21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

I'll ask again. Pay attention here. See if you can prove you're not a wannabe.

1. Do you know any foreign language?
2. Have you taken courses in Greek or Hebrew.
3. Do you have any training in translation?
4. Do you have any experience in translation?

If we go to a doctor, we want him to be qualified with a medical degree. If we call a plumber, we want him to be trained and licensed. If we take our car to a mechanic, we want him to be trained and qualified. Yet here you are, saying that someone who writes on Bible translation, a far more serious field, need not be qualified. For shame!

You don't even know what my view is! I have four possible ways to translate an idiom. Do you know what they are? Have you read my article on this, which is on a theological blog for all to read?

Wallace agrees with you???? An internationally known expert with a PhD in Greek and many articles and books out agrees with an anonymous Internet denizen who writes about translation on the BB with no qualifications? Rather say that you agree with him. He doesn't know you from Adam (nor does he know me, unless he read that festschrift I had an essay in--and he may have laughed at me, who knows? )

 

What is really ironic here is that the Expert Dr wallace actually recommends the Niv 2011. version Van despises!

 

My Pastor has 2 earned Phd, and has also a masters in Hebrew/Greek, and even he would not regard himself as an "expert"

 

I see the usual misrepresentation is on display.

I said to present the literal translation of idioms and footnote the meaning or meanings. I provided an example from the NET doing just that. Therefore the assertion by JOJ was twaddle.

Did any of the wannabe address the fact I am right? Nope. They address my lack of qualifications according to the world's value system. Not my citizenship. Truth has value in the kingdom of God.

I did not say I knew JOJ's view. So a strawman argument. Why would I care what JOJ's view on translation of idioms is? He thinks the best one is ridiculous.

Dr. Wallace footnoted the idiomatic meaning, which I presented, so he agrees with my view in some cases.; No need to change the subject.

 

I had a great time last week at the "Team Meeting" of a Bible translation ministry. It was great to get more training, and I learned much, including from two lecturers half my age. One lectured on "platforms" for translating in a limited access country, and the other lectured on linguistics in translating. I was privileged to be allowed to present our Japanese work for ten minutes.

So, again, here are the questions by which you can prove you're not a wannabe.

1. Do you know any foreign language?
2. Have you taken courses in Greek or Hebrew?
3. Do you have any training in translation?
4. Do you have any experience in translation?

 

Anytime someone puts words in my mouth, does this mean - some absurd unbiblical view - I feel it is cheap shot. I note that not one of these wannabes provided the meaning of priesthood of believers. That means each believer has equal footing before God. No need to special folks to stand between God and us, like those holding PhDs.

My position concerns translating scripture into English. You will not be able to show a single verse where my method would not be best.

I showed where an actual expert, Dr. Wallace, used my preferred method. I did not see where anyone offered a verse where that method would not provide the best information to someone studying to show themselves approved.

Many years ago I worked with some very smart people, holding degrees. But that did not make them infallible, sometimes they were right I was wrong, but at other times I hit closer to the mark.

Bottom line, there are those who want to suppress my views on a range of subjects, and that is wrong.

 

Note the concerted effort to change the subject from literally translating idioms and then footnoting the meaning or meanings.

 

Tell you what, let's take a look at the "idiom" with which Van tries to prove that Wallace "agrees with" him. The problem is, it is not an idiom, but a metaphor! It is speaking about the literal arm of the wicked, which symbolizes the strength of the wicked according to the footnote.

Van strikes out again, with no apparent knowledge of the figures of speech in the Bible. There is a big difference between idioms and metaphors, you know.

 

I see JOJ cannot even admit that the verse contains an idiom. Good Grief. Dr. Wallace says it is!!!
Footnote 44: The arm symbolizes the strength of the wicked, which they use to oppress and exploit the weak.

 

You know, one of the greatest Bible translators around today is my friend B. P. He doesn't have a PhD, but learned a bunch of languages growing up as a missionary kid. He speaks about 20 nowadays, I believe. He is self educated in Greek, but went to Israel for a year to learn Hebrew. He has translated the NT into several languages already.

Now, I agree that you might be qualified even without any degrees. So:

1. Are you self-educated to fluency in any foreign language?
2. Have you self-educated yourself in Greek and/or Hebrew to fluency in reading?
3. Have you read completely through any technical books on translation? (My friend has 200 in his library.)
4. Have you ever actually done any Bible translation on your own?

I'll be waiting.

Except that your "method" of footnoting idioms was for a metaphor, not an idiom. Maybe I should add one to the list of qualifications which you keep ducking.

5. Have you ever taken Eng. 101?

 

"Symbolize" and "idiom" are not synonyms. Wallace did not call that an idiom, he said it "symbolizes." Not the same. Here is a definition for idiom. Pay close attention:

"idiom A set expression in which two or more words are syntactically related, but with a meaning like that of a single lexical unit" (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 183).

 

Lets look at another example, Deuteronomy 13:6 and the phrase "the wife of your bosom." Many translation change the translation to "your beloved wife" or the wife you embrace." But a footnote would clarify the idea, and leave the interpretation to the footnote.
Again, the student would know that scripture uses idioms or figurative expressions meant to convey an idea differing from the literal.

 

I see two more off topic posts, nitpicking and claiming the idiom was not an idiom. No mention of the actual topic, literal translation coupled with footnotes to explain where the literal meaning is not the intended message. For example, "break the arm" idiomatic meaning "break the strength."