Hi Terry I seems that you got a copy of my post but nothing was received this end. A word for word translation is not necessary full stop! I reiterate again that the purpose of translation is not to bring the syntax of the host language into the receptor language. Words simply convey meaning and it is not necessary to have every word translated - we don't worship them. You are correct in stating that the word "sarx" is in your opinion unhelpful and you are entitled to your view even though I disagree. Why do you get hung up on the way the NIV has interpreted it when many scholars understand why it has been done, you are not seriously suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy theory with regards to the NIV and that scholars are paid a commission for using it :) - it's not perfect but neither is any translation. Even Harry having looked at Strong's suggest that sinful nature is possible. If you were to look up Greek words in the AV or the NKJ or any translation using an exhaustive concordance, then you will see that all Bible versions translate the same words in differing ways as the context permits, so the NIV is doing nothing new. I know that some folk think the NIV is a little to loose (is that one "o" or two my mind is tired) and in places it is, and all Bible translations also interpretate, the NKJ included. Have a look at THE NET BIBLE on www.netbible.org (think its right) a new translation that you can download free of charge and buy in hard copy. It contains some 60K translator's notes stating why they translated as they did - very useful. The issue of who owns the copyright and actually publishes is a "red herring". Even the so called Christian publishing houses are out to make money. Nelson were sold some years back to a company with interests in the entertainment business. In the UK the NIV is published by Hodder which has long ceased to be a Christian company. The Good News Bible (TEV in USA?) is published by Harper. Blessings Neil -----Original Message----- From: Terry Rayburn [mailto:terryrayburn@...] Sent: 28 October 2004 04:44 To: soundofgrace@... Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Bible Translations 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