Hi Neil,
I agree with the value of a modern translation in
avoiding the difficulty of explaining archaic
language.
I even agree that a word-for-word translation
is not necesary IF the translation conveys the
original concept.
My complaint is in translating a word which
does not have a specific "dynamic equivalent"
and INTERPRETING it, in an unjusified way.
I repeat, a clear and gross example is the
translation of "flesh" (sarx) as "sinful nature", as
the NIV does. There really is no justification
for that kind of interpretive translation.
At least the Living Bible and The Message
don't represent themselves as non-interpretive,
but the NIV advertisements from Zondervan
tout their fidelity to the original languages.
Blessings,
Terry
Neil Whitcombe <Neil.Whitcombe@...> wrote:
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
Visit "Grace For Life"
An Oasis of Rest For the People of God
http://www.graceforlife.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
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