The Word Of God In English ...

Toss out your liberal and conservative designations. Because a particular version is more dynamic than another does not have anything to do with liberalism whatsoever.

Let's take the NLTse for example. Of the 87 members of the translating team --19 of them worked on the ESV. That's 22%.

Do you know the quality of scholars who worked on the NLTse team? Do you know any of the following --a small sampling.

Daniel Block, Willem VanGemeren, Robert Stein, Philip W.Comfort, D.A. Carson, Doug Moo, Thomas Schreiner, Harold Hoehner, Robert Mounce, Gordon Wenham, Richard Platt.

If you would take the time to really read you wouldn't be making most of the statements you do in this or the other forums you participate in.

 

Well, you have no right to use those terms whatsoever. If you think that the more dynamic translations such as the NLTse is liberal --then you would have to conclude that the translators are also liberal. And that won't wash because they are among the most conservative Evangelical Bible scholars. Don't be inconsistent.

 

A more formal, or a less formal approach to translating has absolutely nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. You just acknowledged that you were not speaking of the theological inclinations of translators. Therefore, you have no right, at all to use terms which have no relevance to the conversation whatsoever. I know you are word-challenged. But it is no excuse to use such emotionally charged words as "liberal" "conservative" when it comes to Bible translations. You don't get to upend the meanings of words to further your agenda.

 

To cause utter chaos.

 

I didn't know that Merriam-Webster is calling the shots here.

It actually said:

"Not strict or literal;loose or approximate: A liberal translation."

So, that's rather clumsy. Not strict or literal is loose or liberal. But the word "approximate" was also used to describe liberal. All Bible versions are approximations --including the most literal. And very literal translations have nothing to do with exactness.

It's funny. A recent edition of the Zurich Bible promotes the following blurb regarding it's translational method:

"Maximal philological exactitude."

An interlinear operates under a word replacement method --which is 75% -85% successful. But an interlinear is not a true translation.

A good translation seeks to be meaningfull. Yes, I deliberately spelled it incorrectly. A real translation carries as much meaning as possible. A supposedly literal translation cannot do that. It is restrained from doing so because it is too mechanical in its method.

 

Interlinears are not real translations. Young's is about as much of a 'translation' as is The Message. And that means both are not actual translations when you come down to it. Though both are on opposite ends of the spectrum --both perform a disservice to a Bible reader desiring to hear from God. The only plus that an interlinear would have compared with The Message is that one could construct a functionally-equivalent version from most of it. One couldn't do that with The Message.

I am speaking of certain renderings in various formal versions being mechanical.

 

By mechanical I mean too word-driven. A translation that communicates well to the target audience is one that is not into word replacement. Yes, "translation" that is driven by the lexicon is wooden. A translation has to be contextually understood. What's the purpose of saying things that are gibberish to the reader? Put the literal in the footnotes and the more understandable reading in the text.

 

Again, by the word translations you mean certain renderings. Yes, I will give a few. This time from the NKJV, sice it has been neglected in these conversations.

Phil. 3:10
NKJV : fellowship of his sufferings
NIV : participation in his sufferings

1 Peter 1:13
NKJV : gird up the loins of your mind
NIV: with minds that are alert and fully sober
NASB : prepare your minds for action
HCSB : with your minds ready for action
ESV : preparing your minds for action

2 Peter 3:4
NKJV,ESV,HCSV: Where is the promise of His coming?
NIV : Where is this 'coming' he promised?

 

You have the peculiar habit of quoting me yet not noting what I have said. Read what I said. I gave my explanation.