Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How far would you go in a translation? | Matt 1:18 | Makarios | 32799 | ||
Hello Tim! That's Ok! :-) To say, "It was discovered.." is better, and I agree, it is an acceptable literal translation of "eurisko", even though the English word 'discovered' is a little 'broader' in meaning than the word "found", which is a little more 'specific' in my opinion. You did say that Matt. 1:18 literally says, "..she was found in belly having of the Holy Spirit." However, I do not find the rendering "..she was pregnant through the Holy Spirit" to be an acceptable rendering of the text, because, at this point, she was already pregnant or "with child". First of all, I feel that we open the door to too much meaning here: Are we saying that she was 'impregnated' or something else? I believe that the use of the English word 'pregnant' is an imperfect word to use in this situation, since it could mean anything from "abounding" to "heavy with young" (1) to "full of meaning". Secondly, I do not believe that the usage of the single English word 'pregnant' does proper justice to the three Greek words "en", "gaster", and "ek" (or 'ex'), of which the single word 'pregnant' is replacing in this passage. I see the word 'pregnant' as an imperfect English equivalent to use in this verse, basically because it has a broader meaning within our culture than I believe was originally intended by the author (and for the verse to carry). So, I believe, that by rendering the last part of this verse as "with child" would be more 'specific' and do better justice to "en", "gaster" and "ek" than would the single English word 'pregnant', since the English word pregant is a much broader word that invites more meaning into this verse than was originally intended by the author. Just my opinion! Blessings to you, Makarios Source: (1) Webster's Fourth Edition New World College Dictionary, 2000, IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., Michael Agnes, Editor in Chief; David B. Guralnik, Editor in Chief Emeritus |
||||||
2 | How far would you go in a translation? | Matt 1:18 | Morant61 | 32849 | ||
Greetings Makarios! That's okay! My main goal with this thread was to simply point out that every translation uses dynamic equivalence to a certain degree. The whole goal of translation is to bring a text into another language in a way in which it can be understood. To be totally literal, we would have to stay word for word (where possible) and keep the same word order. Thus, the section about Mary in Mt. 1:18 would read something like: "...before to come together they she was found in belly having of Spirit of Holy.". This would be just about as strickly literal as one could get in English. But, we change word orders, add subjects and implied verbs, ect... - in every translation. The question is how far should we go? I checked out your web sites for the TNIV. Some of what they have done, I don't have a problem with, but overall, I would have to say that they have went farther from a translation and closer to a paraphrase. I wouldn't want to use it for study. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | How far would you go in a translation? | Matt 1:18 | Makarios | 32882 | ||
Greetings Tim! I would agree, every translation is, to some extent, not objectively literal; that is, that it cannot be completely and strictly literal. If that was the case, then we would not be able to understand any passage at all. It would be like trying to read through an original 1611 Edition KJV. However, I believe that we can come extremely close at times, and that, I believe, is what we should strive for in translation. So I place the "emphasis" on being literal rather than on "meaning", even though every good translation has to be comprehensible in English, even if it has an 11th or 12th grade reading level. But my point is, is that we should not reduce the reading level much lower if we are translating 'literally', which would only serve to oversimplify the text and take our emphasis off of the primary responsibility of translation. I'm not trying to say that those translations who do have 'lower reading levels' are in some way circumspect, but I am saying that it is better to translate more "specifically" or as literal as possible, rather than to risk oversimplifying the text, and therefore adding more into the text than what is there. So how far should we go? We should stop when the text is close in form to the original and comprehensible in English at the same time. I've already written IBS and Zondervan and have told them my feelings on the TNIV. It will be interesting if I get a response. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||