Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,253
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 251:
Line 251: + + + + +
Talk:Conservative Bible Project (view source)
Revision as of 22:53, October 13, 2009
, 22:53, October 13, 2009→Translation or Paraphrase?
:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)