SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Which is the best Bible Version?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Now let me take the other side

Your suggestion to reverse the order would not have anything like the same impact. A fish might be a disappointment but it wouldn't put you in deadly peril. It links with the idea of 'you being evil, know how to give good gifts'. Even an evil father would not give an evil gift. So we can't just switch labels for culture' sake.

The supporters of dynamic equivalence would use these kinds of illustrations to make their point, but its time for me to take the other side. This is from The English Bible & its Origins Richard Purkis Angel Press 1988 isbn 0 947785 23 X page 56. Purkis supports Dynamic Equivalence.

Here is an example of Dynamici Equivalence at work..

(start of quotation)
Dynamic Equivalence

Modern translators of the Bible have worked out a very simple (but certainly not easy) method called Dynamic Equivalence. It works like this:

1. Original word/phrase (Greek/Hebrew)
2. All the ideas which this contains
3. Those ideas translated into the other language
4. The best word or phrase to convey the main idea of the original

Let's take the example with which we opened the chapter

1. Original Words (Greek, Luke 18:13)
etypten (he beat)
eis (on) sic
to stethos (the breast)
autou (of himself

2. Ideas behind those words
a. he was sorry for what he had done.
b. he showed that sorrow in an action
c. he hit himself to prove that he wanted to punish and change himself
d. he hit himself over his heart (which throughout the Bible represents the understanding).

3. These ideas are then transferred into the Chokwe language. (West Zambia Language)

4. The best natural equivalent in Chokwe becomes
"he beat his brows" (to show a change of mind and thinking). (end of quotation)

Can you see that in this instance Dynamic Equivalence has lost all links to sorrow and repentance? I suggest you act if out.. Do it the first time beating your chest and the second time beating your forehead. Can you feel the difference? The first is a broken hearted penitent, the second is a first century equivalent of Homer Simpson 'doh'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/8/23 14:56Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:

Your suggestion to reverse the order would not have anything like the same impact. A fish might be a disappointment but it wouldn't put you in deadly peril. It links with the idea of 'you being evil, know how to give good gifts'. Even an evil father would not give an evil gift. So we can't just switch labels for culture' sake.


Maybe I lost something here in translation (pun intended).Since the snake is highly nutritious, and would be a preference over a small, bony fish...
I get your point (I didn't think about the peril comparison, I have to quit posting these things before I am fully awake!)
Hmmm...do they have Piraniah's in PNG? Would that make more sense? Or how about a dead snake? Or neither, what about two completly different animals to convey the meaning?

I agree with what you stated in regards to Dynamic Equivalence, it leaves out the true [i][b]meaning[/b][/i]. Which is what I am puzzled over, surely in different cultures there must be a way to convey the intent/meaning....without it becoming...man's interpretation :roll: How do I state this?...
It seems as though the best way would be for the translator as well as the 'native'(for lack of a better word), to be schooled in each others language to be able to come to an understanding of how best to convey the thoughts intended.
Surely this isn't anything new. I know some of the arguments over just what we have in English, the NLT and The Message, as stated earlier, for example.
Difficult, I feel I am in over my head already, just keep in mind that you are dealing with someone who doesn't have his full inventory of functioning brain cells in operation...kind of a long story :-D
Don't want to keep going over this one point...if it's getting redundant
_/crsschk\_


_________________
Mike Balog

 2003/8/23 20:35Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
It seems as though the best way would be for the translator as well as the 'native'(for lack of a better word), to be schooled in each others language to be able to come to an understanding of how best to convey the thoughts intended.


This is what folks such as the Wycliffe Bible Translators have always endeavoured to do. I have friend who was a translator working in a small tribal group in Brazil. The process is long and painful. They arrived with not a single word of the tribal language. They started by displaying an item never before seen in that area. The people asked, in their own language, 'what is it'? The translators then memorised this phrase so that they could point to any item in camp and say 'what is it?'. They quickly built a vocab of nouns. Then they began writing on paper and the people asked 'what are you doing? By learning this phrase the translators could build a vocab of verbs by asking 'What are you doing?'

This is all very labour intensive and it takes a long time before you can can translate "for God so loved the world than He gave His only begotten son....". Have you every thought how many concepts there are in that verse? Some groups have no word for 'God, love, or world. and a son belongs to the whole tribe'.

Now what does such a translator do? Wait until they can create statements of soaring concept and beauty in a tribal language, or try to make a start from where they are?

And for 'tribal groups' think of the increasing post-modern world of New York or London. Where do WE start?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/8/24 3:40Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Don't want to keep going over this one point...if it's getting redundant


I don't think it is quite redundant yet. I have been deliberately provocative in these posts to provoke some thought.

In order for communication to take place the communicator has to have something in 'common' (this is where the word comes from) with the hearer. There is a lovely story about an Irishman who was asked the way to Dublin. "If I were you" he said "I wouldn't start from here". Any preacher will know exactly what he meant. You get what seems like a simple question but you can't start from the point the questionner has chosen. Then they say why can't you give a simple answer to a simple question? Because you haven't asked me a simple question!!

The Word became flesh; it was the only way He could adequately communicate with us. He embraced much human weakness (not sin), he became thirsty and tired. The amazing thing is that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Human beings were made in the image and likeness of God, and once a new 'virgin' beginning could be achieved there was the possibility of God and man in one person becoming the means of full communication (or communion if you prefer).

But the level of His communication was limited by the hearing ability of those to whom He spoke "I have many things to say unto you, but you are not able to bear them yet." It still is. Remember Paul's comment to the Corinthians? He didn't say "I won't talk to you until you can eat meat"!

For the communicator the question becomes "Do I begin to communicate even though I know I can't say everything I want to, or do I wait, saying nothing, until I can say everything?"


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/8/24 3:58Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

This is a great topic. Our church also supports a couple who are doing work through Wycliffe and up till now I had not given it much thought, you have prompted me to think and to pray for these who are giving themselves to this challenging work.

Quote:
Now what does such a translator do? Wait until they can create statements of soaring concept and beauty in a tribal language, or try to make a start from where they are?


Indeed. I guess in a sense you have to start with the language that transcends speech, love. "By this all will know that you are My disciples"
Quote:

And for 'tribal groups' think of the increasing post-modern world of New York or London. Where do WE start?


Yes, I have been asking that same question. I live in a small apartment complex (11 units) and currently we have a devout Muslim (saw him passing out material on Islam at the mall yesterday), a Hindu couple and also a leader with the Jehovah's witness. I've got some work to do.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2003/8/24 8:19Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
I don't think it is quite redundant yet. I have been deliberately provocative in these posts to provoke some thought.


Check!
Quote:

The Word became flesh; it was the only way He could adequately communicate with us.


In a way we must do the same, to be able to cross the language barrier.
Brings to mind Paul "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
Quote:
For the communicator the question becomes "Do I begin to communicate even though I know I can't say everything I want to, or do I wait, saying nothing, until I can say everything?"


Certainly we can not wait, for myself I can only cry, guilty! Used to be of the mindset that I needed to get all 'my doctrinal ducks in a row'[i][b]then[/b][/i] I could start...but I soon realized that all my ducks were scattered anyway ;-) and it was just something to hide behind.

Back to the issue at hand. Translation. This topic surely has some broad implications which we have only begun to touch on, and you have brought up some very good questions. To reiterate, we should be lifting those who do this work in other cultures in prayer and support, I am sure they could use it!


_________________
Mike Balog

 2003/8/24 9:15Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi All
Mark (Nasher) has begun a thread on the TNIV. Here is a reminder of an earlier one which began but went into hibernation. One or two points raised here may be worth considering in the light of translations generally.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/2/27 8:07Profile
Agent001
Member



Joined: 2003/9/30
Posts: 386
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 Re:

"Which is the best translation?"

Depends what we mean by "best", and what our primary purpose for using it is.

The English-speaking world is blessed because it has many good translations. Comparing them can really open up our eyes to the nuances of the original text.

I wish the Chinese Bible has as many options...


_________________
Sam

 2004/3/1 14:18Profile
hijode1dios
Member



Joined: 2004/3/15
Posts: 27
Waco, GA

 Re: Per-versions or versions... inspired or nearly inspired? How close is close enough?

Personally, I look for a translation that conveys accuracy in translating the Greek and Hebrew; not just word for word, but idea for idea.
It becomes clearer when comparing translations such as the NIV to the KJV. For example, Mark 10:21 leaves out "take up the cross" in the NIV. Fasting and fornication are left out of different verses. Then you have obvious confusion in places like Isaiah 14:12 where KJV calls Lucifer the son of the morning, but the NIV calls him "Morning Star." When you turn to Revelation 22:16 you see that Jesus is the Morning Star. Well, obviously Satan said he would make himself equal with God, and he apparently has done so in some versions.

I teach public elementary school and Bible College. When I am grading papers, I don't compare papers to papers to see how someone else answered a question. I go to the source text and compare the student's answer with the original source text. The score depends on how far the student strayed from the text.
Amazingly though, many Bible teachers, like Beth Moore (who is very good and through)will list the way a verse is translated in several versions, as if all the different versions bring out different nuances of the original and the sum total of the versions added together should equal the truth. I can't buy that concept. It works for some people I guess. I do like Beth Moore's work though. She is accurate as far as her material goes. I can't say that for some very popular people I have read.
Charles Swindoll is a great preacher, but after reading his book about Elijah and enjoying it throughly, I bought his bio of Paul. I have been studying the life of Paul in depth for a year and read many authors and built a 50 foot timeline in my garage of the details in Scripture of his life. So when I read Swindoll's account, I realized he was just hurrying to add one more face to his list of Profiles in Character from the series. There are many blatant errors in his work. Check p.195 first paragraph where he speaks of Paul's shipwreck being in chapter 20 of Acts. It's actually in chapter 27. There are several more. Swindoll does a great job of applying the story to our lives in a devotional manner, but he doesn't place an emphasis on accuracy or even on Scriptural consistancy. He compensates for his failure to study the life of Paul in depth by accepting the presented story of a few scanty sources. He would have done a better job if he had put away the books and consulted the Bible account. I can see he read some of Robert Reymond's account of Paul Missionary Theologian, because he gives an illustration about "gutter snipe" on page 206 that Reymond used. I didn't like the way he resorted to name calling, such as "eggheads" in the pentultimate paragraph of page 209. But, he did give expanded info (p. 210)about Paul's statement in Acts 17:27-28 which I had not seen explained elsewhere. He quoted a source of Aratus of Soli (third century B.C.) who wrote

"Zeus fills the streets, the marts,
Zeus fills the seas, the shrines or the shores, and the rivers!
Everywhere our need is Zeus!
We also are his offspring."

Swindoll explained what others only stated, that it referred to Greek poets. But, he shows that it is Zeus specifically.
Basically, I value the accuracy of the King James version. I would not be willing to sacrifice content for modern clarity. I prefer to go to the original sources and study for myself. I realize we do lose some things in any translation. So why continue to progress away from the original. I want to get as close as I can get to the actual words and thoughts expressed in Scripture.
I am sure many people have different opinions. I own several translations of the Bible in different languages, including a copy of the Textus Receptus Greek, put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society. But, I couldn't get my hands on an actual Masoretic text of the Hebrew. I had to "settle" for a Jewish Pub. Society copy of the TaNaKh, which is based on the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHT.) In the preface and notes they refer to the text evolving, and explain how they "scientifically engineered" the BHT. They speak of the translation into English being an "unbroken chain of uncertainty," which they were obligated to correct. Actually the CBD catalog listed it as a Masoretic text, but upon opening the package and reading the preface, I realized it had been misrepresented accidentally. (Not the catalog distributors error.)CBD did offer a refund, but I didn't want a refund. I kept it because I didn't have an alternative text.

Bible translation is very crucial in our time.

Psalm 147:15 says:
"He sendeth forth his commandment upon earth: his word runneth very swiftly."

I pray the Word continues to run in this age.


_________________
Vicky Hunt

 2004/3/16 21:44Profile
Delboy
Member



Joined: 2004/2/8
Posts: 199
Worthing UK

 Re:



Quote:
will list the way a verse is translated in several versions, as if all the different versions bring out different nuances of the original and the sum total of the versions added together should equal the truth. I can't buy that concept.


Hi hijode1dios,this is a really interesting comment which i've often wondered about would you expound more? Im all ears!


_________________
derek Eyre

 2004/3/17 17:07Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy