Agedman had some thoughts on Bible translation on a thread now closed.
Among his ideas:
He was saying that a version is good "as long as the Word is as closely aligned with the original as possible."
I agree. But there might be several different approaches with various versions to achieve that goal. Versions can't be called versions if they all used the very same wording. LOL!!
Agedman went on to say that a translation should be "precisely presented as possible."
Perhaps he meant : presented as precisely as possible.
But agedman has an unrealistic goal. Accuracy or precision isn't as exact of a proposition as he suggests.
All Bible translations try to convey the meaning of the original --as much as it is possible
Agedman had said that a translation should be accurately carried over into the English word selection rather than the contextual assumption of the passage (sort of what the NIV, and more extensively paraphrases do do [sic]."
His thoughts are rather awkwardly worded. But I will try to deal with what I think he's trying to say.
I agree that any translation should attempt to convey the original as accurately as possible, as I have said before. However, the terminology of English word selection is a head-scratcher. Most of the time one can plug into an equivalent word or words so easily. Different translations do the transfer in different ways. You can't use a decoder ring to "accurately" transfer the original.
"Contextual assumption of [what he means --a given passage] is unclear.
But I think he's in error here. Good translations have to use a contextual approach most of the time. Translation is not done by a lexicon. You have heard of semantic range --haven't you?
The NASB and ESV use the contextual approach more often than you would care to admit --or possibly even know.
Phrase by phrase and clause by clause is the way to go. John Purvey of the second Wycliffe Bible agreed --he said the Scripture should be translation according to the sense of the sentence. It's not a matter of plugging in isolated words --word chunks. But using phrases, clauses or clusters of words to communicate the meaning of the original.
Another Thread On Translation
Page 1 of 7
Where have I argued for loose translations? No where ---so quitcherlyin.
What I have been saying for years is that words acquire their meaning according to a given context instead of being based on a lexicon.
You, on the other hand, think that meaning is tied up into individual word chunks. You don't believe in semantic range. You think a logos, for example should be translated in as few words as possible instead of rendering it according to where it's found in a certain context. If you stick to rendering it 'word' in most cases it wouldn't make sense much of the time.
Did you see see ad hominim arguments or a verse that cannot be accurately translated using word for word translation philosophy? Pay no attention to deflection posts, change the subject posts, When asked to provide a verse where the word for word translation philosophy would not accurately translate the text, no examples are offered.
1 chronicles 26
hief men, having wards one against another, to minister in the house of the LORD.
13 And they cast lots, as well the small as the great, according to the house of their fathers, for every gate.
14 And the lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward.
15 To Obededom southward; and to his sons the house of Asuppim.
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.
19 These are the divisions of the porters among the sons of Kore, and among the sons of Merari.
20 And of the Levites, Ahijah was over the treasures of the house of God, and over the treasures of the dedicated things.
21 As concerning the sons of Laadan; the sons of the Gershonite Laadan, chief fathers, even of Laadan the Gershonite, were Jehieli.
22 The sons of Jehieli; Zetham, and Joel his brother, which were over the treasures of the house of the LORD.
23 Of the Amramites, and the Izharites, the Hebronites, and the Uzzielites:
24 And Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler of the treasures.
25 And his brethren by Eliezer; Rehabiah his son, and Jeshaiah his son, and Joram his son, and Zichri his son, and Shelomith his son.
13 Lots were cast for each gate, according to their families, young and old alike.
14 The lot for the East Gate fell to Shelemiah. Then lots were cast for his son Zechariah, a wise counselor, and the lot for the North Gate fell to him.
15 The lot for the South Gate fell to Obed-Edom, and the lot for the storehouse fell to his sons.
16 The lots for the West Gate and the Shalleketh Gate on the upper road fell to Shuppim and Hosah. Guard was alongside of guard:
17 There were six Levites a day on the east, four a day on the north, four a day on the south and two at a time at the storehouse.
18 As for the court to the west, there were four at the road and two at the court itself.
19 These were the divisions of the gatekeepers who were descendants of Korah and Merari.
20 Their fellow Levites were in charge of the treasuries of the house of God and the treasuries for the dedicated things.
21 The descendants of Ladan, who were Gershonites through Ladan and who were heads of families belonging to Ladan the Gershonite, were Jehieli,
22 the sons of Jehieli, Zetham and his brother Joel. They were in charge of the treasuries of the temple of the LORD.
23 From the Amramites, the Izharites, the Hebronites and the Uzzielites:
24 Shubael, a descendant of Gershom son of Moses, was the officer in charge of the treasuries.
25 His relatives through Eliezer: Rehabiah his son, Jeshaiah his son, Joram his son, Zicri his son and Shelomith his son.
Let's take a look at the three English Bible translations most people consider "word for word" translations. The KJV, the ASV, and the NASB.
The Greek New Testament has between 138,000–140,000 words depending on which Greek New Testament you are using.
The KJV has 180,565 words. It has added over 40,000 words to the Greek New Testament. Hardly "word for word."
The ASV has 180,056 words. It too has added over 40,000 words to the Greek New Testament. Hardly "word for word."
The NASB has 184,062 words. It has added over 44,000 words to the Greek New testament. Hardly "word for word."
The problem is that uninformed people use terms such as "word for word" or "literal translation" and they have no idea what those terms mean in the context of bible translation.
See Romans 3:5
But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) NASB
εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν, τί ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; ⸂κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω⸃ The NASB uses about 38% more words in this verse.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Hi McCree79, your preference is noted. Not my preference.
One of the falsehoods used by those advocating for loose translations is that word for word means using one English word for each Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word. This is a straw-man, a canard. Each source language word or phrase meaning is translated by a distinct English word or phrase. So having more English words than Greek words in Romans 3:5 is a non-germane observation, in support of a straw-man argument.
The next straw-man argument is word for word translation philosophy versions, like the NKJV, LEB or NASB use the Greek word order. This too is false, they rearrange the words according to English word order. So yet another false argument. Interlinears use the source language word order, but a perusal of the NASB, ESV, LEB, and NKJV shows a consistent English word order.
Here is the opening phrase (Romans 3:5) from an interlinear, transliterated:
(1) ei, (2) de, (3) hE, (4) adikia, (5) hemon, (6) theou, (7) dikaiosunEn, (8) sunistEsin,
And here is the word order rearranged and translated,
(2) But (1) if (5) our (4) unrighteousness (8) demonstrates (3) the (7) righteousness (6) of God,
So the asserted problems with word for word translation philosophy (formal) versions are fabrications.
Luke 14:10 KJV
But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests.
Luke 14:10 NIV
In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
John 4:31-34 KJV
Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.
John 4:31-34 NIV
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
Page 1 of 7