Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Luke 24:36-words in red? | Luke 24:36 | sdaone | 210106 | ||
in the king james version luke 24:36 the words are in red i prefer this version becuse was translated out of the original tonques |
||||||
2 | Luke 24:36-words in red? | Luke 24:36 | BradK | 210109 | ||
Hello sdaone, How did you arrive at your conclusion? Out of curiosity, are you saying there are versions that weren't translated "out of the original tonques(sic)"? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | Luke 24:36-words in red? | Luke 24:36 | sdaone | 210118 | ||
the more you translate a story the more it can loose its original meaning the niv has many typos in it | ||||||
4 | Luke 24:36-words in red? | Luke 24:36 | Hank | 210129 | ||
sdaone :: While it is generally true that the more a narrative is retold, i.e., passed from one person to another without reference to the original document, the more likely it is to lose its original meaning, but this does not hold when translating from a single source document. The opposite comes nearer holding true. For example, there is considerably more knowledge of biblical manuscripts and languages, customs and regional archaeology now than there was in the 17th century when the KJV was translated. Therefore there is far more likelihood that the original meaning would be enhanced in today's good quality translations, not lost. ..... When you mention that the NIV has many typos in it, perhaps it isn't typos you really mean, because typos are simply printing mistakes that are almost always corrected by proof-readers before the book goes to the printer. Perhaps the fact that the NIV is not a literal translation may have led you to think it had printed a bunch of typos, because truly is does not always "read like" some of the formal translations. Unlike some of the more literal translations, such as the KJV, the NASB and the ESV, the NIV takes a less formal approach to translation, freely using a device they call "dynamic equivalence." This is an attempt by the translators to render into English what they, the translators, consider the original author meant by what he said but not necessarily telling the reader what he said. Another word for "dynamic equivalence" is paraphrase. Some people love paraphrased Bibles and others do not. I'm one who decidedly does not care for them. I'd much prefer not to have God's word filtered through the paraphrastic little gray cells of a translator! When I read Shakespeare, I want to read what Shakespeare said, not what somebody is all too eager to tell me what Shakespeare meant. And much more importantly, when I read the Bible I want to know as nearly as possible what God said and not what some unknown paraphraser hidden away in his ivory tower thinks He may have meant by what He said. --Hank | ||||||