If some one were to give you a letter/document to translate into English
from German/French/Spanish or any language would you regard it a unfaithful
translation if every single word were not translated - I think not?  Neither
would you expect the translator to italicise words which would have to be
added in order for the sentence structure to make sense. Why should it be
any different when it comes to translations of the Bible? Unlike Islam which
seems to worship/regard the "very words" as sacred and therefore can not be
translated we do not, they are just the vehicle of conveying the revelation
of God to us. The issue is not therefore to try and bring the syntax of the
other language into our language which is difficult even when dealing with
other European languages yet alone with languages like Greek & Hebrew.

 

Alistair McGrath in his book on the AV says I believe helpfully that it is
better not to speak of Dynamic Equivalence or Formal Equivalence but to
think in terms of whether the translation follows closely the "Host"
language or the "Receptor" language, and of course the choice one makes,
makes a huge difference to the type of translation one ends up with. 

 

It beats me how anyone who is serious in wanting to convey the message of
Salvation to our contemporary society can use anything other than a modern
translation - after all preaching is not explaining archaisms!  When I was
first converted in the 1970's and used the AV I can well remember thinking
that the "Twain" in Isa.6 was some sort of covering and not simply "two".  

 

No translation is perfect and with every translation there is a real element
of interpretation, the issue is whether we acknowledge this or not.

 

Blessings

 

Neil

 


--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com

To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...

To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace