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

Translation Philosophy

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

  • Translation Philosophy

    Can I get some feedback on this y'all:


  • #2
    Here's the paper if you wish to read instead:

    http://www.thenivbible.com/wp-conten...ont-Get-It.pdf

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
      Here's the paper if you wish to read instead:

      http://www.thenivbible.com/wp-conten...ont-Get-It.pdf
      What type of feedback are you looking for specifically? The NIV is a great translation, and it has the scholarly chops behind it. Pretty much everyone I have talked to about who 'hates it' or thinks it is 'bad' usually has very little if any knowledge of how translations work.

      One of my favorite lines by Douglas Moo is: "Translation is not as many people think: a matter of word substitution"

      Comment


      • #4
        I think the NIV is boring (and way over-commercialized).
        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


        • #5
          In Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns flatly accuses the NIV of inaccuracy; I wish I could pull up the example but my Kindle appears to have just bitten the dust.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #6
            50 "more" years of the NIV? The NIV is already gone. It ended in 2011 I believe.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
              50 "more" years of the NIV? The NIV is already gone. It ended in 2011 I believe.
              Yeah, seems so. I am really starting to like the Holman Christian Standard Bible.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #8
                I have read and studied with a number of versions. Aside from the many paraphrases (which may be okay for just reading) I have never found any to show any significant flaws or significant differences. They all teach the same gospel.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  In Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns flatly accuses the NIV of inaccuracy; I wish I could pull up the example but my Kindle appears to have just bitten the dust.
                  Yeah, that would be interesting -- as the NIV committee is made up of many of the best scholars out there from across many doctrinal lines. In any case, I suggest giving the paper a read or the reading of it a listen.

                  Some of the points that I thought were interesting were:

                  To claim that a word in the biblical languages has a “literal” meaning, capable of being summarized in a single English equivalent, is simply not true. Words occupy a spectrum of meaning, and the range of meaning of particular Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words is never quite the same as the range of meaning of any particular English word. And so, for example, we sometimes translate peirazô “test” and at other times “tempt.” Neither of these English words has a range of meaning that corresponds with the Greek word; and it is manifestly foolish to claim that either English word captures the “literal” sense of the Greek word

                  Translation is not, as many people think, a matter of word substitution: English word x in place of Hebrew word y. Translators must first determine the meaning that the clustering of words in the biblical languages convey and then select a collocation of English words that accurately communicates that meaning to modern listeners and readers. All translations work this way— as they must to be considered translations at all.

                  he principle that meaning resides in larger clusters of words means that we should no longer talk in terms of “word-for-word” as a translation value. To suggest in our discussion of translations among a general audience that “word-for-word” is a virtue is to mislead people about the nature of language and translation

                  Or, to bring it home: do we effectively teach them the realities of language? Do we continue to require our second-year language students to translate “word for word,” perpetuating a simplistic and ultimately quite false view of language? It is no wonder that the discourse about translation so often rests on such linguistically naïve premises. They are just the premises that our teaching and our writing too often perpetuate

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The same approach is pretty common these days. NIV, HCSB, CEB. Arguably NRSV and ESV are a bit more formal equivalent, but they're still influenced by the philosophy. For most purposes I agree that an accurate translation isn't word for word. NRSV, ESV, NASB, etc, are probably necessary for some types of exegesis, though when I'm doing that I'm normally also looking at a commentary on the Greek or Hebrew. Still, having experimented with CEB for a while, I'm back to NRSV for most purposes, using CEB with 7th and 8th graders in Sunday School.

                    The NIV is a bit of an exception though. In addition to its translational philosophy (with which I generally agree), as far as I can tell, it's more aggressively evangelical (i.e. it shows its theological presumptions more often) than other translations. See http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html. That makes it as unusable for me as RSV used to be for evangelicals.

                    The mainline equivalent of the NIV is probably the CEB. Unfortunately it has too many weird translations. I was particularly bothered by Romans. I recently found a review written by the translator of Romans. He felt that the editorial committee had intervened enough that it messed up the accuracy. With the CEB, the editorial committee wasn't imposing theology or political views; rather, they were trying to make it intelligible to the average person. Unfortunately in the process they managed to blur the meaning at times. This is odd, since the far freer Today's English version has always seemed very accurate to me, even in difficult passages. Some NRSV translators had similar complaints about their editorial board, though I find NRSV generally accurate. (The weirdness introduced at times by their commitment to gender neutrality is stylistic. It doesn't seem to affect the meaning.) I'd really like the final editing to be done by expert translators. They can get guidance from style experts, but accuracy trumps style.

                    I agree with the NIV committee's choice of "their" as gender-neutral singular. I think it's being used fairly widely that way, and is often the least awkward alternative. Apparently there's also historical precedent. The use of "he" and "his" as neutral has historical basis, but it appears that "their" was also used until grammarians tried to neaten up the language in the 19th Cent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                      What type of feedback are you looking for specifically? The NIV is a great translation, and it has the scholarly chops behind it. Pretty much everyone I have talked to about who 'hates it' or thinks it is 'bad' usually has very little if any knowledge of how translations work.

                      One of my favorite lines by Douglas Moo is: "Translation is not as many people think: a matter of word substitution"
                      I'm just looking for general feedback - whatever point(s) you want to highlight to agree or disagree with and why.
                      Last edited by Scrawly; 02-06-2015, 08:28 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                        In Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns flatly accuses the NIV of inaccuracy; I wish I could pull up the example but my Kindle appears to have just bitten the dust.
                        That example would be great if you can find it. As far as I know Enns uses the NRSV, which is a popular translation among other liberal scholars and mainline churches. I think the NSAB was the conservative response to the NRSV?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                          That example would be great if you can find it. As far as I know Enns uses the NRSV, which is a popular translation among other liberal scholars and mainline churches. I think the NSAB was the conservative response to the NRSV?
                          NASB was an evangelical effort to preseve the legacy of the ASV. The RSV was the copyright holders translation which was the official replacement of the ASV.
                          Last edited by 37818; 02-06-2015, 08:34 PM.
                          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Yeah, seems so. I am really starting to like the Holman Christian Standard Bible.
                            Yeah, the HCSB isn't bad. The NRSV is mostly quite good, but has occasional "What the heck were they thinking?" moments from what I recall (IIRC, things like references to the "Son of man" get completely obscured), and I don't care for the gender-inclusive language. I like the NKJV, probably because I grew up with the KJV but prefer more modern language. I like the way the NKJV and NRSV footnote significant variants/alternate translations. I also like the NET, but tend to prefer their footnoted more literal translations than the main text.
                            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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Yeah, the HCSB isn't bad. The NRSV is mostly quite good, but has occasional "What the heck were they thinking?" moments from what I recall (IIRC, things like references to the "Son of man" get completely obscured), and I don't care for the gender-inclusive language. I like the NKJV, probably because I grew up with the KJV but prefer more modern language. I like the way the NKJV and NRSV footnote significant variants/alternate translations. I also like the NET, but tend to prefer their footnoted more literal translations than the main text.
                              How do you feel about NRSV's rendering of Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Ana Dragule, 11-13-2020, 01:47 AM
                              2 responses
                              33 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 11-11-2020, 03:18 PM
                              6 responses
                              55 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by mossrose, 11-08-2020, 03:50 PM
                              1 response
                              29 views
                              5 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Faber, 11-06-2020, 11:51 AM
                              1 response
                              6 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Faber
                              by Faber
                               
                              Started by mossrose, 11-01-2020, 04:09 PM
                              4 responses
                              77 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mossrose  
                              Working...
                              X