Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Bible Versions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    usually just the one that says "King James Version" on biblegateway.com
    OK, the 1769 version, then.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
      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.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Just Some Dude View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
            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)

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
              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)
              Last edited by phat8594; 03-25-2014, 11:54 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                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.
                Last edited by John Reece; 03-26-2014, 08:04 AM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by phat8954
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                      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.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by John Reece View Post

                        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"?
                        Last edited by Kbertsche; 03-25-2014, 01:06 PM.
                        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          Because it's less subjective
                          ?? What does that even mean ??

                          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.
                          Last edited by phat8594; 03-25-2014, 01:24 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            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.
                            Last edited by phat8594; 03-25-2014, 01:23 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                              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.

                              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                72 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X