Bible Versions

[Obsidian]

I did answer. You haven't paid attention. I'm tired of repeating myself. And I never used the word "safety."

[phat8594]

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?

[robrecht]

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.

[Obsidian]

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]

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]

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.

[phat8594]

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?

[phat8594]

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

[robrecht]

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?

[Obsidian]

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.

[phat8594]

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??

[robrecht]

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?

[robrecht]

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?

[Obsidian]

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]

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...

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