are contradicting yourself yet again.

 

And by the word meaning I mean the sense of a word, phrase or clause.

 

Please inform us what you agreed with in the various quotes I provided.

 

JJ got out of the kitchen because he couldn't stand the heat.

I have asked him direct questions and he dodges them because they make him feel uncomfortable I guess.

JJ speaks with a forked tongue. On the one hand he dismisses the views of the authors I have cited. He says there are plenty of scholars that are on his side and that my quotes prove nothing. Then JJ turns around and says "Much of what Rippon quoted by others I would agree with." So which is it? My quotes are either worthless or he agrees with most of them. JJ is still contradicting himself. He seems not to be able to stop himself. It's a case of JJ vs. JJ.

 

@RipponRedeaux, what is at issue is what the word of God actually says being faithfully translated as opposed to what some translators want God to say instead.

 

No, that is not a faithful ... i.e. truthful report. That view of yours is repugnant.

 

So you do believe translation should be as literal as possible.

 

It's better for a translation to be as accurate as possible -- not as literal as possible. The words literal and accurate are not synonyms.

In a Word To The Reader of the NIV it states "accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures.
To achieve clarity the translators have sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context."

 

Translation cannot be accurate without beginning the actual word of God, aka as literal.

 

Martin Luther disagrees with you.

"I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew expresses...Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather he must see to it -- once he understands the Hebrew author -- that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, 'Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?' ... Let him drop the Hebrew words and express the reading freely in the best German he knows." (Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 35:193)