a genuine Bible discussion

[hornetguy]

The issue is that of upholding and maintaining the integrity of the original language text. This is why translation is such a serious matter. Paraphrased versions do not do this no matter what claims they may make.

I agree that translating accurately is paramount...

Out of curiosity, though.... do you think that a person could really go dangerously off-base if all they read was a moderately paraphrased version? Most of those types of versions I've read seem to get across the truth of scripture, even though they are not "accurate", word for word?

...to use Willie's example.... even though the original text meant that a person is to love their family less than God, isn't the overall point pretty much the same? Unless, of course, the reader took the statement literally.... "sorry folks, I gotta abandon you all completely, in order to be a believer".... but I think that most people would realize what the writer was trying to get across, which is "make God FIRST in your life... everything/everybody else comes after Him"...

 

[oldhermit]

Do you mean integrity of used words (one word translated in the same way throughout a Bible) or integrity of doctrines?

I think the second one is possible with a paraphrase, but I do not use any , so I just guess theoretically.

I am really talking about intent. As you know, on word translation is not always possible. The word παιδαγωγὸς for example, is a word for which we have no English equivalent. A παιδαγωγὸς was a servant who "had charge of the life and morals of the boys of a family." Since we have no word that corresponds to this then we can do only one of two things. We can either bring the word over into the English (which would have no meaning to us) or we can translate the basic meaning of the word. Most translators use the word tutor but this really does not convey the real meaning behind the world.

 

[trofimus]

I am really talking about intent. As you know, on word translation is not always possible. The word παιδαγωγὸς for example, is a word for which we have no English equivalent. A παιδαγωγὸς was a servant who "had charge of the life and morals of the boys of a family." Since we have no word that corresponds to this then we can do only one of two things. We can either bring the word over into the English (which would have no meaning to us) or we can translate the basic meaning of the word. Most translators use the word tutor but this really does not convey the real meaning behind the world.

I understand that. What I meant was a consistency of translation throughout a Bible. If you mean this or if you mean doctrinal one.

For example if a paraphrase translates "šeol" as "tomb" in one place, as "death" on another etc, if you mean this or something else.

 

[Willie-T]

I agree that translating accurately is paramount...

Out of curiosity, though.... do you think that a person could really go dangerously off-base if all they read was a moderately paraphrased version? Most of those types of versions I've read seem to get across the truth of scripture, even though they are not "accurate", word for word?

...to use Willie's example.... even though the original text meant that a person is to love their family less than God, isn't the overall point pretty much the same? Unless, of course, the reader took the statement literally.... "sorry folks, I gotta abandon you all completely, in order to be a believer".... but I think that most people would realize what the writer was trying to get across, which is "make God FIRST in your life... everything/everybody else comes after Him"...

Exactly. If a 21st-Century American picks up a book that tells him he has to hate his family.... How on Earth is he ever supposed to know that the word HATE meant something else in another language 2,000 years ago? I think it is deceptive and dangerous to play games like that. The more honest man will translate a book for 21st-Century people, in 21st-Century language........ not a dead language that they couldn't possibly know meant something different than what the word right in front of them now means today.

I think that's just pompous religious BS.

 

[oldhermit]

I agree that translating accurately is paramount...

Out of curiosity, though.... do you think that a person could really go dangerously off-base if all they read was a moderately paraphrased version? Most of those types of versions I've read seem to get across the truth of scripture, even though they are not "accurate", word for word?

...to use Willie's example.... even though the original text meant that a person is to love their family less than God, isn't the overall point pretty much the same? Unless, of course, the reader took the statement literally.... "sorry folks, I gotta abandon you all completely, in order to be a believer".... but I think that most people would realize what the writer was trying to get across, which is "make God FIRST in your life... everything/everybody else comes after Him"...

I understand what you mean. As much as I dislike the NIV, if I am studying with someone who has poor English skills, little education, or perhaps poor reading skills in general, I will often give them a copy of the NIV because I know it will be much easier for them to read and understand. I know I can deal with any translational issues that may come up later. I used to teach a deaf Bible class and many of the older generation deaf had little more than a third grade education. Suffice it to say, their reading levels were sometime quite challenging. There is a version for the deaf that helps them to understand the text at its most basic level. Though it is certainly not a translation that would appeal the scholar, what is serves to do is to break language down into its lowest common denominator. My experience has been that truth can be learned from even the most perverted translations.

 

[trofimus]

Exactly. If a 21st-Century American picks up a book that tells him he has to hate his family.... How on Earth is he ever supposed to know that the word HATE meant something else in another language 2,000 years ago?

I think that the word just means "hate" and meant it also 2000 years ago. The rest are just theological explanations...

 

[oldhermit]

I understand that. What I meant was a consistency of translation throughout a Bible. If you mean this or if you mean doctrinal one.

For example if a paraphrase translates "šeol" as "tomb" in one place, as "death" on another etc, if you mean this or something else.

Blanket translation of any word is certainly not a general rule nor is it an advisable practice. Context often drives the definition of words. Sheol is a Hebrew word and from what I can see, it is just as legitimately rendered tomb or grave as it is death. What I have seen in the use of this word in the OT is that when it is speaking of the disposition of the physical body it is rendered as tomb or grave. When the context concerns the afterlife or the place it the dead (disembodied spirits) is sometimes rendered as death. I do not know if this is true in every instance. You may be able to find examples where this may not be the case.

Let me offer you another example from the Greek that may serve to better illustrate the point. In the use of prepositions, the case with which the preposition is used has a great deal to do with how a particular preposition is to be translated. For example: In the KJV, Rev 10:11 reads, "You must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." The preposition here is ἐπὶ which is most often translated as on, to, against, but can be translated in a variety of ways depending on the construction but I think the only time it can be translated as 'before' is when it is used with the genitive of person, and in verse 11, it is used with the dative. The best translation for ἐπὶ in verse 11 would probably be about or concerning.