Featured A Glossary of Translation Terms

IF there has to be made a decision in bible translation techniques, would favor/err on the side that tends to translate as close as possible what was actually written down, instead of trying to remake it into what they meant, or how we would have said it!

 

It's not merely that I don't like it. Peiand Gaynor's definition of it is applied to Bible translations would mean that just about all translations would qualify as paraphrases.

I agree with the first sentence more than the second.

Most portions of the Bible throughout the centuries (at least in English)were paraphrases. And those valuable portions were precious to the readers as the Word of God.

Have you ever read paraphrases of portions of the New Testament by F.F. Bruce and Donald W. Burdick? Their "paraphrases" were exceptionally well done and not liberal in the least.

 

I still think that most Bible translations,even the ones such as the ESV which purport to be literal actually adhere to the NIV's presentation of what translation is about.

"Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language,faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of word."

 

I'll say it again. It is simplistically naive to divide the whole spectrum of translations into merely literal and free. Most translations occupy the middle ground.

Yes,the NASBU is on the literal side and The Message is on an entirely different wave-length -- unduly free. However the majority of tanslations do not lie at the extremes. Most do not fit either category.

Horsefeathers. That's like saying Obama is like Calvin Coolidge with a different nuance.

 

The fly in the buttermilk is that if the translators use a large pallet of word meanings, then the intended meaning will be corrupted by the translators choice of word meanings. For example some translations turn humbleness of mind into ascetic practices. Two very different translations yet both could claim to be essentially literal.

However if every word usage in the NT is studied as a group , then by the process of elimination, the smallest pallet possible could be determined. Another method is to assume the human author probably used a word in the same way, rather than use the word to mean opposite things. So when John uses the word translated world, it means fallen mankind or the corrupt system of fallen mankind. So which is the actual word meaning, God so loved the world or God so loved fallen mankind?

Until we use a systematic methodology, we will continue to have divergent translations that obliterate God's intended message. Without actual concordance the actual message will be masked in an avalanche of English words.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we who are born again children of God are ambassadors of Christ. We all have a measure of faith, meaning a sphere of ministry within the body. I know this is a difficult concept for you, because you see yourself as someone special and set apart from the likes of me, rather than someone who is actually trying to help make disciples of all nations.

God's intended New Testament message is being masked by the current English translations due to a lack of effort at using as few as possible of English words to translate the various meanings of Greek words. And the practice of translating different Greek words into the same English word clearly obliterates the distinction in the original.

 

God's intended New Testament message is being masked by the current English translations due to a lack of effort at using as few as possible of English words to translate the various meanings of Greek words. And the practice of translating different Greek words into the same English word clearly obliterates the distinction in the original.

 

from the preface of the NIV.

 

I already said that I agreed substantially with the Kubo and Specht quote you furnished in post #33.

Here's a sample of Donald W. Burdick's from 1 John 2:27 :

"But as for you,the Holy Spirit whom Christ has pourded out upon you is continually dwelling within you,and you have no need for anyone to give you new or advanced instruction beyond that which you have already received under the Spirit's influence. But on the contrary,as you are continually being taught concerning these things by the Spirit that Christ has poured out upon you --and He is altogether true -- and even as Christ Himself taught during His earthly ministry,keep on living in intimate relationship with Him."

And here is his paraphrase of 1 John :5,6 :

"These false prophets,on the one hand,have their origin in,and derive their characteristics from,the wicked pagan world. As a result,what they have to say comes from that pagan world,and so the people of the world are always ready to listen sympathetically to them. On the other hand,we of the apostolic circle derive our being and message from God. Consequently,anyone who knows God personally listens sympathetically to us. This is how we can recognize the Spirit who is characterized by truth and the spirit who is characterized by deceit."

 

"An essentially literal translation translates the meaning of every word in the original language, understood correctly in its context, into its nearest English equivalent."

That portion of Grudem's quote is something that just is not possible. Every word in the original cannot possibly be translated. Right?

 

Thought for thought in my estimation is simply going by the same translation principles as John Purvey,Martin Luther and others. it means that meanings are found in the context --- not individual word units. Phrase-by-phrase and sentence-by-sentence might be another way of saying it.

Free translation goes beyond paraphrase. Eugene Peterson's The Message would be an example of really free. J.B. Phillip's work was a free translation.


If I am wrong that they are the same but the nuance of the term is different, tell me why I am wrong. "Horsefeathers" doesn't teach me a thing.[/QUOTE]