Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Methods of translation | Bible general Archive 2 | lionheart | 152608 | ||
There are different methods used in translating greek,one was literal,what was the other? In Christ, lionheart |
||||||
2 | Methods of translation | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 152609 | ||
lionheart: Possibly by "methods used in translating" you may be thinking of (1) literal, word-for-word formal translation, such as the traditional King James Version, and more modern translations, such as New American Standard Bible and New King James Version. ..... (2) Dynamic equivalence -- thought-for-thought -- versions, such as New International Version and New Living Translation. ..... The former method seeks to render into English (or whatever the receptor language may be) as nearly as possible a transparency of the original language. The latter follows no such constraints but seeks to reproduce the thought and (assumed?) meaning of the original writers by the use of paraphrase. ..... Each method has its champions and each has its talking points. It has been argued that a formal, literal translation is more accurate and freer of translator bias than dynamic equivalence, or paraphrastic, versions, but they have a tendency to be choppy in places and not flow as well as natural English should. Personally, I don't find this to be true with certain literal versions, such as the KJV, NKJV and ESV (English Standard Version). ..... The major talking point for the paraphrased versions seems to be the claim that they are written in more natural English and are thus clearer and easier to read. Again, speaking personally, I don't necessarily agree. ...... Anyone possessing average intelligence and reading ability can, if he is willing to expend a reasonable amount of time and effort, teach himself to read the literal translations easily -- even the King James Bible. As one who cut his teeth on the exquisite beauty of the King James, its majestic music and poetry, it has been impossible for me to divorce myself from this masterpiece of English literature. Moreover, I don't want to trash the King James in favor of a newer and lesser version. I say "lesser" because no version since 1611 has been able to surpass or even equal the King James in overall excellence. The English language has undergone numerous and dynamic changes in the last 400 years. Gone forever are many of the stately expressions and economy of language that characterize the King James Bible. It is the only translation in English of any work that countless scholars have called a masterpiece. It has profoundly influenced and molded the thoughts of both commoners and kings, of laymen and clergy, of the statesmen and pioneers who settled and founded America, and of farmers in the field and men of letters in the ivy league. ...... One who unwisely sets aside the King James Bible in preference to the newest translation hot off the press is depriving himself of a rare treasure which is his for the taking. ..... Lionheart, I'm aware that I've "answered" more than you asked, but I hope you don't mind the "free bonus" I've thrown in! --Hank | ||||||
3 | Methods of translation | Bible general Archive 2 | lionheart | 152613 | ||
Thanx Hank, Dynamic equivelence,thats the one I couldnt remember.Both methods have their merits. I dont think people should discount either one.Thats where being 2 Timothy 2:15 disciples of Jesus Christ becomes vitally important. In Christ, lionheart |
||||||
Up | Down | |||
Questions and/or Subjects for Bible general Archive 2 | Author | ||
|
believedbronwyn | ||
|
Billionaire | ||
|
dssjv2002 | ||
|
george1 | ||
|
lionheart | ||
|
Hank | ||
|
lionheart | ||
|
kalos | ||
|
scigal | ||
|
ChristianBoy | ||
|
ChristianBoy | ||
|
KTQ | ||
|
Adnan michael |