Do, I don’t see. If you think that there is actually a literal translation then you are misled. Every single translation communicates meaning. Some are more “literal” than others, meaning they focus more on vocabulary than thought.
Do you understand the quote that you gave? The NLT translates “entire thoughts” because that is the best way to communicate Scripture. => There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation <= If there was, it would be useless. Even the most “literal” translations communicate thoughts rather than actual translated words.
That’s what my definition of a ‘word-for-word’ translation is. The closer the definition of a word is to the original language the better.
No it’s not. Communicating entire thoughts allows room for personal interpretations (what does this verse mean to me?) while communicating the actual words allows for actual interpretation (what does this verse mean period?).
'Course I did. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have quoted it. I’m not that stupid lol.
There is a vast difference between the source languages of the Bible and modern English, so those languages must be INTERPRETED for modern readers to understand what was written. Comminicating entire thoughts does NOT allow room for personal interpretation when the work is done by committees of scholars.
Actual words? LOL! The sources used are incomplete copies of earlier writings created by fallible scribes; THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS. Source documents often disagree with each other, so the idea of an accurate word-for-word translation is fantasy.
Understand what “translating” is… It’s taking words from one language into another. The text you reference is still very much that-- a translation. I think that what Benny is trying to point out is that all English Bibles come from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic original texts, so unless you can read those languages, you have to rely on some translation or another to have the original text translated into your language in order to convey meaning. Word-for-word attempts would be a mumbled mess, which is why thought-for-thought, attempts are made to better convey context and meaning.
The Polygot is keyed to a concordance-- the AG-Strong’s concordance and accompanied by a Greek interlinear that is used in much the same way as a student might use a French/English dictionary in Canada, or Spanish/English here in the US to study and understand a language they are not native to.
Translations are translations-- they are not “summaries” as if the text is diminished or cut short. Yet, of course and with all things-- some are better than others, of a kind-- so it’s good to use several. It’s also excellent practice to refer to those ‘original’ texts and examine what the actual word used might be, simply because in translation-- often— much of the original intent is lost due to the potential shortcomings of any given translator.
Let’s eat Grandma does not “translate” the same thought as-- Let’s eat, Grandma.
Ancient text lacks things like punctuation, as but one example. So it’s important for the translators to convey the thought, and not just the words. The words are the same in both instances, but the thought and meaning, quite different. You’d have to rely on context to determine if the words were intended to be speaking to, or about-- Grandma. Is it a family of canibals eyeing her, or a regular family inviting her?
The King James translation is just that – a translation. It is based on a limited number of sources (compared to what is available today) and was created for a POLITICAL purpose: to establish James 1’s doctrine as official Christian doctrine
The best modern translations are based on much better sources and much better scholarship. And, perhaps most important, they are written in the language that ALL of us use today. The result is a clearer understanding of God’s written word. Which is what we should all want.
In 1604, soon after James’s coronation as king of England, a conference of churchmen requested that the English Bible be revised because existing translations “were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original.”
Given the perceived need for a new authorized translation, James was quick to appreciate the broader value of the proposal and at once made the project his own. By June 30, 1604, James had approved a list of 54 revisers, although extant records show that 47 scholars actually participated. They were organized into six companies, two each working separately at Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge on sections of the Bible assigned to them. Richard Bancroft (1544–1610), archbishop of Canterbury, served as overseer and established doctrinal conventions for the translators.
An elaborate set of rules was contrived to curb individual proclivities and to ensure the translation’s scholarly and nonpartisan character.
The wealth of scholarly tools available to the translators made their final choice of rendering an exercise in originality and independent judgment. For this reason, the new version was more faithful to the original languages of the Bible and more scholarly than any of its predecessors.
The Encyclopedia Britannica??? What a joke! Is that your source of divine inspiration? Is that the religious reference that you use in the Bingo Center for Theological Studies (if such a thing actually exists)?
Benny, Benny, Benny, what to do with you? You’re supposedly ignoring my posts - remember?
No one claims the Encyclopedia Brittanica is divinely inspired. It is, however, authoritative insofar as the history of the KJV is concerned - which you incorrectly stated was undertaken by James 1 for purely political reasons to establish “his own doctrine.” W-r-o-n-g.
No, I regret to inform you that the Bingo Center for Theological Studies does not actually exist. Yeesh.
While I hate to break in On this lovely discussion, I think it it’s important to point out that the main danger today is not the translation (though some have major issues, including KJ) but the staggering number of “specialty” Bibles with footnotes and study guides that force modern pretense onto scripture.
These concoctions push some rather odd concepts. Anything for a buck.
They tend to cater to certain perspectives. It’s not the scriptural text that’s the problem, it’s the inane commentary “pop ups” that, like so many people do-- take a verse and twist or torture it into something it just doesn’t mean. -Often with some cute little anecdote intended to lend validity for whatever point is being pressed. Avoid titles like “The _______ Bible” where you fill in the blank with Fireman’s or Traveler’s or Nurse’s…
If the intention is to create a devotional with food for thought, the result is too often indigestion.
One exception I’ve enjoyed is a particular NIV copy I was given that has historical and architectural context. Little vignettes that speak to certain places and times for added background, but even these can be an overindulgence.
The addition of footnotes in Bibles is essential to give the reader a clearer understanding of what has been written. Whether the notes refer to the ancient cultures, the possible differences of interpretation, links to similar passages, etc., they provide a more complete understanding of what the Bible says and means.
Some denominations recommend specific translations, like the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) for many mainline Protestant traditions or the Douay-Rheims and New American Bible (NAB) for Catholics.
