iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
The KJV would not meet this criteria of "from scratch" since the translators evidently consulted the Geneva Bible regularly.
The most accurate Bible translation was just released
- Thread starter Stephen L Smith
- Start date
- Status
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
Whether or not a particular English translation is considered a foundation, translators will use older translations. That is how they learned the original languages to begin with.
Last edited:
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
It does seem like Dispensationalists tend to have an extreme fixation on the idea of being "literal" in their interpretation, so it would make sense if that carried over to translation as well.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
More than likely. I'd like to have a look at the prophets.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
You can download the LSB on various Bible apps.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
Fun fact: John Macarthurs says here 0:35 onwards that the ESV is the best translation
yet he was using the NASB... and now there is the LSB..
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Didn't the KJV translators also basically import Wycliffe's translation of the NT entire, more or less? I've heard that.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Beza was a strong influence as well, especially on the Geneva Bible, much of which came over verbatim into the KJV.
ParticularBaptist1677
Puritan Board Freshman
It looks like MacArthur is reading a teleprompter. I don't blame him, what Crossway wants, Crossway gets haha!
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I just came across this very interesting quotation from William Gouge, one of the Westminster divines:
"Such additions of words or alterations of phrases, as make to a more perspicuous expression of the author's mind, may well be done by such as quote his (he is talking about the LXX translators, LK) sayings; for such as only cite testimonies for proof of a point are not so strictly tied to the words as translators are. It is enough for the former to retain and express the true meaning of the text which they cite, though it be in other words. Thus, change of phrase doth oft better express the mind and meaning of the author than a translation word for word; therefore, a faithful interpreter stands not over strictly upon the letter" (from his Commentary on Hebrews, Kregel Publications, p. 43).
"Such additions of words or alterations of phrases, as make to a more perspicuous expression of the author's mind, may well be done by such as quote his (he is talking about the LXX translators, LK) sayings; for such as only cite testimonies for proof of a point are not so strictly tied to the words as translators are. It is enough for the former to retain and express the true meaning of the text which they cite, though it be in other words. Thus, change of phrase doth oft better express the mind and meaning of the author than a translation word for word; therefore, a faithful interpreter stands not over strictly upon the letter" (from his Commentary on Hebrews, Kregel Publications, p. 43).
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
You're right. I wrote Wycliffe when I meant Tyndale. It's Tyndale's translation of the NT was brought over almost whole into the KJV.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Is he saying there are two different roles - the role of a translator and that of an interpreter?
This quote reminds me of Augustine's comments on the word-concept fallacy (that a word must always signify the same particular concept): “For it often happens that a concept is expressed in different words by different translators, and sometimes even by the same translator in different places. And conversely, the same word is used to signify different concepts. So if anyone wants to find out the meaning of the author, he should not be in a hurry to take a word in the sense in which he is accustomed to use it himself, but should carefully consider in what sense the author wanted it to be understood in each passage.” Augustine, On Christian Teaching, trans. R. P. H. Green (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
A translator would be one producing a bible translation, like Tyndale or the KJV committee.
An interpretor here is any expositor of the biblical text; for example, the pastor preaching on a Scripture passage.
Or at least that's how I understand his words.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I agree, but doesn't even "The most accurate Bible translation" involve a level of interpretation? When Gouge speaks of "additions of words or alterations of phrases," isn't he referring to the use of italicized words (like in the KJV/AV)? Wasn't the KJV committee often changing a word or phrase to "better express the mind and meaning of the author than a translation word for word" and standing "not over strictly upon the letter" (I can think of things like using the word "heart" instead of the literal "kidney" or "bowels")? In other words, doesn't all translation involve some level of interpretation?
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
When one is translating, one should stick to the original vocabulary and syntax as much as possible.
In preaching there is more room for what we call "paraphrase."
It is true that the KJV "supplies words," so perhaps the difference should be understood more as one of degree.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
This seems to presume formal equivalence is always best for a translation. But is it? To take Andrew's example, the KJV of Psalm 26:2 is very literal "try my reins and my heart", but many people would find the NASB's "test my mind and my heart" a lot clearer in conveying the connotation of the text, even if less literal in denotation. As far as syntax goes, we could begin many sentences with "And..." in (fake) symmetry with the Hebrew vav consecutive, as the KJV (and ESV) often do, but that often misrepresents the function of that syntactical form, which (for example) regularly represents logical ("so...") or temporal sequence ("then...").
However, in context, I think (as Charles was suggesting) the original quote was simply differentiating between a Bible translator, who strives to convey the exact force of the original into the target language, while a preacher might make a looser allusion to the source (such as "Romans 3 declares that we're all sinners who don't live up to God's glory")
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
When I say "as much as possible" I'm implicitly excluding instances where formal equivalence leads to bad or incomprehensible English. I don't consider that a valid / possible translation. Perhaps one could call it a calque but translation should involve more than a one-to-one mapping of lexemes.
ParticularBaptist1677
Puritan Board Freshman
I recently completed Hebrew II, and I am off to my Hebrew exegesis course and Aramaic I course in my M.Div studies. I just gotta say, I never thought I would be able to understand what you’re explaining here Professor Duguid! I know you didn’t get into ultra technical things here, but I was just excited that I completely understood what you just said. Oh what a little study will do! I wanted to add a GIF here, but was unable to find out how to do that.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
joebonni63
Puritan Board Freshman
2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is God-breathedand is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I hate to be a downer however is changing scripture correct in the eyes of God. Seems we do this a lot and now it's ok, probably at first it's like smoking you don't want anyone to see you then you get bold and now you are part of the crowd.
This is just a question so please don't come back at me with vicious attacks lol .................
I hate to be a downer however is changing scripture correct in the eyes of God. Seems we do this a lot and now it's ok, probably at first it's like smoking you don't want anyone to see you then you get bold and now you are part of the crowd.
This is just a question so please don't come back at me with vicious attacks lol .................
JvMill
Puritan Board Sophomore
What do you mean changing scripture?
I'd have to echo John's question and ask what you mean by changing Scripture, because no one here has argued in favor of doing so. Changing Scripture is 100% forbidden. But asking such a question in the context of this discussion seems to assume that dynamic equivalence in translation is equivalent to changing Scripture, and that's just not true. Every translation has some degree of dynamic equivalence, because it's absolutely impossible to avoid it.
The basic argument being made in this thread is not that accuracy in translation is a bad thing, but rather that the standard by which the LSB advocates are judging it to be the "most accurate" is very misleading.
joebonni63
Puritan Board Freshman
I think the main thing I am saying is that if you are changing pronouns of people like he him to everyone & she or her is that changing it it's just a thought not something I have given a lot of thought...........
I see where you're coming from, but whether or not that genuinely represents a change in any particular case has to be argued, not assumed. This is not a discussion about whether or not it's appropriate to change the Scriptures; it's about how to translate them most accurately. The tricky thing is that there are different opinions on what constitutes an accurate translation, and gendered language is a common flashpoint in that discussion. The question is, are there cases when a masculine Greek/Hebrew noun or pronoun is actually most accurately translated with some sort of gender-neutral expression? Many would argue (and have argued in this thread) that the answer is yes.
joebonni63
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't want to run off in yes world that's not open minded it's just something I wondered also I can read the Greek pretty well Hebrew not as well but I can do that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
