Contractions in Bible Versions

Deu 30:11 "For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
Deu 30:12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
Deu 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
Deu 30:14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

--------------
Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down)
Rom 10:7 or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

------------

I see no need for "loftiness."

 

I couldn't help but notice your post was contraction-less .

It would definitely make the Bible sound a bit more casual, but I'm not sure it would have that big of an impact. It depends, since some books are written with a little more or less formality than others. Just pulling a random verse (John 4:2 NIV with contraction added):

...although in fact it wasn't Jesus who baptized, but his disciples... ​

It doesn't sound like it's excessively casual to me. It flows very nicely, and it says exactly the same thing that the contraction-less verse says. But if you use them everywhere in very informal cases (like contracting nouns), I don't think that would make for a great version.

Anyway, that's just my $0.02.

 

I see it rather as a matter of style. However, one can argue that contraction can take away in some instances from the beauty and flow at times.

 

Your point is taken. But the man who looks for "sacred" reading of the Word when he goes to church would be disappointed, for the Word would sound too much like talking with his buddies.

 

I see nothing wronr with using'em, as they're part of current English.

 

ck ot d nu SMS transl8N frm OZ.

 

I've been reading the HCSB lately, and it uses contractions liberally. They do disrupt the flow, especially in the Psalms, but after a while I didn't notice as much. It's more a matter of what we've come to expect, rather than fidelity to the text.

 

Why not? I can't think of a reason to not use contractions. Anything that makes the Bible read by more people and understood - is good. :thumbs:

FA

 

Those weren't in your OP, I added them when I quoted you a second time .

 

1drfl da pxl Bibl

 

Does it matter? Really?

 

I think it has mattered to a lot of people over the years. Some people want a more formal translation, and I have to admit, a contraction-less-ized verse does sound a lot more formal when read, especially aloud. On the other hand, some people want a translation that flows better. I think the big question is, to most people, do contractions make the Bible sound too informal (so much that people might take offense to the translators/revisers 'disrespecting' the word by taking too much liberty making it sound so informal)?

 

When I started translating into Japanese my goal was a very colloquial version. My partner "Uncle Miya," however, was more old school and formal, having cut his Christian teeth on the Bungoyaku Classical Bible. We often clashed as we were developing our method.

Two things converted me to using a more dignified style. (1) Uncle Miya's view that the translation of the Word of God should be dignified. (2) A Buddhist salesman who came to our door. As it turned out he had read the Bible quite a bit, but was disappointed in the lack of style in the Bible we use. He got me thinking more in the direction of a dignified translation. Having said that, we do strive for a style understandable by the typical Japanese high school student.

If you are going to use contractions in an English translation, it shouldn't be done indiscriminately. Definite principles should be developed as to when to use contractions We use a normal spoken style (with the Japanese equivalent of contractions) in the conversations in the narrative sections of our translation, but not as a whole. Personally, I would never use contractions in the book of Psalms, for example. I would want to preserve the dignity of the Word of God while striving for readability--a balance, as Rippon has said.