Featured Translate This

I am calling out your history of complete falsehood regarding the NIV. Never have you produced a single text that supports your vain and sinful accusations. If it's not in the text, it doesn't exist. And you are stuck with being a twister of Scripture.

 

My mindset does not allow lies to be spouted at will on a fine Bible translation. No lie can be supported if it is not in the text. Will you get that through your thick cerebellum? What you are demonstrating is a lack of integrity.

 

I don't about your stupid links. I care about your bold-faced fabrications regarding the NIV, for which you have NEVER given proof from the text. You twist Scripture to your shame.

 

They have not come up with your sinful mindlessness. None of your reckless accusations are true. You have come up with zilch for proof. Proof must come from the text.

 

The following snippet comes from The Oxford Essential Guide To Ideas And Issues Of The Bible.

Targums : Robert P. Gordon

"All translations of the Bible are necessarily interpretive to a degree, but the Targums in that they are interpretive as a matter of policy, and often to an extent that far exceeds the bounds of 'translation' or even paraphrase. Even the 'Babylonian' Targums, which over long stretches give the appearance of being fairly literal, often compress in a word or short phrase an illusion to a tradition of interpretation represented elsewhere in rabbinic (usually Talmudic or Midrashic) literature. At those points in the Pentateuch and the historical books where prose gives way to poetry the Targums tend to be more expansive and more pronouncedly 'targumic' in the doctrines and views they superimpose on the biblical text." (p.501)

 

"At issue, therefore, in a good translation is where one puts the emphasis: (1) on imitating as closely as possible the words and grammar of the Hebrew or Greek text, or (2) on producing idiomatic, natural sounding English. Or is there some balance between these two?

"....the task of translating into English requires expertise in both languages, since the translator must first comprehend how the biblical text would have been understood by its original readers, and must then determine how best to communicate this message to those whose first language is English....at issue also must be how well nonnative English speakers will understand and use the translation." (taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss, pages 21,22)

 

Touche!

 

"A comment should be made here about the word 'paraphrase,' since it is one of the most misunderstood and misused words with reference to Bible translation. The term is often used in a derogatory sense of a translation that is highly idiomatic and so (by implication) misses the meaning of the original. People will say, 'Isn't that just a paraphrase?' and mean 'That is not a real translation --it's too free.' The problem with this definition is that it starts with the incorrect assumption that an accurate translation is necessarily a literal one, and thus an idiomatic one is inaccurate.

"....An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form. This realization makes the popular definition of 'paraphrase' subjective and unhelpful. It would be better to use the term in a neutral sense, meaning 'to say the same thing in different words, usually for the sake of clarification or simplification or simplification.' By this definition all translations paraphrase to one degree or another, since all change Hebrew and Greek words into English ones to make the text understandable. The important question then becomes not whether the text paraphrases, but whether it gets the meaning right.

"We should also note that linguists sometimes use 'paraphrase' in a third sense, contrasting it with 'translation.' While 'translation' is transferring a message from one language to another, paraphrase is rewording a message in the same language....Other functional equivalent versions would be true translations, since they were rendered not from an English version but directly from the Hebrew and Greek." (taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss, pages 31,32)

 

I don't have Nida's book. So I can't provide a page number for you. But it is readily apparent that dynamic equivalence translations were done long before Nida stepped on the scene. Yes, I know that term wasn't used before Nida. but translations were nevertheless using that methodology.