A team of scholars/experts can use either the TR/MT/CT as basis for their translations into English and yet STILL come up with a variation in words used...
That does not mean they had textual differences/variations, but learned people expert in translation still can have differences in actual words used?
that even a "literal" translation cannot actually be a "word for word" rendering, even for ole 1611 KJV?
That the scholars who used same texts as 1611 team in NKJV can still have difference in wording/phrasing etc, and not be wrong/ in error?
True/False Scholars can use SAME hebrew/Greek texts Amd STILL Have Different Wording!
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by JesusFan, Jun 16, 2011.
-
-
Can we have an accurate understanding of all of the cultural idioms/ways from those times? Will we try to "read" into the text modern ways of viewing topics so much that we lose actually what author intent was?
Will it be that we have a Bible that is good to read and understand, but weal in theology areas, or else one that has done so much accomodating to try to be readable that we have a culture that just does not take time to get understanding of deeper things of the faith?
NIV/NLT etc are good bibles to read and good for newly saved, but do think need to balance with something like a NASV/NKJV bible! -
Question: 1 Kings 2:10...should it be taken word for word, or on a thought basis? :)
-
As those who know that sleep refers to death in Bible usuage can read and understand
new converts better off with Dynamic version here!
Just depends the level of bible knowledge at that point!
Trick question, have to remember this while we debate on the Cal/Arm Board! -
Some word for word translate it "rested". My point is in today's culture and in the 21st century this particular passage should be translated using the dynamic model. This is not to say that other passages dealing with death / sleep should follow suit, particularly the one where Jesus resurrects the dead girl He said metaphorically was "sleeping", as that is both the thought and formal understanding of that particular text. I believe the best approach utilizes both.
-
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
that even a "literal" translation cannot actually be a "word for word" rendering, even for ole 1611 KJV?
That the scholars who used same texts as 1611 team in NKJV can still have difference in wording/phrasing etc, and not be wrong/ in error?[/QUOTE] -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
As we translate the TR into Japanese, my translation partner's biggest gift is that he can say the same thing in different ways. That's also sometimes a frustration as I try to figure out which way he said it is best.
As for the ability to translate something in two different ways being wrong, it's not at all wrong. It's just the nature of language. Note the following translations of the same Aramaic original, talitha cumi:
Mark 5:41--"Damsel, I say unto thee, arise."
Luke 8:54--"Maid, arise." -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
My own principles for translating idioms with a literal method:
1. Search for the same idiom in the target language. If there is no identical idiom,
2. Think about whether or not the idiom conveys the right meaning in the target language and can thus be used as is. If that won't work,
3. Search for an equivalent idiom in the target language. If there is none,
4. Abandon the idiom and translate with an equivalent expression.