| Poster | Thread | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
I think if I had been in their lectures I might have found myself on my feet crying 'look at the king... he's not wearing any clothes'.
Hmmm. This must be another of those cliches' that just never made it to my part of the world. :-P
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
|  2006/2/9 18:15 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
This must be another of those cliches' that just never made it to my part of the world.
Really, Danny Kaye, Hans Christian Anderson? A foolish king was scammed by a sharp tailor who told him that he had invented a super light cloth and that he could make the king a suit of clothes. The tailor told the king that the clothes could only be seen by intelligent people. He persuaded the king to wear the non-existent suit and explained to the courtiers that only intelligent people could see it. The whole court, of course, claimed that they could see it and that it was a beautiful suit of clothes.
A small boy had not heard the propaganda and when he saw the king he exclaimed (in the Danny Kaye version)
Look at the king, look at the king
The king is in his al-together, he's altogeth as naked as the day that he was born...
The phrase as I used it was my way of 'calling the bluff' of Westcott and Hort and saying 'your theory is unfounded'.. The problem with 'textual criticism' is that only the very intelligent can understand it!
Do I understand it? Of course. :-?
Here's the official version; [url=http://www.angelfire.com/film/dannykaye/KingsClothes.htm]Click Here.[/url]
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/2/9 18:44 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
The are two main issues as work in the creation of a version of the scriptures; the manuscript evidence and the philosophy of translation. Let's introduce them one at a time and I will concentrate on the New Testament. I will try to keep this fairly simple so that more folk can benefit from it.
1. The manuscript evidence.
We do not have any of the original documents. (these are usually called the autographs) In fact other than a few papyrus scraps our earliest manuscripts (mss) come from the era 300-400 AD. There are thousands of later mss...
Let's move on to the second issue, although we really only touched the first...
[b]2. The Philosophy of Translation[/b]
Once we have decided on the actual text we are going to translate we then have the problem of how we are going to translate it.
Let me show the problem by reference to two stories and a quote from a book.
[b]Story 1.[/b] The Wycliffe Bible translators were at work in Papua New Guinea. In their first steps they usually translate some saying of Jesus. One of the chosen sayings was If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? (Luke 11:11 KJVS)Simple question? Well it might have been except that the PNG tribe into whose language this saying was translated immediately said 'Yes!'. Woah, said the missionary, wrong answer...
Explanation? The area of PNG where the translators were working was very hilly and the streams were fast flowing mountain streams; there were no lakes, or seas. The consequence was that the fish from the stream were skinny, boney, things which were no good for man nor beast. But snake on the other hand is a major source of protein and nutrition. So... if your son asked you for a fish would you give him a snake? Of course you would, if you could.
Ah, you say, you just have to translate it 'living poisonous snake' but if you do you have just 'added' to the inspired scripture. ;-)
[b]Story 2.[/b] The Wycliffe Bible translators were at work among tribal peoples in Brazil. They too were translating some basic sayings of Jesus into the tribal language. Their problem arose from I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:51 KJVS) The first problem, of course, was the society in which they were working had absolutely no concept of bread. Well, reasoned the translators, we just substitute the major staple of the local diet; manioc. This is where the 2nd problem arose. The particular tribe divided all life into two simple categories; living and cooked. Every plant and creature was either living or cooked; there were no other options. To get the 'living bread' combination the only way was to refer to 'uncooked manioc'. The problem is that uncooked 'bitter' manioc is poisonous. ;-)
Any solution to the problems raised here will result in a translation which is 'dynamic' rather than 'literal'. Translations then will have a 'philosophy of translation' which will lie somewhere within the spectrum of absolutely literal, or extremely dynamic. Some Si-ers will be familiar with The Message. It is a translation which adopts the philosophy of 'dynamic equivalence'. This is The Golden Verse:1"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. John 3:16 - The Message Disgraceful cries the crowd. ;-) OK, let's go to the other extreme, 'literal equivalence'."For so loved the God the world that the Son his the only begotten he gave that each the one believing towards him not may perish but have life eternal - John 3:16 word for word translation Now if you were called to the bedside of a dying man which option would you go for?
But 'dynamic equivalence' is not without its problems either. This is an excerpt from The English Bible & its Origins: Richard Purkis Angel Press 1988 isbn 0-947785-23-X page 56 in which he describes the difficulties of a bible translator.... and quotes with approval the philosophy behind modern Bible translation[b]Dynamic Equivalence[/b]
Modern translators of the Bible have worked out a very simple (but certainly not easy) method called Dynamic Equivalence. It works like this:
A. Original word/phrase (Greek/Hebrew)
B. All the ideas which this contains
C. Those ideas translated into the other language
D. The best word or phrase to convey the main idea of the original
Let's take the example with with we opened the chapter
[b]A. Original Words[/b] (Greek, Luke 18:13)
etypten (he beat)
eis (on) sic
to stethos (the breast)
autou (of himself
[b]B. Ideas behind those words[/b]
1. he was sorry for what he had done.
2. he showed that sorrow in an action
3. he hit himself to prove that he wanted to punish and change himself
4. he hit himself over his heart (which throughout the Bible represents the understanding).
[b]C. These ideas are then transferred into the Chokwe language.[/b] (West Zambia Language)
[b]D. The best natural equivalent in Chokwe becomes
"he beat his brows"[/b] (to show a change of mind and thinking).
The translation that has followed this method most carefully, is the American Bible Society's Good News Bible.
This version is now being used as the basis for new translation into many languages of the world.Now what are we to make of this? It shows clearly how the modern method of translations imports the translator's current understanding into the text. What happened to the idea of "sorrow" which the translator apparently thought was of first importance?
Here is a little experiment for you. :-) Try it! The Greek verb is in the Imperfect Tense which means "a repeated or continuous action in the past". Try repeatedly 'beating your brow' and saying "Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner". Now try repeatedly 'beating your breast' and saying "Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner".
Which do you think is the best translation?
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/2/10 9:47 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Philologos... you need to get all of this together and publish a book on this topic. You have a knack for simplifying this stuff without loosing the substance.
Krispy |
| | 2006/2/10 11:16 | | deltadom
Member
Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 2359
Hemel Hempstead
| | Re: One thing that is never take into consideration is language degridation | | Language Degredation
Over time are language changes words mean different things , the language of english is not improving, a word for beautiful in old english would be used, would today be used as slander.
I wish I could list a whole lot of engblish words that have changed meaning the problems is that god is an unchanging god and he does not change his vocab! yet he reveals us things in language about himself
With new versions you do not only have the problem that an entirely new language is used even between years, because the Oxford dictionary adds new words to its dictionary such as ipod.
Art Katz is right when he says that being prophetic that it is our duty to use proper english!
What we miss is the purity of the older versions
The thing that I love about the bible is unchangableness. With newer versions what they miss in the heart of god! They concentrate on the language rather than the god of the bible.
Dynamic Equivilance versus Accuracy
What is the measure of accuracy? How can you measure the difference between one accurate bible and another one. It is a matter of opinion!
This is where the bible translators need to pray about what words, they use.
Dynamic Equivilance is also a recent concept, the problem is that as language is always changing something that may be correct one day, may be not correct the next!!! Also they may not know properly about the culture when the bible is written
John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me
I know very little about this subject but what I have read I know that I need Jesus. Ron is an expert on this subject!
Hebrew
doing a tiny bit of hebrew is that it is so much more expressive and words or even tenses. When going back to the english you realise how much you miss.
Battling for people to read
It is hard enough to get people to read and fight illituarcy in this culture with media devices getting more and more used books are slowly being either dumbed down. This is a big problem
I have so much more to say! I just dont know how to say it!
DOm
_________________
Dominic Shiells
|
| | 2006/2/10 14:10 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | TaKa's Quote:
When I read this, I think to myself: Why would I want to read a Bible that calls God an "it".
Taka,
this is difficult to explain. Are you familiar with the way that many languages have genders attached to nouns? The KJV translation here is really a quirk of 'old English' and the way we have translated from one language to another.
English does not have these gender nouns so our personal pronouns 'he, she, it' do have human gender implications which is why this makes you uncomfortable.
In many languages the personal pronouns do not really tell you the 'human gender' of the noun. So that because the Greek word for Spirit is of 'neuter' gender, the personal pronoun (KJV 'itself') is in the neuter gender. (Gender, of course, has nothing to do with sexual gender.) To a native reader that fact that the personal pronoun is 'neuter' would not register in the way it does for us.
Mark Twain wrote a very funny piece about [url=http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/awfgrmlg.html#x1]learning German[/url] that shows an English speaker struggling with grammatical genders. Here's an excerptEvery noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl. See how it looks in print -- I translate this from a conversation in one of the best of the German Sunday-school books:
"Gretchen.
Wilhelm, where is the turnip?
Wilhelm.
She has gone to the kitchen.
Gretchen.
Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden?
Wilhelm.
It has gone to the opera."
To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female -- tomcats included, of course; a person's mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it -- for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person's nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven't any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.A German would probably be completely confused by Twain because the German knows that grammatical gender has nothing at all to do with sexual gender.
In Biblical Greek what looks like the personal pronoun 'his' actually means 'his/hers/its'; not either but all of them at the same time. Similarly what looks like the personal pronoun 'its' actually means 'his/hers/its': all at the same time. However when people try to translate 'carefully' you can get these anomalies. Just remember that in the original language the word that is translated 'itself' actually means 'hisself/herself/itself' all at the same time.
Just to make it even more complicated the Hebrew word for Spirit is feminine gender! So is the word for 'soul'. This has sometimes caused people to believe that every soul is feminine. The verse often quoted is My soul shall make [b]her[/b] boast in the Lord: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad. (Psa 34:2 KJVS) But this, like your verse, is a trying too hard to be literal. The modern versions avoid this; My soul shall make [b]its[/b] boast in the LORD; The humble shall hear of it and be glad. (Psa 34:2 NKJV)
My soul shall make [b]its[/b] boast in Jehovah: the meek shall hear, and rejoice. (Psa 34:2 DRBY)Does any of that make sense? :-o
edit: I came across an interesting illustration of this problem this morning when reading Rev 2.Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of [u]his[/u] place, except thou repent. (Rev 2:5 KJVS) This is another translation oddity. The word 'lampstand' is feminie gender. If the translator's had been consistent they would have translated this 'her place' but as it is the modern translations have gone for 'its place'.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/2/10 14:42 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Philologos said:
"edit: I came across an interesting illustration of this problem this morning when reading Rev 2.
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (Rev 2:5 KJVS)
This is another translation oddity. The word 'lampstand' is feminie gender. If the translator's had been consistent they would have translated this 'her place' but as it is the modern translations have gone for 'its place'."
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever's response:
The KJV has it right. The reason? The Place where the lampstand is located is HIS (Christ's) place (which is the Church). That is why it is masculine.
The textural critics and the modern "translators" miss this understanding, that is provided by the Holy Spirit.
This is exactly why I trust and study the King James Version of the Bible. I suggest it to others for the same reason.
God bless,
Stever
|
| | 2006/2/12 7:27 | |
| | Re: | | Philologos said:
"Just to make it even more complicated the Hebrew word for Spirit is feminine gender! So is the word for 'soul'. This has sometimes caused people to believe that every soul is feminine. The verse often quoted is
My soul shall make her boast in the Lord: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad. (Psa 34:2 KJVS)
But this, like your verse, is a trying too hard to be literal. The modern versions avoid this;
My soul shall make its boast in the LORD; The humble shall hear of it and be glad. (Psa 34:2 NKJV)
My soul shall make its boast in Jehovah: the meek shall hear, and rejoice. (Psa 34:2 DRBY)
Does any of that make sense?"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever's response to Philologos:
Have you ever considered that we are ALL the bride of Christ, both male and female? Perhaps this is a truth that will be revealed to us at the rapture?
How can I as a man be the "bride of Christ?
As a believer in God and in the power of His Holy Spirit---I would never change what has been written in the Bible (the entire Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit) in any part of the Bible anywhere.
However, "Textural Critics" and Hebrew & Greek "Scholars", starting with Westcott and Hort as well as the "Textural Critics" behind all of the newer Bible Versions today find no difficulty whatsoever in changing anything that confuses them.
What is missing in their work? Perhaps their fear of God, as well as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
God bless,
Stever
|
| | 2006/2/12 7:43 | | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
The KJV has it right. The reason? The Place where the lampstand is located is HIS (Christ's) place (which is the Church). That is why it is masculine.
Stever.
This is nonsense and only shows that you have no idea how other langauges than English work. This kind of answer is pointless.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/2/12 18:57 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
As a believer in God and in the power of His Holy Spirit---I would never change what has been written in the Bible (the entire Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit) in any part of the Bible anywhere.
We are not talking about the inspiration of the Bible but the infallibility of a translation. This answer all shows that you just don't understand the way that other languages work. You and Mark Twain would have got on well together, although he knew he was joking.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/2/12 19:00 | Profile |
|
