21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

Actually, the original topic was the 21st Century KJV, not your rabbit trail.

Now another of your errors is assuming that "idiomatic" (an adjective) means the same as "idiom" (a noun). They are not the same. An "idiomatic" rendering is not the rendering of an idiom. Here is a definition: "idiomatic Peculiar to a language" (Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 96). Nida equates the word with "natural" in his book with Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation. (Have you read that one?)

If you are going to pose on the BB as a translation expert, the least you could do is get your definitions right. It reminds me of the time back when I used the term "translation by concordance" on the BB, and you jumped on that and began using it in your posts.

 

Actually, the correct term is "figures of speech," which includes such terms as idiom, metaphor, hyperbole and the like. One author claims there are 217 different types of figures of speech in the Bible.

 

Good Grief JOJ, stick to the truth. You made the error, my view is rock solid. This is not about your defining terms, it is about the best way to translate the Bible into English so that all can understand and grow.

And did I pose as a translation expert? Nope, yet another false and vicious charge, from JOJ.

And using the same English word or phrase for each source language word or phrase meaning is also the best way to translate.

 

Case closed.

 

Should this be a footnote????



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Oh this is good. Van is too funny. I can't stop chuckling.

 

I've shown you hundreds of times where you living in FantasyLand.

 

Folks, even when it is obvious the whole dust=up was manufactured, as my view has been vindicated by Dr. Wallace and TC, there are those still hurling disparagement. Go figure

 

The issue is not worldly accreditation and the accolades of men. My view has been supported by the NET version of Psalm 10:15 where the idiom was footnoted. JOJ falsely claimed that approach was ridiculous.

Note how they want to talk about my character and qualifications rather than how best to translate figurative language.such as the Hebrew Idiom is to use arm to convey strength and power. Some versions provide no footnote, some remove arm and put in power, but the best is to provide the literal translation and then footnote the idiomatic meaning.

Thank God for the NET footnotes.

We do not need to dumb down scripture, we do not need to indoctrinate, we need to educate.

 

Van's theme song is from the Coasters' : Why's Everybody Always Pickin' On Me?

 

Let me try one more time. I would be happy to acknowledge your qualifications as soon as you tell me what they are. In fact, I will once again forego asking for "official" qualifications and assume you have educated yourself if you'll only answer the questions I've already posed:

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? Even one?
4. Have you ever actually done any Bible translation on your own?

 

Tell you what, folks, here is the link to my essay on my son's theological blog on translating idioms. Enjoy!

Paroikos Bible Blog: Translating Idioms (guest essay by missionary John R. Himes)

 

Hi JOJ, your attempt to change the subject from your erroneous ridiculous claim, demonstrates you seem rather full of yourself.
Folks, the case is closed, the best way to present figurative expressions whose literal meaning is not the author's intended meaning is to translate the expression literally, and then footnote the meaning or possible meanings.