This quote was made in another thread. I though it worthy of debate, but it is off topic. What are your thoughts? Is this a true history of translation?
From what I have read missionaries have not translated from English, but from Greek and Hebrew.
Is a translation of a translation an acceptable translation?
I would agree that it is better than nothing, but is that really a trustworthy Bible?
Translation practice
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 12, 2010.
Page 1 of 3
-
-
A translation of a translation is a paraphrase :)
Seriously, how can you get a step past the translation and it still be a translation? You're right in that it's better than nothing. But still, I have mixed feelings about it.
What if someone were to translate the KJV using up to date English? Would that product be a reliable translation? -
-
Mark 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
Here is a translation from a translation. In Hebrew it was "the place of a skull", in Aramaic it was Golgotha, but it was translated to Greek, and now we have it in English. I had no difficulty understanding this verse.
If God can accurately translate one language to another, why can't we? -
Do you have any evidence that most translation work in the world has been done from the KJT instead of Greek and Hebrew? -
While Jesus and the apostles may have spoken Aramaic, the scriptures were recorded in Greek... which was the trade language of the day. If they had been written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek you would be correct, but that wasn't the case. The same for others in the bible.
Why can't we? Because we don't have the Holy Spirit giving us His inspired words. Simple, huh? -
Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
The Ethiopian eunch was reading a translation, but the scriptures say he was reading "scripture".
Matt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Jesus was not speaking Greek here. And the verse itself shows it is translating his words.
You don't have to be inspired to translate one language to another. -
The simple answer is because God is perfect and we are not.
Rob -
Winman, you confuse apples and bowling balls. The English translation of the Greek/Hebrew mss is a translation in the receptor language from the source language/documents. What I took C4K to ask is this: is it appropriate to use a receptor language as a source document for translation purposes? I believe source documents are preferable for source documents. You may very well disagree, and I believe you'd have a very hard time holding to a Biblical doctrine of inspiration in the process, but then again I believe that anyway, so we won't go down that road again. We just disagree.
-
-
Win, you look foolish in your attempt to "defend" your beloved.
Jesus spoke Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. BUT when it was BREATHED BY GOD into our Scripture, it was the inspired Greek. It wasn't a "translation" of what was said. It was 100% God breathed.
So THAT is the base. From it, the Word can be (trustworthily) translated into every language. But translations are the work of men and 100% fallible. No translation is perfect (even the much-worshiped ones) This is the difference between a translation and the original Greek text.
MAN did not translate Jesus words (in whichever of the 3 dialects He spoke at that time). God INSPIRED the renderings perfectly. Huge difference.
Jerome translated the Eastern Greek into the common Western Latin but it had many weaknesses. Wycliff translated the Latin translation into late Middle English AD1385. The weaknesses of the Latin were MAGNIFIED in the English and more nuances lost.
Translators use source documents. Period. They do not use translations or even late conflated copies of copies of copies (another grave error in modern Bible translation by some. -
-
But the point is, if God can accurately translate from one language to another, why can't man?
That is my question to those here, if God can accurately translate one language to another, then why can't man? -
John of Japan is doing it even now. However, he is using Greek texts (he is working on the NT), not another translation.
That is not, however the subject of this thread.
You still have not presented even the most basic evidence that most translations in history have been from the KJT as you stated earlier. Could you help me see that evidence please? -
It is difficult to find out how many foreign bibles are based on the TR but there are many. The Trinitarian Bible Society says at it's website that it has distributed part or all of scripture to 118 nations. They use only the Masoretic Text and the TR (Scrivener's).
Let me ask you this though, how many languages did God give the OT scriptures in? Saying God will preserve his word is not a promise to publish the scriptures in every language. We have the scriptures in English today because we have translated the Hebrew into English.
So, this is a clever distraction, preservation does not argue that the preserved and inerrant scriptures be given in all languages. But once you have that preserved and inerrant text you can then translate it into other languages.
Another fallacious argument. -
-
When God promised to preserve his scriptures, he did not promise to preserve it in every langauge. No, he promised to preserve it to all generations, that is, it would always exist in the world. That it would need to be translated goes without saying.
Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
When we are commanded to go to all nations and teach them, it is a given that the scriptures must be translated into that langauge, or else the people taught the language of the teacher. So that the Word of God would and should be translated is assumed by scripture. -
Here is your claim in your words;
-
This is obvious because there is enough lost information in semantic subtleties and nuances in a one-to-one translation much less a two-to-one translation.
Here is one example out of a many just going from the Koine to English.
John 11:35 Jesus wept.
From the koine edakrusen ho iesus (Literally "wept the Jesus" or "made tears the Jesus").
edakrusen - From dakrouo.
However, earlier in the passage:
John 11
32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,
34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.
The English root here is the same as in John 11:35 (To weep).
In the koine account Jesus was doing something different than Mary.
That koine word for Mary's weeping is klaio and carries the idea of wailing and lamentation.
The word for the weeping of Jesus (dakrouo) indicates a silent weeping with tears streaming down His face, the word literally meaning - to make tears, a verb form of the noun "tears" dakru.
The significance? Well for one thing it shows His controlled human emotional turmoil and compassion beyond just a self centered wail and lamentation for the loss of Lazarus.
The point: Even in a one-on-one this distiction is usually lost and IMO takes away from the human persona of Jesus Christ.
I have only seen one translation that caught the moment in English with words to the effect "and tears were streaming down the face of Jesus".
Here it takes 9 words to say in English what koine says in three (counting the definite article).
In a two-on-one, even going back to the source, the nuances are lost completely.
This is just one example of a multitude.
HankD -
Page 1 of 3