Part of a thread I was part of discussed translation from one language to another. In this case, it was Spanish to English.
In Spanish, "como se llama" means "what's your name". Or does it?
Literally translated, it says, "How do you call yourself". (With the word order changed!) Como = how; se = yourself; llama = call. Of course nobody says that (or it could be interpreted differently if you use a cell phone! 8^) This is an example of formal, or word-for-word translation.
Functional translation emphasizes the meaning of the words, so it's much more accurate and meaningful to interpret "como se llama" as "what's your name". That is the standard question asked when you meet somebody for the first time; the strange-sounding "how do you call yourself" isn't.
Applying these principles to Bible translations, it is obvious that "literal" or formal translations such as the King James version can be very confusing and easily misinterpreted. As shown above, the literal translation to "How do you call yourself" sounds very odd to the hearer. That same principle applies to the KJV and other formal translations: the language is strange and and is easily misinterpreted by the reader/hearer. For example, a Bible verse I often use as an example is Luke 14:10...
"But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when
he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:.
then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat
with thee."
That sounds very strange to modern English speakers/readers, as indeed it should, since nobody speaks or writes like that in the 21st Century. Indeed, Luke is known for his excellent Greek and that was undoubtedly was not how he phrased it.
Here is how the very popular NIV translates this same verse...
"But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests."
It is immediately obvious that this rendition is much clearer and more easily understood, the goal of functional translations. There are no mental gymnastics involved to determine what the verse means. And there was no need for mental gymnastics in the minds of those who heard/read the original.
It's time to change the emphasis of Bible translation to give the clearest understanding of what the Biblical authors meant in their writings. Rendering God's word in some antiquated, confusing, obsolete language is a disservice to those who want to clearly understand what God's word says and means. The KJV was fine 400+ years ago when it was translated for the people of that time. The same principle of clarity and understanding should be applied to the modern, functional translations that we use today.
If the meaning isn't clear the translation has failed.
In Spanish, "como se llama" means "what's your name". Or does it?
Literally translated, it says, "How do you call yourself". (With the word order changed!) Como = how; se = yourself; llama = call. Of course nobody says that (or it could be interpreted differently if you use a cell phone! 8^) This is an example of formal, or word-for-word translation.
Functional translation emphasizes the meaning of the words, so it's much more accurate and meaningful to interpret "como se llama" as "what's your name". That is the standard question asked when you meet somebody for the first time; the strange-sounding "how do you call yourself" isn't.
Applying these principles to Bible translations, it is obvious that "literal" or formal translations such as the King James version can be very confusing and easily misinterpreted. As shown above, the literal translation to "How do you call yourself" sounds very odd to the hearer. That same principle applies to the KJV and other formal translations: the language is strange and and is easily misinterpreted by the reader/hearer. For example, a Bible verse I often use as an example is Luke 14:10...
"But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when
he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:.
then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat
with thee."
That sounds very strange to modern English speakers/readers, as indeed it should, since nobody speaks or writes like that in the 21st Century. Indeed, Luke is known for his excellent Greek and that was undoubtedly was not how he phrased it.
Here is how the very popular NIV translates this same verse...
"But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests."
It is immediately obvious that this rendition is much clearer and more easily understood, the goal of functional translations. There are no mental gymnastics involved to determine what the verse means. And there was no need for mental gymnastics in the minds of those who heard/read the original.
It's time to change the emphasis of Bible translation to give the clearest understanding of what the Biblical authors meant in their writings. Rendering God's word in some antiquated, confusing, obsolete language is a disservice to those who want to clearly understand what God's word says and means. The KJV was fine 400+ years ago when it was translated for the people of that time. The same principle of clarity and understanding should be applied to the modern, functional translations that we use today.
If the meaning isn't clear the translation has failed.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
