PDA

View Full Version : Bible Versions



Scrawly
03-22-2014, 12:31 AM
I need a new Bible. I have been thinking about which version to buy. I have narrowed it down to TNIV or the NET bible. Which would you choose, and does anyone have reason to persuade me away from either of these translations?

Thanks.

PS: Please feel free to recommend another translation you feel is superior to the two listed above.

Obsidian
03-22-2014, 01:09 AM
I recommend KJV and NASB, in that order. Actual translations, not interpretations. I think NET is pretty much the worst. And if you like a really PC, feminist-friendly Bible, certainly go with the latest NIV.

Scrawly
03-22-2014, 01:37 AM
..I think NET is pretty much the worst..

Why?

RBerman
03-22-2014, 05:16 AM
I need a new Bible. I have been thinking about which version to buy. I have narrowed it down to TNIV or the NET bible. Which would you choose, and does anyone have reason to persuade me away from either of these translations? Please feel free to recommend another translation you feel is superior to the two listed above.

ESV enjoys broad evangelical consensus for accuracy, albeit its readability is occasionally clunky. TNIV (now known simply as NIV, because the old NIV is not currently published) has come under fire for a degree of gender egalitarianism that has the effect of obscuring some OT passages fulfilled in Christ.

Paprika
03-22-2014, 05:33 AM
It depends on what you're using the Bible for. I use (and would recommend) NET for studying because at just about every interpretational juncture there's a footnote detailing other possible renderings (and why they were not chosen). These cover issues ranging from textual criticism to grammar to the English diction used.

Cow Poke
03-22-2014, 06:19 AM
Have you even considered a Parallel Bible?

robrecht
03-22-2014, 06:38 AM
Just learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They are not as hard as people think. It takes some time, so in the meantime you can just focus on a few verses at a time. I really think this is the best way to approach the Bible. Why waste time with translations? It can be useful to consult many translations of others while you are learning to read the inspired texts, but try not to waste too much time on them. God will greatly value your faithful efforts.

The Remonstrant
03-22-2014, 07:01 AM
I need a new Bible. I have been thinking about which version to buy. I have narrowed it down to TNIV or the NET bible. Which would you choose, and does anyone have reason to persuade me away from either of these translations?

Thanks.

PS: Please feel free to recommend another translation you feel is superior to the two listed above.

You may wish to check out the Holman Christian Standard Bible if you haven't already. There a numerous margin notes and the translation of the text seems to lie somewhere between the New International Version and the English Standard Version. It is a kind of compromise between dynamic and formal equivalence referred to by Holman as "optimal equivalence" (somewhat gimmicky, I know). The publishing house is Baptistic in orientation.

The Remonstrant
03-22-2014, 08:38 AM
ESV enjoys broad evangelical consensus for accuracy, albeit its readability is occasionally clunky. TNIV (now known simply as NIV, because the old NIV is not currently published) has come under fire for a degree of gender egalitarianism that has the effect of obscuring some OT passages fulfilled in Christ.

I would second RBerman's recommendation for the English Standard Version. I will typically use this version of the Bible in conjunction with the HCSB. You may have noticed that I often quote texts of Scripture from the ESV on T-Web. The ESV is in the same basic vein as the NASB, RSV and the NKJV. The one thing I do prefer about the Holman is its copious notes (margin notes and bullet notes).

mossrose
03-22-2014, 08:41 AM
New American Standard.

ESV would be my second choice.

Zymologist
03-22-2014, 11:57 AM
I'm rather fond of my 1599 Geneva Bible, but I can't really pinpoint any particular translational reason for this. I just like it. :shrug:

Otherwise, I have always been comfortable with the NASB, and heard only good things about the ESV.

Scrawly
03-22-2014, 03:40 PM
Thanks for the recommendations everyone.

I am still strongly considering the NET bible for reasons cited by Paprika. I like the NASB, however, when was the last time it was updated/revised? I shy away from the ESV because I am concerned about sectarian bias, however, is this of my own imagining? The ESV also seems to be a favorite of the New Calvinists and Piper cubs, and I like to be just a bit different.

Pentecost
03-22-2014, 03:54 PM
As I've heard ESV and NASB are the two most literal of modern translations, I use ESV myself, though it is a bit clunky.

Jedidiah
03-22-2014, 05:36 PM
I am still strongly considering the NET bible for reasons cited by Paprika. I like the NASB, however, when was the last time it was updated/revised? I shy away from the ESV because I am concerned about sectarian bias, however, is this of my own imagining? The ESV also seems to be a favorite of the New Calvinists and Piper cubs, and I like to be just a bit different.

ESV and NASB are quite similar.

Scrawly
03-22-2014, 06:00 PM
An issue with the ESV was pointed out by Daniel B. Wallace:

"The elegance of the translation is excellent, and the translation is very good. I am happy to endorse the ESV, with the understanding that the scholarship, largely because it was restricted to evangelicals and was, within this realm, not as broadly based as some would like to see, took a downturn from previous iterations. (The translation committee, for example, used some irritating evangelical ‘trump cards’ in places where the text really does not say what they want it to say. No cardinal doctrine is involved in these places, but they nevertheless are problems in regard to accuracy.)"

https://bible.org/article/net-niv-esv-brief-historical-comparison

So, despite the fact that no translation is flawless, I would nevertheless like to steer clear of the ESV for the above reason(s) alone.

John Reece
03-22-2014, 07:39 PM
An issue with the ESV was pointed out by Daniel B. Wallace:

"The elegance of the translation is excellent, and the translation is very good. I am happy to endorse the ESV, with the understanding that the scholarship, largely because it was restricted to evangelicals and was, within this realm, not as broadly based as some would like to see, took a downturn from previous iterations. (The translation committee, for example, used some irritating evangelical ‘trump cards’ in places where the text really does not say what they want it to say. No cardinal doctrine is involved in these places, but they nevertheless are problems in regard to accuracy.)"

https://bible.org/article/net-niv-esv-brief-historical-comparison

So, despite the fact that no translation is flawless, I would nevertheless like to steer clear of the ESV for the above reason(s) alone.

I notice that in the linked article authored by Daniel B. Wallace, he did not mention the fact that he was one of three directors of the NET project.

NET is essentially a Dallas Theological Seminary project; see here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html), wherein I note the fact that Wallace's failure to note his premier position in the development of the NET was likewise the case with regard to the rest of the DTS faculty and student body involvement in the NET Bible project.

Do you have any concern about possible "sectarian bias" at DTS?

Paprika
03-23-2014, 12:57 AM
Thanks for the recommendations everyone.

I am still strongly considering the NET bible for reasons cited by Paprika. I like the NASB, however, when was the last time it was updated/revised? I shy away from the ESV because I am concerned about sectarian bias, however, is this of my own imagining? The ESV also seems to be a favorite of the New Calvinists and Piper cubs, and I like to be just a bit different.
There's another option for the NET Bible: you can access it online (https://lumina.bible.org/) as I do for in-depth studying. The downside to NET which I neglected to mention is that the many footnotes, in conjunction with the chapter and verse markings, impede smooth reading (or at least they do so for me).

Scrawly
03-23-2014, 01:58 AM
I notice that in the linked article authored by Daniel B. Wallace, he did not mention the fact that he was one of three directors of the NET project.

NET is essentially a Dallas Theological Seminary project; see here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html), wherein I note the fact that Wallace's failure to note his premier position in the development of the NET was likewise the case with regard to the rest of the DTS faculty and student body involvement in the NET Bible project.

Do you have any concern about possible "sectarian bias" at DTS?

Yeah I definitely have concerns over that, however, I am not aware of any actual examples where this bias is manifested. Can you provide one/some?

Scrawly
03-23-2014, 02:00 AM
There's another option for the NET Bible: you can access it online (https://lumina.bible.org/) as I do for in-depth studying. The downside to NET which I neglected to mention is that the many footnotes, in conjunction with the chapter and verse marking impede smooth reading (or at least they do so for me).

Thanks I am aware of it being online. Good point about the footnotes..

John Reece
03-23-2014, 06:32 AM
Yeah I definitely have concerns over that, however, I am not aware of any actual examples where this bias is manifested. Can you provide one/some?

No. Although I have a leather bound NET Bible beside me on my desk, and a digital copy in the form of an Accordance module in my iMac, I never use it; not because I have any problem with it; I just don't need the notes, and I have better translations available at my finger tips.

Coincidentally, a friend who has been a professional Russian ↔ English and German ↔ English translator for 40 years stopped by my house on his way home from a walk in a nearby state park yesterday afternoon and asked me to recommend a "readable" translation for distributing in evangelistic ministry. He is an Asbury Seminary graduate whose personal Bible has been for decades and still is the New American Standard Bible, so he was not asking for himself but for other recipients of Bibles as gifts.

Without hesitation, I recommended the currently published NIV (= the same as TNIV), because when I looked to see how English versions rendered a text that seemed important to me but not well rendered in other English translations, the only version that came through with what I thought was the right meaning was the TNIV = current NIV. That's because of the quality of the translators: Gordon Fee was the NT editor (the same role played by Wallace in the case of the NET), and R. T. France was a member of his translation team. By the way, it was while the two of them were working on the TNIV that Fee picked France to write the Matthew commentary in the NICNT commentary series (Fee was the editor of the series).

Obsidian
03-23-2014, 12:05 PM
John 3:27 To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven." TNIV

Bastardization of the English language

John Reece
03-23-2014, 01:05 PM
John 3:27 To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven." TNIV

Bastardization of the English language

Excellent point, with which I totally agree.

Being primarily oriented in the Greek NT, when dealing with English versions I have become inclined to ignore the feministic avoidance of masculine language in the TNIV and NRSV. By the way, I also noticed that stratagem ― a plural term used to translate a singular term, just to avoid translating a masculine word ― in NET when I perused it yesterday (ETA: however, not so in John 3:27, and maybe nowhere in NET ― perhaps it was another form of gender neutral language in place of a masculine word).

I use TNIV (the only NIV in Accordance) and NRSV a lot in my language threads, because they are convenient to use and usually accurate in terms of meaning; however, when I come to a verse in which a plural form occurs solely to avoid rendering a masculine word, I leave Accordance and go out of my way to fetch the text from an online source for ESV. But there are also sources to use for that purpose in Accordance that would serve just as well.

I had used RSV from the time I first started reading the Bible in 1952. I had looked forward to the publication of the NRSV in 1989; however, when it arrived, I was quite taken aback by the contortions of language taken to avoid masculine terminology. So, when the ESV was published in 2001, as an alternative to the NRSV, that became my English version preference for a while (before I had any online sources or options).

Since health problems keep me from attending public meetings, and all my Bible work is now done using Accordance modules or online sources, I just eclectically pick and choose from a smorgasbord of versions, the choice depending on how accurately a version renders a given verse.

I certainly reject the TNIV version of John 3:27!

Scrawly
03-23-2014, 02:38 PM
No. Although I have a leather bound NET Bible beside me on my desk, and a digital copy in the form of an Accordance module in my iMac, I never use it; not because I have any problem with it; I just don't need the notes, and I have better translations available at my finger tips.

Coincidentally, a friend who has been a professional Russian ↔ English and German ↔ English translator for 40 years stopped by my house on his way home from a walk in a nearby state park yesterday afternoon and asked me to recommend a "readable" translation for distributing in evangelistic ministry. He is an Asbury Seminary graduate whose personal Bible has been for decades and still is the New American Standard Bible, so he was not asking for himself but for other recipients of Bibles as gifts.

Without hesitation, I recommended the currently published NIV (= the same as TNIV), because when I looked to see how English versions rendered a text that seemed important to me but not well rendered in other English translations, the only version that came through with what I thought was the right meaning was the TNIV = current NIV. That's because of the quality of the translators: Gordon Fee was the NT editor (the same role played by Wallace in the case of the NET), and R. T. France was a member of his translation team. By the way, it was while the two of them were working on the TNIV that Fee picked France to write the Matthew commentary in the NICNT commentary series (Fee was the editor of the series).

Thanks, and yeah the translation team is what appeals to me as well with the NIV. I really do like the NASB but I am questioning if the more literal a translation = the better a translation. D.A Carson disputes that principle in his book the King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Baker, 1979):

"In a recent article Iain Murray, editor of The Banner of Truth, defended the King James Version (KJV) against the New International Version (NIV) largely on the ground that the former attempted a more literal translation, and this he alleged, was more in keeping with the doctrine of inspiration. It is a fair assessment, I think, that says the KJV is more literal than the NIV, although, as I have indicated, I doubt very much if that should always be taken as a compliment. But why a literal translation is necessarily more in keeping with the doctrine of verbal inspiration, I am quite at a loss to know. For example, if I may refer again to an illustration I have just used, to translate "Haben Sie niches gefunden?" by "Have you nothing found?" would scarcely be more honoring to the German author than "Haven't you found anything?," even though the latter translation is certainly less literal than the former. The Holy Spirit who inspired the words of Scripture equally inspired the syntax and idioms. Ultimately what we want is a translation that means what the original means, both in denotation and connotation. Even if one objects to Eugene A. Nida's famous expression "dynamic equivalent," because it can lead to all sorts of freedoms with respect to translation, it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation, from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the "dynamic equivalent."

So I'm curious, if you could only have one Bible, which version would you choose and why (between either the ESV, NASB, or NIV)?

One Bad Pig
03-23-2014, 03:02 PM
I prefer the NKJV, though I wish the editors had gone with the Majority Text rather than the TR. I also like the NET, though I tend to prefer the alternate translations in the footnotes (which tend to be more formally equivalent).

John Reece
03-23-2014, 05:25 PM
John 3:27 To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven." TNIV

Bastardization of the English language

Hey, in an earlier reply above, I made the mistake of taking your word for what you have asserted to be the TNIV text of John 3:27.

Here is the TNIV text of John 3:27 in Accordance: To this John replied,


“A person can receive only what is given from heaven.

No bastardization of the English language there.

Unfortunately, the text as you have it is in the NIV currently published by Biblica, which is not the same as the TNIV, which apparently has been discontinued and is out of print (only used copies are for sale at Amazon.com).

Obsidian
03-23-2014, 05:28 PM
I thought TNIV meant the 2011 NIV. My bad.

John Reece
03-23-2014, 05:45 PM
I thought TNIV meant the 2011 NIV. My bad.

Not your fault; that's what I had read online sometime ago. According to an earlier post, RBerman had the same information as you and I did.

However, TNIV is definitely out of print, and the new/current NIV has both a different translation team and a different text.

John Reece
03-24-2014, 09:02 AM
Thanks, and yeah the translation team is what appeals to me as well with the NIV. I really do like the NASB but I am questioning if the more literal a translation = the better a translation. D.A Carson disputes that principle in his book the King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Baker, 1979):

"In a recent article Iain Murray, editor of The Banner of Truth, defended the King James Version (KJV) against the New International Version (NIV) largely on the ground that the former attempted a more literal translation, and this he alleged, was more in keeping with the doctrine of inspiration. It is a fair assessment, I think, that says the KJV is more literal than the NIV, although, as I have indicated, I doubt very much if that should always be taken as a compliment. But why a literal translation is necessarily more in keeping with the doctrine of verbal inspiration, I am quite at a loss to know. For example, if I may refer again to an illustration I have just used, to translate "Haben Sie niches gefunden?" by "Have you nothing found?" would scarcely be more honoring to the German author than "Haven't you found anything?," even though the latter translation is certainly less literal than the former. The Holy Spirit who inspired the words of Scripture equally inspired the syntax and idioms. Ultimately what we want is a translation that means what the original means, both in denotation and connotation. Even if one objects to Eugene A. Nida's famous expression "dynamic equivalent," because it can lead to all sorts of freedoms with respect to translation, it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation, from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the "dynamic equivalent."

So I'm curious, if you could only have one Bible, which version would you choose and why (between either the ESV, NASB, or NIV)?

Hi, Scrawly.

I deleted my first response last night, because while writing it I discovered that the TNIV is not in fact the same as the new 2011 NIV ― in fact, it does not appear to be even considered in line with the the progression from the 1984 NIV to the 2011 NIV, but rather is considered as a different translation off to itself.

Also, Obsidian's quote of the NIV11 rendering of John 2:27 (“A person can receive only what is given them from heaven") offended my sensibility with regard to good English usage. So I needed some time to sleep and reconsider my reply.

I just now discovered an article (here (http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/an_evaluation_of_the_2011_edition_of_the_new_inter national_version)) that explains the rationale for the NIV11 rendering of John 3:27. Surprisingly and supposedly, it was determined not by feministic political correctness seeking to avoid the use of a masculine term, but rather was determined by modern English usage (!). Here is the rationale, based on the Collins study of contemporary English:


3. "Singular 'they,' 'them' and 'their' forms were widely used to communicate the generic significance of pronouns and their equivalents when a singular form had already been used for the antecedent" (p. 6).

It is important to notice that guideline #3 explicitly refers to using "they," "them," and "their" as singular. This does not mean that these words are always singular, but that they can be used as either singular or plural depending on the context. This reflects how the English language has changed, and the Collins Report provides the evidence. Though it makes many English teachers cringe, for better or worse, English usage no longer restricts these forms to plural reference. Contemporary English commonly uses expressions like the following: "If anybody had a right to be proud of their accomplishments, it was Paul."

What to me and to Obsidian is a plural "them" in John 3:27, is, according to the NIV11 editors following the Collins study, a singular term.

To my mind, this amounts to capitulating to the lowest common denominator of modern English usage as well as to the feminist abhorrence of masculine terminology. The Bible should, as in the olden days, be a determining force having an uplifting influence on cultural expression, rather than being dumbed down to conform to current cultural expressions. Or so it seems to this octogenarian :smile:.

The NASB is a good translation, but not as readable as the ESV. My friend who asked me to recommend a Bible for giving as a gift said he was sticking with his old NASB as his personal Bible only because of the decades of hand written notes in it that he did not wish to give up, along with years of "blood, sweat, and tears." Even with his personal experience with and affinity for his NASB, it's tells one something that he specified that he wanted a recommendation of a "readable" version to give to others.

So, of the options you specify, I guess I would pick the ESV, which incorporates all of the best and most up to date textual scholarship without the worst of the gender neutral masculine aversive agenda that has gotten the best of a significant portion of the Bible publishing industry ― perhaps as much unconsciously as consciously.

Are you interested in learning to read the Greek NT? If so, consider supplementing the ESV Bible with the ESV Greek-English New Testament: Nestle-Aland 28th Edition and English Standard Version (http://www.amazon.com/ESV-Greek-English-New-Testament-Nestle-Aland/dp/1433530317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395676600&sr=1-1&keywords=nestle-aland+greek+english+new+testament).

Obsidian
03-24-2014, 09:42 AM
I think the KJV is like a better version of the NASB. Why does no one like it? It doesn't have any of the flaws discussed in this thread. It doesn't have any feminism. It doesn't change the word "seed" to "descendants" in Genesis 17:7. It doesn't say that whoever "disobeys" Jesus will burn in hell in John 3:36. It doesn't support the concept of a monastic "pledge" in 1 Timothy 5:12. And I think it is less clunky and prettier than the NASB. Whenever you quote from it, people generally respect it. It barely costs anything to buy one. You know that it will probably be around for a while (unlike my last Bible, the 1984 NIV). People dislike the "thee" and "thou" parts, but at least you can use those words to tell when the Greek word is singular rather than plural.

I do tend to agree with Bad Pig that the Majority Text would be better, but whatever.

Littlejoe
03-24-2014, 11:39 AM
I think the KJV is like a better version of the NASB. Why does no one like it? It doesn't have any of the flaws discussed in this thread. It doesn't have any feminism. It doesn't change the word "seed" to "descendants" in Genesis 17:7. It doesn't say that whoever "disobeys" Jesus will burn in hell in John 3:36. It doesn't support the concept of a monastic "pledge" in 1 Timothy 5:12. And I think it is less clunky and prettier than the NASB. Whenever you quote from it, people generally respect it. It barely costs anything to buy one. You know that it will probably be around for a while (unlike my last Bible, the 1984 NIV). People dislike the "thee" and "thou" parts, but at least you can use those words to tell when the Greek word is singular rather than plural.

I do tend to agree with Bad Pig that the Majority Text would be better, but whatever.
I grew up on the KJV, the language is almost poetic and is beautiful. I still to this day quote scriptures I memorized from it. But, the language is also very outdated. The meaning of so many words have changed so that if you are not VERY careful, you see KJV scripture saying things that are not true. Let's take just one example:



1 Peter 2:9][/B]
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

What does "Peculiar" mean in todays language? Just about everyone would say it means queer, strange or odd. But in the English of the time, Peculiar meant: Distinct, called, or specially appointed, exclusively a part of (a group). There are so many instances of the language drift problem in the KJV, that IMHO, it's at least a problem.

Teallaura
03-24-2014, 01:30 PM
I grew up on the KJV, the language is almost poetic and is beautiful. I still to this day quote scriptures I memorized from it. But, the language is also very outdated. The meaning of so many words have changed so that if you are not VERY careful, you see KJV scripture saying things that are not true. Let's take just one example:




What does "Peculiar" mean in todays language? Just about everyone would say it means queer, strange or odd. But in the English of the time, Peculiar meant: Distinct, called, or specially appointed, exclusively a part of (a group). There are so many instances of the language drift problem in the KJV, that IMHO, it's at least a problem.


^Yeah, that.

RBerman
03-24-2014, 01:43 PM
Thanks for the recommendations everyone. I am still strongly considering the NET bible for reasons cited by Paprika. I like the NASB, however, when was the last time it was updated/revised? I shy away from the ESV because I am concerned about sectarian bias, however, is this of my own imagining? The ESV also seems to be a favorite of the New Calvinists and Piper cubs, and I like to be just a bit different.

If different is what you're looking for, having you considered the New World Translation?

Zymologist
03-24-2014, 02:02 PM
If different is what you're looking for, having you considered the New World Translation?

Or the Geneva Bible. Not many people use that. :thumb:

RBerman
03-24-2014, 02:03 PM
Not your fault; that's what I had read online sometime ago. According to an earlier post, RBerman had the same information as you and I did. However, TNIV is definitely out of print, and the new/current NIV has both a different translation team and a different text.

I was speaking casually. NIV 1984 was revised into TNIV, but the two were still being sold in parallel, and TNIV got a drubbing from evangelicals due to some pretty miserable translation mistakes made in an effort to promote gender-inclusive language. Zondervan brought more evangelicals on board, reworked the most egregious errors in TNIV, stopped publishing both NIV 1984 and TNIV, and starting publishing the reworked TNIV as "NIV" 2011. I read an analysis of all the changes which indicated that, of all the changes made between NIV 1984 and TNIV, the overwhelming majority were retained in NIV 2011. Comparing the smaller number of changes between TNIV and NIV 2011, a few reverted back to the NIV 1984 reading, while most were changed to a novel reading.

One Bad Pig
03-24-2014, 02:04 PM
If different is what you're looking for, having you considered the New World Translation?

My favorite different translation is the Wyclif Bible. :hehe:

RBerman
03-24-2014, 02:07 PM
I think the KJV is like a better version of the NASB. Why does no one like it? It doesn't have any of the flaws discussed in this thread. It doesn't have any feminism. It doesn't change the word "seed" to "descendants" in Genesis 17:7. It doesn't say that whoever "disobeys" Jesus will burn in hell in John 3:36. It doesn't support the concept of a monastic "pledge" in 1 Timothy 5:12. And I think it is less clunky and prettier than the NASB. Whenever you quote from it, people generally respect it. It barely costs anything to buy one. You know that it will probably be around for a while (unlike my last Bible, the 1984 NIV). People dislike the "thee" and "thou" parts, but at least you can use those words to tell when the Greek word is singular rather than plural.

Unfortunately, the English language has slipped away from KJV, so that its vocabulary and grammar connote a much higher degree of archaism than was intended by the original texts, even to those who can parse its sometimes antiquated phraseology. However, I am curious which edition of KJV you are reading: The original 1611, or one of the several revisions?

Zymologist
03-24-2014, 02:22 PM
Unfortunately, the English language has slipped away from KJV, so that its vocabulary and grammar connote a much higher degree of archaism than was intended by the original texts, even to those who can parse its sometimes antiquated phraseology. However, I am curious which edition of KJV you are reading: The original 1611, or one of the several revisions?

Agreed. Sometimes the archaism of the KJV English is underestimated.

A peculiar favorite of mine, 2 Corinthians 6:11-12:

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

Zymologist
03-24-2014, 02:28 PM
I'm far from a scholar, and can't speak to its accuracy (or possible lack), but regarding unusual translations there's also this (http://cepher.net/).

ETA: This was recommended to me by an old friend of the family, so I bought one a while ago on a whim. I haven't studied it in-depth, however. As a side-note, it is way huger than it looks in the pictures.

Just Some Dude
03-24-2014, 03:26 PM
John Reece, is you're still reading, a curiosity question: Which of the current English translations of the Septuagint would you recommend?

Kbertsche
03-24-2014, 04:03 PM
John Reece, is you're still reading, a curiosity question: Which of the current English translations of the Septuagint would you recommend?
I'd be interested in John's reply, too.

I spoke on Ps 104 a few weeks ago. Verse 8 is somewhat ambiguous in the Hebrew MTT; did the mountains go up and the valleys go down, or did the waters go up the mountains and down the valleys? I opted for the latter, which is the NIV and LXX rendering, because it seems to fit the context better (the poetic imagery views the waters as an enemy army which flees at God's shout). I noticed that Brenton's LXX translation matched the Greek LXX here (where "mountains" and "valleys" are in the accusative, not the nominative), but the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) did not. NETS had the mountains and valleys moving, not the waters. Unless there are multiple readings of the LXX on this verse, the NETS got the translation of this verse very wrong!

Kbertsche
03-24-2014, 04:05 PM
I prefer the NKJV, though I wish the editors had gone with the Majority Text rather than the TR. I also like the NET, though I tend to prefer the alternate translations in the footnotes (which tend to be more formally equivalent).
I also like the NET. The text itself is somewhat loosely translated, but the notes are extremely good and helpful.

One Bad Pig
03-24-2014, 06:08 PM
I'd be interested in John's reply, too.

I spoke on Ps 104 a few weeks ago. Verse 8 is somewhat ambiguous in the Hebrew MTT; did the mountains go up and the valleys go down, or did the waters go up the mountains and down the valleys? I opted for the latter, which is the NIV and LXX rendering, because it seems to fit the context better (the poetic imagery views the waters as an enemy army which flees at God's shout). I noticed that Brenton's LXX translation matched the Greek LXX here (where "mountains" and "valleys" are in the accusative, not the nominative), but the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) did not. NETS had the mountains and valleys moving, not the waters. Unless there are multiple readings of the LXX on this verse, the NETS got the translation of this verse very wrong!
The Orthodox Study Bible has for verse 8: "The mountains rise up, and the plains sink down to the place You founded for them." The waters move in verses 7, 9, and 10, however. I like its rendering in some places, but in others it becomes nearly incomprehensible.

Obsidian
03-24-2014, 07:09 PM
However, I am curious which edition of KJV you are reading: The original 1611, or one of the several revisions?

usually just the one that says "King James Version" on biblegateway.com


O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

It may be hard to understand, but I'm guessing that's pretty much what the original language says.

Scrawly
03-24-2014, 09:24 PM
If different is what you're looking for, having you considered the New World Translation?

LOL! My, my you've got quite the mean streak in you RB, don't you?

I've decided to go with the NASB, thanks for everyone's input.

Kbertsche
03-24-2014, 09:35 PM
The Orthodox Study Bible has for verse 8: "The mountains rise up, and the plains sink down to the place You founded for them." The waters move in verses 7, 9, and 10, however. I like its rendering in some places, but in others it becomes nearly incomprehensible.
Yes, most English versions render it this way (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NET, ...). As I said, the Hebrew is ambiguous. The NIV, LXX, and Young's Literal render it that the waters went up the mountains and down the valleys. Mitchell Dahood argues for this rendering in his commentary on the Psalms, and I find his arguments persuasive.

But the question was on which English translation of the Septuagint (LXX) was the best. I would argue that the best one is the one which most accurately renders the wording and grammar of the LXX, especially where the LXX differs from other translations. On this score, for Ps 104:8, Brenton passes and NETS fails.

RBerman
03-24-2014, 10:18 PM
usually just the one that says "King James Version" on biblegateway.com

OK, the 1769 version, then.

One Bad Pig
03-25-2014, 06:02 AM
Yes, most English versions render it this way (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NET, ...). As I said, the Hebrew is ambiguous. The NIV, LXX, and Young's Literal render it that the waters went up the mountains and down the valleys. Mitchell Dahood argues for this rendering in his commentary on the Psalms, and I find his arguments persuasive.

But the question was on which English translation of the Septuagint (LXX) was the best. I would argue that the best one is the one which most accurately renders the wording and grammar of the LXX, especially where the LXX differs from other translations. On this score, for Ps 104:8, Brenton passes and NETS fails.
The Orthodox Study Bible is translated from the LXX, which is why I brought it up. I've noticed it does have a tendency to revert to the MT sometimes.

John Reece
03-25-2014, 08:48 AM
John Reece, is you're still reading, a curiosity question: Which of the current English translations of the Septuagint would you recommend?

A New English Translation of the Septuagint: and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title (Oxford University Press, 2007), edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright.

phat8594
03-25-2014, 09:37 AM
I need a new Bible. I have been thinking about which version to buy. I have narrowed it down to TNIV or the NET bible. Which would you choose, and does anyone have reason to persuade me away from either of these translations?

Thanks.

PS: Please feel free to recommend another translation you feel is superior to the two listed above.

The NIV is a great translation. The TNIV is also great.

The NIV is still one of the most readable, and reliable translations out there.

phat8594
03-25-2014, 09:38 AM
I recommend KJV and NASB, in that order. Actual translations, not interpretations. I think NET is pretty much the worst. And if you like a really PC, feminist-friendly Bible, certainly go with the latest NIV.

I really hope that you are kidding (with regards to the 'actual translations, not interprations' comment)

phat8594
03-25-2014, 09:42 AM
As I've heard ESV and NASB are the two most literal of modern translations, I use ESV myself, though it is a bit clunky.

Ususally when people talk about 'literal' translations, it usually means that they don't know much about Greek, or translational theory.

After all, what do people even mean by 'most literal'? (most people just use the term 'literal' as it sounds great -- but really, it seems that they don't understand what goes into a translation)

note: ['more literal' ususally it connotes a more 'formal equivalence' approach...i.e. 'word for word' as to a 'functional equivalience' - as to why this is inherently 'more literal' or 'better' than a functional equivalent translation approach I have absolutely no idea...]


(By the way, I am not talking about you in this case)

(as a side note, I use the NKJV, ESV, and NIV)

John Reece
03-25-2014, 09:46 AM
Yes, most English versions render it this way (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NET, ...). As I said, the Hebrew is ambiguous. The NIV, LXX, and Young's Literal render it that the waters went up the mountains and down the valleys. Mitchell Dahood argues for this rendering in his commentary on the Psalms, and I find his arguments persuasive.

But the question was on which English translation of the Septuagint (LXX) was the best. I would argue that the best one is the one which most accurately renders the wording and grammar of the LXX, especially where the LXX differs from other translations. On this score, for Ps 104:8, Brenton passes and NETS fails.

Dahood was commenting on the Hebrew text, not the LXX.

Explain how the wording and grammar of LXX Ps 103(104) ― ἀναβαίνουσιν ὄρη καὶ καταβαίνουσιν πεδία εἰς τόπον ὃν ἐθεμελίωσας αὐτοῖς ― does not render "mountains ascend and plains descend to a spot that you founded for them" (NETS).

NETS translates the LXX, not the MT, which is rendered "as they were rising up the mountains, so they were going down the valleys, to the place that you founded for them" (Goldingay).

From John Goldingay's Baker OT Commentary on Psalm 104:8:


The waters are in focus in every colon of verses 7-9 yet are never mentioned. "This is an ellipsis of iconic import: the waters are commanded to subside," (Fokkelman, Major Poems 2:265) and they disappear even rhetorically.

Obsidian
03-25-2014, 10:45 AM
note: ['more literal' ususally it connotes a more 'formal equivalence' approach...i.e. 'word for word' as to a 'functional equivalience' - as to why this is inherently 'more literal' or 'better' than a functional equivalent translation approach I have absolutely no idea...

Because it's less subjective

robrecht
03-25-2014, 10:58 AM
There is no such thing as a literal translation, although I do sometimes speak of 'more' or 'less literal' translations as well as 'overly literal translation', but I typically apply this terminology to aids in learning a language and not to published translations. Every translation involves quite a bit of interpretation. This is true of the reading process in general, even when reading or listening in one's mother tongue, although that is usually a subconscious process.

One Bad Pig
03-25-2014, 10:59 AM
Because it's less subjective
Not necessarily. Words in different language often have less than perfect semantic overlap, especially for abstract concepts; because a literal translation tends to force the translator into choosing a single word to translate a single word, it can end up being just as subjective, and less accurate, than a more dynamic equivalent translation.

Kbertsche
03-25-2014, 11:01 AM
Explain how the wording and grammar of LXX Ps 103(104) ― ἀναβαίνουσιν ὄρη καὶ καταβαίνουσιν πεδία εἰς τόπον ὃν ἐθεμελίωσας αὐτοῖς ― does not render "mountains ascend and plains descend to a spot that you founded for them" (NETS).


John, aren't "mountains" (ὄρη) and "plains" (πεδία) in the accusative in the LXX here? If so, they can't be the subjects of the clauses, but are the direct objects. Doesn't the verse in the LXX really translate "they go up mountains and down plains to a spot that you founded for them"?

phat8594
03-25-2014, 11:01 AM
Because it's less subjective

?? What does that even mean ?? :huh:

Are you saying that 'word' for 'word' is less subjective, or inherently more accurate?

If that is what you are saying...I am afraid to tell you that such a thought is simply not true. Languages and cultures have different word orders, semantic ranges, idioms, phrases, etc to express similar thoughts.

Is the goal of translation to mirror the word order of the original language, and to literally exchange one word for another? Or is the point of translation to accurately convey the meaning of the original language into the receptor language in a way in that it is understood in the same way?

If you ever talk to someone who knows several languages, you will find they always translate 'functionally' and not 'formally'. This is because if you were to always translate 'formally', most ideas / sentences / paragraphs would make little sense (if at all) in the receptor language.



__________________________________________________ ______________________________
A good example of the differences can be seen in translating the following spanish phrase:

Como te llamas?

Formal (word for word): How you are called? (or, How are you called)

Functional: What is your name?


Is the formal equivalent translation more 'literal' or 'accurate' than the functional equivalent translation? Depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to clearly communicate what the original author is saying into a receptor language, the answer is: the formal equivalent does not accurately or clearly convey the meaning of the original phrase.

phat8594
03-25-2014, 11:19 AM
Not necessarily. Words in different language often have less than perfect semantic overlap, especially for abstract concepts; because a literal translation tends to force the translator into choosing a single word to translate a single word, it can end up being just as subjective, and less accurate, than a more dynamic equivalent translation.

What most people fail to realize is that there is always some interpretation in translation. Doing it 'word for word' doesn't limit the interpretation - it just says how the interpretation is done. As you correctly noted, the semanitic overlap and range of words from one language to another varies greatly. This alone will be reason for interpretation - and can often mean that 'word for word' translations are unnecessarily limiting the accuracy of the translation. That is just one reason why it is suggested to read from more than 1 translation.

John Reece
03-25-2014, 12:24 PM
John, aren't "mountains" (ὄρη) and "plains" (πεδία) in the accusative in the LXX here?

Not necessarily: ὄρη can be either nominative or accusative neuter plural of ὄρος; πεδία can be either nominative or accusative neuter plural of πεδίον.


Doesn't the verse in the LXX really translate "they go up mountains and down plains to a spot that you founded for them"?

Not necessarily: the text is ambiguous.

RBerman
03-25-2014, 12:25 PM
What most people fail to realize is that there is always some interpretation in translation. Doing it 'word for word' doesn't limit the interpretation - it just says how the interpretation is done. As you correctly noted, the semanitic overlap and range of words from one language to another varies greatly. This alone will be reason for interpretation - and can often mean that 'word for word' translations are unnecessarily limiting the accuracy of the translation. That is just one reason why it is suggested to read from more than 1 translation.

This is why Bible translation is inherently a theological discipline. You may decide that "son of the bow" in the book of Job can be translated as "arrow." But what are you going to do with "Son of God" or "Son of encouragement"? Are you going to leave proper names/nicknames transliterated instead of translated? And so on.

Obsidian
03-25-2014, 05:51 PM
because a literal translation tends to force the translator into choosing a single word to translate a single word, it can end up being just as subjective, and less accurate, than a more dynamic equivalent translation.

You can argue that literalism is less accurate if you want. But you cannot argue that it is more subjective. That's simply not true. Literalism is more objective.


Or is the point of translation to accurately convey the meaning of the original language into the receptor language in a way in that it is understood in the same way?

Ideally, the point would be to convey the meaning. However, meaning is subjective. Translating words in a literalistic fashion is not particularly subjective. If I get the objective words, the Holy Spirit can teach me the meaning. But if I get someone else's subjective meaning, it may be wrong.

KingsGambit
03-25-2014, 06:00 PM
The 1862 Young's Literal Translation is a fairly extreme example of what results if the concept of "exact literalness" is pressed too far. Robert Young believed that the word of God would be nullified if the slightest change was made, but the flaw is that grammatical structures vary across languages. The result is extremely awkward English phrasing. Here is Genesis 1:1-3 in YLT:

In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

3 and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.

robrecht
03-25-2014, 06:29 PM
This is why Bible translation is inherently a theological discipline. You may decide that "son of the bow" in the book of Job can be translated as "arrow." But what are you going to do with "Son of God" or "Son of encouragement"? Are you going to leave proper names/nicknames transliterated instead of translated? And so on.
There are, of course, theological implications of how one translates Scripture, but theology should not dictate how one translates Scripture.

KingsGambit
03-25-2014, 06:32 PM
There are, of course, theological implications of how one translates Scripture, but theology should not dictate how one translates Scripture.

Richard Bauckham says that the early church refused to use God's actual name. Would this be one viable theological thing to keep in mind when translating?

robrecht
03-25-2014, 06:35 PM
Richard Bauckham says that the early church refused to use God's actual name. Would this be one viable theological thing to keep in mind when translating?
I would see that as a question one might consider when deciding how to read Scripture, whether in the original language or in translation, but not properly a question of translation, per se.

One Bad Pig
03-25-2014, 07:12 PM
You can argue that literalism is less accurate if you want. But you cannot argue that it is more subjective. That's simply not true. Literalism is more objective.
Try re-reading my post (and the posts building on mine) for comprehension. Your summary is not an accurate characterization of what I posted.


Ideally, the point would be to convey the meaning. However, meaning is subjective. Translating words in a literalistic fashion is not particularly subjective. If I get the objective words, the Holy Spirit can teach me the meaning. But if I get someone else's subjective meaning, it may be wrong.
:doh: You keep using the word "subjective." I don't think it means what you think it means.

The point of any translation is to convey meaning. Because semantic range can vary widely between languages, however, even a woodenly literal translation can be susceptible to the translator's bias.

Obsidian
03-25-2014, 07:18 PM
Because semantic range can vary widely between languages, however, even a woodenly literal translation can be susceptible to the translator's bias.

Yes, it can be. But the fact that you have to use the word "even" in that sentence, tells me you recognize the fact that literalism is more objective.

As one example, if I see the words "sons of God" written in the text, that is objectively what the text says. If you change it to "angels," that might be true or it might not be. It is subjective.

KingsGambit
03-25-2014, 07:22 PM
Yes, it can be. But the fact that you have to use the word "even" in that sentence, tells me you recognize the fact that literalism is more objective.

As one example, if I see the words "sons of God" written in the text, that is objectively what the text says. If you change it to "angels," that might be true or it might not be. It is subjective.

It would be objectively true that what you changed it to does not reflect the intention of the original author.

One Bad Pig
03-25-2014, 07:58 PM
Yes, it can be. But the fact that you have to use the word "even" in that sentence, tells me you recognize the fact that literalism is more objective.
:argh: No. I didn't have to use the word "even"; I was using it for emphasis.


As one example, if I see the words "sons of God" written in the text, that is objectively what the text says. If you change it to "angels," that might be true or it might not be. It is subjective.
:no: If, in the original language, the word can mean either "sons of God" or "angels," the translator isn't changing anything by going with one or the other; he must look at the context and decide which translation more accurately conveys the writer's intended meaning. That's where bias can come into play. Here's an example:

9 Suddenly Jehovah’s* angel stood before them, and Jehovah’s* glory gleamed around them, and they became very fearful. 10 But the angel said to them: “Do not be afraid, for look! I am declaring to you good news of a great joy that all the people will have. 11 For today there was born to you in David’s city+ a savior,+ who is Christ the Lord.

You can see from here (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/2.htm) that "Jehovah's" and "Lord" are variants of the same word in the Greek text, but the JWs have translated it differently due to their biased view that Jesus is not God.

Obsidian
03-25-2014, 09:18 PM
That's why it should say "Lord" in both places. You are proving my point.

One Bad Pig
03-26-2014, 06:27 AM
That's why it should say "Lord" in both places. You are proving my point.

:doh: You missed the point I was making - literal translations can be biased. Further, there are many instances where there is more than one legitimate way to translate a word - which is why we have so many different translations.

Teallaura
03-26-2014, 08:21 AM
There is no such thing as a literal translation, although I do sometimes speak of 'more' or 'less literal' translations as well as 'overly literal translation', but I typically apply this terminology to aids in learning a language and not to published translations. Every translation involves quite a bit of interpretation. This is true of the reading process in general, even when reading or listening in one's mother tongue, although that is usually a subconscious process.


:whistle:

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Youngs-Literal-Translation-YLT-Bible/

Teallaura
03-26-2014, 08:22 AM
The 1862 Young's Literal Translation is a fairly extreme example of what results if the concept of "exact literalness" is pressed too far. Robert Young believed that the word of God would be nullified if the slightest change was made, but the flaw is that grammatical structures vary across languages. The result is extremely awkward English phrasing. Here is Genesis 1:1-3 in YLT:

In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

3 and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.


:sad: No fair, you peeked!

RBerman
03-26-2014, 08:28 AM
There are, of course, theological implications of how one translates Scripture, but theology should not dictate how one translates Scripture.

"Dictate" would overstate the case. Not only does translation have theological implications, but the very act of translation involves assigning meaning to Scripture, and it's not possible to do that in an a-theological manner.

phat8594
03-26-2014, 11:09 AM
Ideally, the point would be to convey the meaning. However, meaning is subjective. Translating words in a literalistic fashion is not particularly subjective. If I get the objective words, the Holy Spirit can teach me the meaning. But if I get someone else's subjective meaning, it may be wrong.

And can you explain how it is 'more objective'? After all, you even said yourself that the point of translation is to translate the meaning -- so if we aren't trying to translate for meaning - what is the point of even translating?

That's what language does - it conveys meaning...and without meaning there is no understanding.


Plus, if 'literal' (as you define it) is better, why then does the Bible itself partake in 'functional equivalent' translation? Or is the Bible faulty in this regard?

phat8594
03-26-2014, 11:12 AM
That's why it should say "Lord" in both places. You are proving my point.

So do you believe that the same word in Greek should always be translated to the same word in English?

robrecht
03-26-2014, 11:18 AM
:whistle:

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Youngs-Literal-Translation-YLT-Bible/I regard this as an attempt at a 'more literal' translation, which indeed can be useful as a learning aid. Even more useful would be to make one's own 'overly literal translation'. This is a good way to learn the syntax and idioms of a foreign language. But I do not consider this process as resulting in a good or complete translation into the target language.

Teallaura
03-26-2014, 11:20 AM
I regard this as an attempt at a 'more literal' translation, which indeed can be useful as a learning aid. Even more useful would be to make one's own 'overly literal translation'. This is a good way to learn the syntax and idioms of a foreign language. But I do not consider this process as resulting in a good or complete translation into the target language.
It's no fun if you're gonna be all serious about it... :sigh:

robrecht
03-26-2014, 11:29 AM
"Dictate" would overstate the case. Not only does translation have theological implications, but the very act of translation involves assigning meaning to Scripture, and it's not possible to do that in an a-theological manner.
A theological text, when translated, obviously should result in a theological text in another language. But it should strive to reflect the theology of the author(s) and not the theology of the translator(s) and one should not presume that these are the same.

robrecht
03-26-2014, 11:30 AM
It's no fun if you're gonna be all serious about it... :sigh:
Sorry. So let's talk about the universal translator used in Star Trek!

Teallaura
03-26-2014, 11:36 AM
Sorry. So let's talk about the universal translator used in Star Trek!:smile:

Eh, it wouldn't help - it always fails at dramatic moments...

robrecht
03-26-2014, 11:58 AM
:smile:

Eh, it wouldn't help - it always fails at dramatic moments...Seems like it almost always works fabulously well, at least if we exclude that awful Enterprise series with the insufferable Scott Bakula. Other than that I can only think of a couple of episodes where this was a problem.

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 12:04 PM
So do you believe that the same word in Greek should always be translated to the same word in English?

As a rule of thumb, I think that would be preferable. I'm sure it wouldn't always work.


After all, you even said yourself that the point of translation is to translate the meaning -- so if we aren't trying to translate for meaning - what is the point of even translating?

I said that obtaining the direct meaning would be ideal. But since I don't trust the translators as much as I do the Holy Spirit, I think it's best if the translators convert the words in a relatively literal fashion, and let God teach us the exact meaning.


Plus, if 'literal' (as you define it) is better, why then does the Bible itself partake in 'functional equivalent' translation?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. But anything written in the Bible is written by God, so it can be trusted regardless of how non-literal it is.

robrecht
03-26-2014, 12:13 PM
As a rule of thumb, I think that would be preferable. I'm sure it wouldn't always work.

I said that obtaining the direct meaning would be ideal. But since I don't trust the translators as much as I do the Holy Spirit, I think it's best if the translators convert the words in a relatively literal fashion, and let God teach us the exact meaning.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. But anything written in the Bible is written by God, so it can be trusted regardless of how non-literal it is.Why not just trust the Holy Spirit to inspire you with the correct understanding of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek?

Teallaura
03-26-2014, 12:16 PM
Seems like it almost always works fabulously well, at least if we exclude that awful Enterprise series with the insufferable Scott Bakula. Other than that I can only think of a couple of episodes where this was a problem.
It didn't fail often, that's true - but when it did the results were ... dramatic...

Hey, maybe that explains the 'rock giants' in the new Noah movie! They got a universal translator for the Star Trek set and...

:grin:

robrecht
03-26-2014, 12:22 PM
It didn't fail often, that's true - but when it did the results were ... dramatic...

Hey, maybe that explains the 'rock giants' in the new Noah movie! They got a universal translator for the Star Trek set and...

:grin:
I want to see that movie--don't spoil the ending--is it out yet?

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 12:41 PM
Why not just trust the Holy Spirit to inspire you with the correct understanding of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek?

Because that would take a great deal of work on my part. And because we are discussing English Bibles.

*edited

robrecht
03-26-2014, 12:43 PM
Because that would take a great deal of work on my part. And because we are discussing English Bibles.
I posted that question, not phat. Why would you change that?

robrecht
03-26-2014, 12:45 PM
Because that would take a great deal of work on my part. And because we are discussing English Bibles.
But if you do not trust the translators, don't you need to do that work yourself? And why would you trust your language teachers and books, for that matter?

phat8594
03-26-2014, 01:18 PM
As a rule of thumb, I think that would be preferable. I'm sure it wouldn't always work.


The problem is that you don't seem to understand 'semantic range' and how the semantic range for words do not line up from language to language. If you did this method, then you would honestly come up with some really bad translations, not to mention theology.




I said that obtaining the direct meaning would be ideal. But since I don't trust the translators as much as I do the Holy Spirit, I think it's best if the translators convert the words in a relatively literal fashion, and let God teach us the exact meaning.


If you don't trust the translators then how can you trust a formal equivalent translation any more than a functional equivalent? You still need to translate the words...

And what I think you are missing is that words need context for meaning. IOW, words are used together in a context to give a meaning...depending on the context, the same words can mean different things.



I'm not sure what you're referring to. But anything written in the Bible is written by God, so it can be trusted regardless of how non-literal it is.

I am referring to the fact that the Bible translates using a 'functional equivalent' method. So if the Bible is written by God, and it uses functional equivalence, shouldn't that say something about how functional equivalence may be a better or more preferrable method than formal equivalence?

IOW, if formal equivalence is 'more accurate' or better, then why would God use functional equivalence?



Because that would take a great deal of work on my part. And because we are discussing English Bibles.


And yet how else will you even begin to grasp whether or not the English Bibles are accurate at all??

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 01:33 PM
IOW, if formal equivalence is 'more accurate' then why would God use functional equivalence?

I didn't say it's more accurate. I said it's more objective.


If you did this method, then you would honestly come up with some really bad translations, not to mention theology.

If you were to translate the word "ball" into Spanish, it would probably make a difference whether you were referring to a formal dance or a sphere used in a sporting event. Obviously, in that type of case a different word would need to be used. But when we're talking about Lord versus Jehovah, or save versus deliver, or other words with similar but arguable meaning, then the words should most of the time be translated the same.


If you don't trust the translators then how can you trust a formal equivalent translation any more than a functional equivalent? You still need to translate the words...

I trust some translators more than others. And the ones I tend to trust most are those who try to avoid inserting their own biases.

robrecht
03-26-2014, 01:37 PM
I didn't say it's more accurate. I said it's more objective.

If you were to translate the word "ball" into Spanish, it would probably make a difference whether you were referring to a formal dance or a sphere used in a sporting event. Obviously, in that type of case a different word would need to be used. But when we're talking about Lord versus Jehovah, or save versus deliver, or other words with similar but arguable meaning, then the words should most of the time be translated the same.

I trust some translators more than others. And the ones I tend to trust most are those who try to avoid inserting their own biases.
How do you know when a translator is not biased?

phat8594
03-26-2014, 01:42 PM
But if you do not trust the translators, don't you need to do that work yourself? And why would you trust your language teachers and books, for that matter?

^^ yeah, this

phat8594
03-26-2014, 02:31 PM
I didn't say it's more accurate. I said it's more objective.




On what basis? Would you mind explaining how it is more objective? After all, what is the goal of translating?



It seems to me that choosing to translate word for word in and of itself is based on subjective reasoning




I trust some translators more than others. And the ones I tend to trust most are those who try to avoid inserting their own biases.

And how do you know which ones to trust?

And shouldn't this make you feel better about the translations that have been done by committees filled with scholars of varying theological backgrounds?

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 02:44 PM
And shouldn't this make you feel better about the translations that have been done by committees filled with scholars of varying theological backgrounds?

Yeah, I really like to make sure to have a decent percentage of heretics translating my Bible, to help balance things out.


How do you know when a translator is not biased?

When they copy word-for-word so there is little or no room for discretion. Seriously, this is not a hard concept.

robrecht
03-26-2014, 02:56 PM
Yeah, I really like to make sure to have a decent percentage of heretics translating my Bible, to help balance things out.

When they copy word-for-word so there is little or no room for discretion. Seriously, this is not a hard concept.But how do you know they aren't choosing heretical words or words that otherwise reflect their own bias?

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 03:00 PM
But how do you know they aren't choosing heretical words or words that otherwise reflect their own bias?

Because when necessary, I compare the different versions, and look up the original languages, and research the textual variants.

robrecht
03-26-2014, 03:05 PM
Because when necessary, I compare the different versions, and look up the original languages, and research the textual variants.
So there is safety in a larger number of translators.

phat8594
03-26-2014, 03:42 PM
Yeah, I really like to make sure to have a decent percentage of heretics translating my Bible, to help balance things out.


Yet you also said that you essentially like the 'safety' in large number of translators....so which is it?




When they copy word-for-word so there is little or no room for discretion. Seriously, this is not a hard concept.
[/quote]

No offense, but I really don't think you understand translation. Most people who comment on translations really have 0 idea about what goes into it or how languages work.


You say that there is little room for discretion - but there is ALWAYS room for 'discretion'. It seems to me that you would rather essentially tie the hands of the translators and keep them from having the liberty to actually translate accurately simply to adhere to the subjective idea of translating 'word' for 'word'. This only removes clarity and puts the so call 'discretion' in the hands of lay people who typically have 0 knowledge of the original languages, semantic ranges, etc -- not to mention that it does so with a less clear and readable translation.




And you still have yet to answer: if formal equivalence is better, why would God use functional equivalence in the Bible?

Obsidian
03-26-2014, 03:45 PM
I did answer. You haven't paid attention. I'm tired of repeating myself. And I never used the word "safety."

hedrick
03-26-2014, 05:29 PM
John 3:27 To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven." TNIV

Bastardization of the English language

Not really. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

robrecht
03-26-2014, 05:57 PM
Not really. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Interesting. I've never had a problem with gender inclusive language, but it's nice to know it has a long history with some good forebears.

Darth Xena
03-26-2014, 06:14 PM
English is a bastard tongue to begin with

John Reece
03-26-2014, 06:35 PM
Not really. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

That phenomenon was noted in a post above explaining the rationale for such gender inclusive language in 2011 NIV, supported by a study of gender language based on the Collins Bank of English—a 4.4 billion-word database of English usage worldwide based on both print and audio recordings:


3. "Singular 'they,' 'them' and 'their' forms were widely used to communicate the generic significance of pronouns and their equivalents when a singular form had already been used for the antecedent" (p. 6).

It is important to notice that guideline #3 explicitly refers to using "they," "them," and "their" as singular. This does not mean that these words are always singular, but that they can be used as either singular or plural depending on the context. This reflects how the English language has changed, and the Collins Report provides the evidence. Though it makes many English teachers cringe, for better or worse, English usage no longer restricts these forms to plural reference. Contemporary English commonly uses expressions like the following: "If anybody had a right to be proud of their accomplishments, it was Paul."


I can accept it, and have done so, off and on, since the publication of the NRSV ― the publication of which I had eagerly anticipated, my only English Bible theretofore from age 20 having been the RSV.

I differ from robrecht in that, for me, gender inclusive language that does not originate in a straightforward rendering of biblical language, has always been a problem.

Even though I understand the rationale, it's still quite jarring for me, at age 80, to see "them" as a rendering of αὐτῷ in John 3:27: ἀπεκρίθη Ἰωάννης καὶ εἶπεν· οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν οὐδὲ ἓν ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

robrecht
03-26-2014, 06:41 PM
...

I differ from robrecht in that, for me, gender inclusive language that does not originate in a straightforward rendering of biblical language, has always been a problem.

Even though I understand the rationale, it's still quite jarring for me, at age 80, to see "them" as a rendering of αὐτῷ in John 3:27: ἀπεκρίθη Ἰωάννης καὶ εἶπεν· οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν οὐδὲ ἓν ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
All the more reason to learn the original languages!

John Reece
03-26-2014, 06:49 PM
All the more reason to learn the original languages!

:thumb:

Teallaura
03-27-2014, 07:08 AM
...
Though it makes many English teachers cringe, for better or worse, English usage no longer restricts these forms to plural reference. Contemporary English commonly uses expressions like the following: "If anybody had a right to be proud of their accomplishments, it was Paul."

...

:brood: That's a lousy example - should have been 'his'. I rarely see the plural pronoun used as a singular in a case like this. It usually happens when going from a plural case to a singular one which isn't what is going on in this example. Anybody is singular.

Okay, off my soapbox now... :outtie:

Teallaura
03-27-2014, 07:09 AM
All the more reason to learn the original languages!

Ja, sicher - ich habe neimals anders zu tun... :brood:

robrecht
03-27-2014, 08:59 AM
Ja, sicher - ich habe neimals anders zu tun... :brood:
Hebräisch, bitte!

phat8594
03-27-2014, 09:34 AM
I did answer. You haven't paid attention. I'm tired of repeating myself. And I never used the word "safety."

Actually, you just said:


I'm not sure what you're referring to. But anything written in the Bible is written by God, so it can be trusted regardless of how non-literal it is


But that still leaves the question: Why would God translate with functional equivalence if formal equivalence is 'more literal' or 'more accurate'?


You just said that it can be trusted. So wouldn't that mean that functional can be trusted? After all, it seems to be God's preferred method...

phat8594
03-27-2014, 09:40 AM
All the more reason to learn the original languages!

Yep. And although I think that is highly unlikely or unattainable for most people, I think that most people should learn at least the basics - all while knowing one's own limitations. I remember one Bible translator telling me:

"Whenever I hear a pastor say 'the literal meaning of the Greek word is ______', I cringe. They are probably wrong more than 90% of the time. That is because many pastors know how to read a Greek word & look it up in a concordance or lexicon, but very few can actually read Greek sentences"


That has always been a very humbling reminder to me. Being able to look up words in a Greek lexicon or concordance doesn't make a person a Greek scholar.

And now, I too cringe when I hear a pastor say 'The Greek word literally means _____' and the definition is something not found in any of the major translations. :eek:

RBerman
03-27-2014, 10:32 AM
A theological text, when translated, obviously should result in a theological text in another language. But it should strive to reflect the theology of the author(s) and not the theology of the translator(s) and one should not presume that these are the same.

That is indeed the challenge, including leaving ambiguous matters that were ambiguous in the original text.

hedrick
03-27-2014, 07:17 PM
I can accept it, and have done so, off and on, since the publication of the NRSV ― the publication of which I had eagerly anticipated, my only English Bible theretofore from age 20 having been the RSV.

The NRSV was a bit early. They tended to make passages plural or passive. I think that was partly because the singular they wasn't accepted at that time. I still use NRSV, because I trust the scholarship, but I'd like to see them review the gender-neutral translations to see if they could be improved.

Like you, I grew up with the RSV. I've tried others, but find the NRSV generally the least unsatisfactory translation -- probably about the best one can hope for. I'm using the Common English Bible with junior high kids, with some reservations. It has more weird translations than I'd like, but not in places that are likely to affect the lessons for that age level. But with high school we use NRSV.

robrecht
03-27-2014, 07:42 PM
That is indeed the challenge, including leaving ambiguous matters that were ambiguous in the original text.
Ambiguity is sometimes simply impossible to translate. Sometimes, even the act of reading a text in the original language, requires the reader to resolve ambiguities of a text, especially ancient texts, eg, consonantal texts that also lack punctuation.

I would rather understand a single letter, even a pause, in the original language of a text, than the entirety of a translation, especially with a text that attempts to speak of God.

phat8594
04-02-2014, 09:17 AM
Just as a help to anyone interested, here is a good book on the idea of 'literal' translations with regards to translation:

http://www.amazon.com/One-Bible-Many-Versions-Translations/dp/0830827153/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396455131&sr=8-1&keywords=dave+brunn