Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Translation | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 183041 | ||
Does it really matter which translation we use when studying or just reading the Bible? My answer: In the words of John MacArthur, "I believe anything other than a literal translation of the Bible is a serious breach—serious breach—of God’s intention for how we handle His word." Examples of literal translations include, among others: the New American Standard Bible, the New King James Version, and the English Standard Version. ____________________ "What good is readability if a translation does not accurately render what the Bible actually says?" --Leland Ryken, author of "The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation" ____________________ [Source of the following quote: www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/SC2003-QA-3.htm] 'The following Question was asked by an attendee at the 2003 Shepherds Conference (a ministry of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California), and was Answered by John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the CD, #SC1007, titled General Session #5 John MacArthur - QA. 'Questioner: 'Could you give us your thoughts on the use of paraphrased versions of the Bible in many writings today and in church services almost to the exclusion of, you know, the literal translation? 'John MacArthur's Answer: 'James, that’s a very, very important question. I’m cranking up on this one. Now, I’m going to say something, and I’m just going to say it because I want you to know how serious [it is]. I believe anything other than a literal translation of the Bible is a serious breach—serious breach—of God’s intention for how we handle His word. I think it’s a violation. Now, there are some that are worse than others. But, I believe that we need to remember that a translation is a translation. 'Anytime you open a Bible and it says, “A translation for our times,” “a translation for modern times,” “a translation for people to understand,” you have a problem. “Modern times” has no right to determine what God said. Translation is translation. Interpretation is interpretation. Paraphrase is paraphrase. But when you blend those, you have very serious issues. We would say, perhaps, that the NIV is maybe the least troublesome of dynamic equivalency translations, but it’s the old slippery slope issue again. 'And it just goes from there—and watch where the NIV has gone! From the NIV now to the TNIV and who knows where else it’s going to go, because once you have taken the step to say, “We have the right to change the original text so that people can understand it better,” you have just stepped away from what is the Word of God. That is why I always land on the NASB, the New King James or the ESV, which is also formal equivalency and an excellent translation as such. 'This thing is running amok—it’s running amok. There are people in churches, as you were saying, all over the place, who have never heard the Word of God read—never heard it read. People are reading the Message to them or the Living Bible or whatever else variations of that. 'The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation 'I would recommend for you, if you really want to dig into this, there’s one book that is absolutely the best thing ever written on this. I mean it is a slam dunk book. I don’t know what else could be said. It is a book called "The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation" (ISBN: 1581344643) and it is written by Leland Ryken and it is published by Crossway. I will tell you, you will read that book and you will never again wonder about translation. And you will also never again use a dynamic equivalency because you will be in fear of divine judgment. I mean, that book [The Word of God in English] is absolutely the best thing—it’s not just the best available. I don’t know how you could write a better one! Leland Ryken has done his work and he has given all of us a tremendous tool to deal with the issues of translation. 'I believe we are bound by God to let God say what He said. And so, that’s why we land on what’s called “formal equivalency,” word by word translation, the only variables being the family of manuscripts that are used. OK? But read that book. Get that book. Don’t just get the book; read the book!' ____________________ Source: www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/SC2003-QA-3.htm |
||||||
2 | Translation | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 183044 | ||
Kalos - A post par excellent! It's time Bible readers came to grips with the question of translations. The church sorely needs to know what God actually said, but does it want to know? Along with its infatuation with the demons of easy believe-ism, Word-Faith nonsense, and every brand of liberalism and humanism under the sun, it is hardly surprising that the church is now willing, even eager, to embrace bogus Bibles, and think nothing of following a small band of so-called translators who dictate to it what they think God may have meant by what He said. Have we become so presumptous to think that God doesn't know how to communicate properly and needs His word filtered through the minds of the dynamic equivalence hot shots and slick paraphrastic stylists? Has the modern mind grown so obtuse and flabby that it has lost its ability to think and needs to surround itself with the linguistic crutches afforded by the plagues of dynamic equivalency and paraphrasing? One shudders to think that some of the worst farces of the Bible ever rendered into English have risen high on the charts of best-sellers. Thank you, John, for posting these sobering comments by Dr. MacArthur, and I urge every reader of this Forum to pay particular attention to them. It's time to wake up and stop supporting this mad rush to dumb down the holy word of God. Every time we pluck down our money for one of these literary disasters posing as God's word, we are indeed aiding and abetting them to continue with their pollution of the Holy Scriptures. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Translation | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 183045 | ||
Greetings Hank! I agree with the thrust of your comments. The only caution that I urge is that no translation is really literal in the strict sense of the word. Certainly, some are more literal than others, but even the best of translations must at times interpret. I definitely encourage people not to use paraphrases. My own denomination advocates the Message, which I don't think I have ever used (nor do I plan to do so). We certainly don't need the TNIV! :-( Have a great Lord's Day my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||