Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why a Literal Translation? | Matt 4:4 | Morant61 | 33550 | ||
Greetings Makarios! Interesting article! I wonder though if it is really possible to be as literal as the article says! There are still aspects which mitigate against it being as easy as it sounds. For instance, which English word do we use? Do we only use one word, or multiple words? How do we structure the sentence? I think that in the vast majority of verses, a literal translation would neither be difficult nor confusing. However, there are some extremely difficult passages, which translated literally would be meaningless. Consider this example that I saw in Hebrews the other day. The last clause of Heb. 4:13 in the NIV says, "...to whom we must give account." The NASB translates the last clause: "...with whom we have to do." The actual Greek says: "..., toward whom we the word." The Dynamic Equivalent translation has the apparent meaning correct. "Word" can mean an "account or reckoning". The literal translation left out 'the word' totally. The only reason I point this out is that I think that many times it is simply not possible to give a one word "literal" translation which would make any sense in English. Now, obviously there are translations which are more literal than not, like the NASB. There are also Bibles (I hesitate to call them translations) like the Living Bible which are nothing but paraphrases. But, to a certain extent, every translation practices quite a bit of Dynamic Equivalence and the average reader never knows it. :-) Thanks for the great resources my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Why a Literal Translation? | Matt 4:4 | Makarios | 33608 | ||
Greetings Tim! Thank you for the response! However, I would still stay with the Literal translation even though it would be helpful to have a more "idiomatic" translation to look at from time to time! I agree, Hebrews 4:13 could have been translated much better in the NASB without losing any "literalness".. Young's Literal Translation gives a much better alternative in Heb. 4:13: "..with whom is our reckoning." :-) I believe, like you, that throughout the vast majority of Scripture a Literal Translation would be very adequate and useful. However, I believe that there are many instances in a Dynamic Equivalent translation that seem to lose the original meaning of the text by being too "loose" in translation. For instance, Hebrews 11:11 in the NIV reads, "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age- and Sarah herself was barren- was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise." The NASB translates it this way... "By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised." The actual Greek says: "faith also herself Sara received strength to conceive seed.." The Greek doesn't even mention Abraham, but the NIV includes him in this verse. It appears that the NIV has "oversimplified" a bit, making Hebrews 11:11 much more confusing than it should be.. Also, Matthew 10:6 is rendered in the NIV as: "Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." The NASB states it this way: "but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." In this instance, it appears that the NIV loses sight of the actual "contents" of the passage by dropping an entire word, "oikos" (house), and oversimplifying what the text clearly states on its own, without any need for simplification. 1 Corinthians 13:10 is stated in the NIV as: "..but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." The NASB renders this verse as: "..but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." In my mind, the NASB is the superior rendering, since the Greek says "but when the perfect comes, then from portion be made void." Also, you have read the Living Bible and you know that there are certain places where a paraphrase goes "a little too far" in certain descriptions, and it is 'embarrassing' to read in public. This is also true in the KJV. In the NIV, I would point out Genesis 19:5 and 31:35, as being a few places in Scripture where the NASB not only proves to be the more 'dignified' rendering, but is also more respectable and gets the message across at the same time. I agree, every translation does practice a certain degree of 'interpretation', even though there is a difference between directly translating from what is clearly presented in the Greek and making an attempt to simplify or make the very same passage contemporaneous. I also agree with you on leaving out the paraphrases when it comes to serious translation study.. I believe that the emphasis should not be so much on making the Bible contemporaneous as much as it should be on remaining faithful to the original languages. Blessings to you my friend! Makarios |
||||||
3 | Why a Literal Translation? | Matt 4:4 | Morant61 | 33628 | ||
Greetings Makarios! Interesting examples my friend! 1) Heb. 11:11: I agree with you here. I did some checking on the verse and found out that the NIV apparently felt that "for laying down of seed" could only refer to a father. However, "Abraham" is not found in the verse and Sara is clearly the subject of the verb "received". Thus, this is a horrible translation on the part of the NIV. One note though on the literal, there is no verb "to conceive". It actually reads, "By faith also herself Sara barren power unto laying down of seed received..." 2) Mt. 10:6: This is another horrible translation. You are correct, they dropped the entire phrase "of house". 3) 1 Cor. 13:10: This one I think is a toss up. The NASB is more literal, but I think that the NIV brings out the idiom a litte better. One of my least favorite NIV translations is Eph. 4:11. The Greek literally says, "And He Himself gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers,", the NIV translates it as, "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,". I always hated this translation. The offices themselves are the gifts in this verse, while the NIV puts the emphasis upon the people who fill the positions. Fortunately, most verses are fairly easy to translate. But, there are some very difficult ones for which I would hate to be accountable. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Why a Literal Translation? | Matt 4:4 | Makarios | 33796 | ||
Greetings Tim! Thank you for your analysis! Ephesians 4:11 is an interesting passage.. The NASB renders it this way (much like the NIV): "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers," But in each case of the word 'as', it is italicized in the NASB, which denotes that it was an 'added' word into the text. The International Standard Version (ISV - self described as a "Literal Idiomatic translation") renders Eph. 4:11 this way, "And it is he who gifted some to be apostles, others to be prophets, others to be evangelists, and still others to be pastors and teachers,". However, the KJV comes the closest to the "literal" form of the verse, stating "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;". The English Standard Version (ESV) states this verse as "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,". And these are all excellent alternatives to the NASB and NIV. If the ESV or KJV does not place as much "emphasis" on 'He Himself' in this verse, then there is always the Holman Christian Standard rendering of "And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers".. There are other "difficult" passages in the NASB that are better "read" in other translations. For instance, 2 Corinthians 10:13 in the American Standard Version (a literal translation), reads "But we will not glory beyond our measure, but according to the measure of the province which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even unto you." The NASB makes an improvement on that rendering, "But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you." But a Dynamically Equivalent translation provides the best rendering, "We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the field God has assigned to us, a field that reaches even to you." (NIV) Or the ESV, "But we will not boast beyond limits, but will boast only with regard to the area of influence God assigned to us, to reach even to you." Another example of a 'dynamic' rendering that makes an improvement over the literal rendering of a verse is in Philippians 2:6, which states in the NASB: "who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,", and is rendered this way in the NIV: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,", even though the NASB is an excellent translation. I agree, there are many more verses that are difficult, and I certainly wouldn't want to be accountable for those in that place of scrutiny and criticism! :-) But comparing translations is something that is very interesting, especially between one that is "Literal" and one that is "Dynamic Equivalent". Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
5 | Why a Literal Translation? | Matt 4:4 | Morant61 | 33799 | ||
Greetings Makarios! I really like the ESV rendering of Eph. 4:11! :-) I've not read any from it yet! I'll have to check it out sometime! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||