Baptists’ Bible Use

So you would prefer a DE version over a formal one than?

 

Obviously his post is not suggesting that. He does not like the term "word for word". The term is misleading. He is just proving that no translation is word for word, nor can it ever be. If you did the meaning would be lost. You have to interpret to translate. It is to what degree, that is what separates the NASB from the NLT.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

So we should be using the term formal translations instead?

 

If I take these God inspired words and rearrange them, would the product be inspired, too?

Of course not.

 

The originals had the right words in the right order, correct?

 

Certainly.

 

I knew that was coming.

I tried to avoid that by stating my point in post #112. A New Testament Greek Lexicon has all of the words, but nobody would claim that it is inspired. I can take a chunk out of 1 Clement that has only words shared with the NT, but that doesn't influence to call 1 Clement inspired.

And for a sidebar, does anyone have a count of neologisms in the New Testament?

 

The more formal translation would get more of the original intent, as there would be less interpreting being involved!

 

Not necessarily, as you well know.

 

I know that there is less interpretation present in a formal translation then in one more Dynamic.
I also know that many would agree with me that those versions as the Nas/Nkjv would be more accurate to the originals, but would also in some passages be harder to read and understand.

 

All translations are interpretive.

Nope. A number of N.T. Bible scholars would disagree. What matters is if a given passage expresses the meaning as accurately as possible. In certain verses the NASB may be viewed as more faithful to the original and in other cases the NIV or even the NLT may be superior in that regard.

 

all translation do interpret, but the formal ones do much less of that, and overall, would be superior to giving to us the original intended meaning!

 

You never learn. This mysterious "exact to each word" is a silly concept. If a translation was that exacting it wouldn't be a translation at all. It would remain in the original languages.

No translator would foolishly claim that their translation was exact to the very words. No translation can be verbatim.

You are entirely confused.

You have often said that your favorite translations are the 1977 edition of the NASB and the NKJV. Have you noted they are different? That's why they are called versions. There is no exactness to the method. There can be carefulness and seeking to be as faithful as possible to the original --but fallible human translators cannot be replicating exact words. That's absurd.