Translation pet peeve

Page 3 of 9 (161 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
This post has 160 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 8602
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 9:45 AM

Elnwood ... you want to expand a bit on Luke 2.7?  I'm admittedly having trouble finding a source that doesn't use 'inn', guest lodging, or similar.


Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 9:57 AM

DMB:

Elnwood ... you want to expand a bit on Luke 2.7?  I'm admittedly having trouble finding a source that doesn't use 'inn', guest lodging, or similar.

http://biblestudymagazine.com/preview/NovDec09Manger.pdf

 

 

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 8602
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 10:13 AM

Thanks, Paul. That one's a bit of touch and go. Especially since the alternative uses in Mark / Luke assume a translation as well (e.g. circular logic).


Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 10:25 AM

DMB:

Thanks, Paul. That one's a bit of touch and go. Especially since the alternative uses in Mark / Luke assume a translation as well (e.g. circular logic).

True, but taking what is known, Joseph's family is from Bethlehem, and also that current archaeological evidence shows that the animals were kept in houses, it would seem more likely that it was a room in a house, and the the "inn" is more likely a tradition.

 

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 7715
Forum MVP
Bruce Dunning | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 10:30 AM

Josh:

I am absolutely annoyed to no end when Bible translators use the word LORD to translate the tetragrammaton. I fully understand why they do it. I just don't like it. It seems overly impersonal for the name of God.

Does anyone else have any translation pet peeves?

I'm not sure how LORD became the normal way to translate this but I agree with you.

Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God

Posts 451
Mitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 10:31 AM

George Somsel:

elnwood:

4. Using "they" and "their" as a singular pronoun (NIV2011). I know it's entered modern usage and has a long history of use, but it makes a lot of us cringe, especially when read in public worship.

5. Unnecessary pluralization or shift to second person to avoid masculine pronouns, especially when it obscures OT references to Christ. In some languages it's necessary for comprehension, but not in English.

  Both of these are attempts to eliminate the masculine gender.  This is a tendency in pop culture today.  "He" was formerly the pronoun used when the gender was unknown or could be either, but today babies are "she" (μὴ γένοιτο that anyone should ever use the neuter which was a common practice in Greek).  Similarly others who are already born are routinely verbally transgendered into the feminine.  It's political correctness run amok.  I think they feel that they must make "reparations" for all of those years when the masculine was used.  It amounts to the wussification of society.

One man's wussification is another man's acknowledgement that the Kingdom of God is not for men first and women simply by extension. When I have a (currently hypothetical) daughter and she reads Genesis for the first time, I don't want to have to explain to her "well the Bible says 'man,' but you're created in God's image too." I don't want her to read Thessalonians 1:4 and think that God has chosen her brothers, and she just gets to tag along as an afterthought. These translation decisions affect people in ways more subtle than we often realize, and by the time anyone teaches what the text "really" means, the damage has already been done. 

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 10:34 AM

Bruce Dunning:

I'm not sure how LORD became the normal way to translate this but I agree with you.

The Septuagint typically translates YHWH as κύριος or "Lord". Most English translations use "LORD" which serves as a mnemonic device for YHWH, since they both have four letters.

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 7715
Forum MVP
Bruce Dunning | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 10:57 AM

I get bothered when translators choose to use gender-neutral language instead of the original gender. I know why they do this (trying to translate what they believe the meaning is) but I don't like it.

This is why I don't like the TNIV and the NIV 2010. Actually that is a whole other conversation. I also really disliked how they eliminated the NIV84 and how they call the NIV 2010 just NIV. Did this bother anyone else?

Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God

Posts 8602
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 11:05 AM

Well, I for one, bought the NIV84 simply because it didn't have that awful gender-neutral language. Frankly I can't stand the NIV, but the purchase was well worth it.  I'm keeping it out of my Libronix for the time being though.


Posts 9944
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 11:10 AM

Bruce Dunning:

Josh:

I am absolutely annoyed to no end when Bible translators use the word LORD to translate the tetragrammaton. I fully understand why they do it. I just don't like it. It seems overly impersonal for the name of God.

Does anyone else have any translation pet peeves?

I'm not sure how LORD became the normal way to translate this but I agree with you.

That's fairly simple.  If you remember, people used to use Jehovah as the name of God.  That is because the Jews did not pronounce הַשם (the Name) so they used אַדֹנַי (Lord) instead.  Jehovah is הַשֵׁם with the vowels from אַדֹנַי which were used as the pointing to remind the reader to say אַדֹנַי rather than Yahweh.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 9944
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 11:13 AM

Mitchell:

One man's wussification is another man's acknowledgement that the Kingdom of God is not for men first and women simply by extension. When I have a (currently hypothetical) daughter and she reads Genesis for the first time, I don't want to have to explain to her "well the Bible says 'man,' but you're created in God's image too." I don't want her to read Thessalonians 1:4 and think that God has chosen her brothers, and she just gets to tag along as an afterthought. These translation decisions affect people in ways more subtle than we often realize, and by the time anyone teaches what the text "really" means, the damage has already been done. 

  No one until recently would have denied that women were included.  The problem today is that people are no longer properly educated in his own language.  It arises because people are too ignorant to understand.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 9944
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 11:20 AM

Bruce Dunning:

I get bothered when translators choose to use gender-neutral language instead of the original gender. I know why they do this (trying to translate what they believe the meaning is) but I don't like it.

This is why I don't like the TNIV and the NIV 2010. Actually that is a whole other conversation. I also really disliked how they eliminated the NIV84 and how they call the NIV 2010 just NIV. Did this bother anyone else?

The NRSV accomplishes this by translating the word ἀδελφοι by "brothers and sisters" rather than simply "brothers."  As I said, people today are stupid when it comes to their own language (OK, I said "ignorant").

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 7715
Forum MVP
Bruce Dunning | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 11:24 AM

George Somsel:

Bruce Dunning:

Josh:

I am absolutely annoyed to no end when Bible translators use the word LORD to translate the tetragrammaton. I fully understand why they do it. I just don't like it. It seems overly impersonal for the name of God.

Does anyone else have any translation pet peeves?

I'm not sure how LORD became the normal way to translate this but I agree with you.

That's fairly simple.  If you remember, people used to use Jehovah as the name of God.  That is because the Jews did not pronounce הַשם (the Name) so they used אַדֹנַי (Lord) instead.  Jehovah is הַשֵׁם with the vowels from אַדֹנַי which were used as the pointing to remind the reader to say אַדֹנַי rather than Yahweh.

You misunderstood me. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I understand why the Jews didn't pronounce the name of God. I just don't know why translator's chose LORD other than that was the word that the LXX translators use.

Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 11:30 AM

Bruce Dunning:
I understand why the Jews didn't pronounce the name of God. I just don't know why translator's chose LORD other than that was the word that the LXX translators use.

Because אַדֹנַי (Adonai) is commonly translated "Lord"

EDIT: Which stems form Jewish Hebrew to Greek translation tradition in the last centuries BC.

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 9944
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 11:41 AM

Bruce Dunning:

You misunderstood me. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I understand why the Jews didn't pronounce the name of God. I just don't know why translator's chose LORD other than that was the word that the LXX translators use.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 11:45 AM

George Somsel:

Bruce Dunning:

You misunderstood me. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I understand why the Jews didn't pronounce the name of God. I just don't know why translator's chose LORD other than that was the word that the LXX translators use.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

OK, you made me laugh out loud...

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 7715
Forum MVP
Bruce Dunning | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 11:56 AM

Paul Golder:

George Somsel:

Bruce Dunning:

You misunderstood me. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I understand why the Jews didn't pronounce the name of God. I just don't know why translator's chose LORD other than that was the word that the LXX translators use.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

OK, you made me laugh out loud...

Me too!

Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God

Posts 451
Mitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 12:15 PM

George Somsel:

Mitchell:

One man's wussification is another man's acknowledgement that the Kingdom of God is not for men first and women simply by extension. When I have a (currently hypothetical) daughter and she reads Genesis for the first time, I don't want to have to explain to her "well the Bible says 'man,' but you're created in God's image too." I don't want her to read Thessalonians 1:4 and think that God has chosen her brothers, and she just gets to tag along as an afterthought. These translation decisions affect people in ways more subtle than we often realize, and by the time anyone teaches what the text "really" means, the damage has already been done. 

  No one until recently would have denied that women were included.  The problem today is that people are no longer properly educated in his own language.  It arises because people are too ignorant to understand.

Sure, but that's an unfortunate circumstance of our present time and we need to deal with it, not put our fingers in our ears. Should we punish people for not being classically educated? Isn't is pretty ungracious to us to say "sorry, you just don't understand English well enough"? Are we that committed to this particular form of language that we can't accommodate our translations to speak to people in the language as they understand it, not as we wish it was understood (or how it used to be understood)?

It's perfectly fair to lament the state of the English language today, but to hold fast to linguistic ideology ceases to be acceptable when it harms actual people who have been caught up, through no fault of their own, in these changes.

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 12:15 PM

George Somsel:

Bruce Dunning:

You misunderstood me. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I understand why the Jews didn't pronounce the name of God. I just don't know why translator's chose LORD other than that was the word that the LXX translators use.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

I do believe that that guy looks like you! Bro. Is that your newest video?

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 9944
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 12:32 PM

Mitchell:

Sure, but that's an unfortunate circumstance of our present time and we need to deal with it, not put our fingers in our ears. Should we punish people for not being classically educated? Isn't is pretty ungracious to us to say "sorry, you just don't understand English well enough"? Are we that committed to this particular form of language that we can't accommodate our translations to speak to people in the language as they understand it, not as we wish it was understood (or how it used to be understood)?

It's perfectly fair to lament the state of the English language today, but to hold fast to linguistic ideology ceases to be acceptable when it harms actual people who have been caught up, through no fault of their own, in these changes.

  La, la, la, la, la.   Classically educated?  They only need to know their own language (in this case English).  We spend more and more on education and get less and less as a result.  Instead, every schoolboy knows how to put a condom on a cucumber or banana.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Page 3 of 9 (161 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS
Copyright 1992-2015 Faithlife / Logos Bible Software.