ESV & Logos

Page 3 of 6 (112 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
This post has 111 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 2212
Damian McGrath | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:18 PM

Russ Quinn:
Not arguing for or against perfection of any translation

I have no bun in the fight re ESV, gender inclusiveness, etc.....

 

Russ Quinn:
Not being able to directly translate every single word is a categorically different issue than rendering adelphos as "believer" for the sake of gender inclusiveness.

But, Russ, my question was directly related to skewed results when searching for the word "brother" - not to an issue related to accuracy of translation or gender inclusiveness.

Surely, all a search on an English bible for the word "brother" produces is how many times the translation features the word "brother". It does not tell us any more. And, I don't know why anyone would want to know how many times a translation uses the word "brother" or "bread" or "house" or whatever.

Posts 709
Russ Quinn | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:18 PM

R. Mansfield:

By the way, both BDAG (second definition) and Louw & Nida (11.23) allow for believers as a translation of ἀδελφοί in certain contexts. I imagine Acts 15:36 would certainly fit these criteria. Really, this is a good example of why translations shouldn't be slaves to one word = one meaning. 

There is no doubt that the context of the verse supports that as the intended meaning in Acts 15:36.

Again, not meaning here to argue for or against the value of any particular translation.

I'm merely offering some rationale for Logos's emphasis on the ESV as its primary reverse interlinear.

Posts 491
R. Mansfield | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:20 PM

Understand, Russ. And I hope you just view my responses as part of a discussion and not adversarial.

RMansfield@mac.com
http://thislamp.com 
youtube.com/user/rfmansfield
twitter/thislamp
facebook.com/rmansfield

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:22 PM

R. Mansfield:

Understand, Russ. And I hope you just view my responses as part of a discussion and not adversarial.

Ditto

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 1370
LogosEmployee
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:22 PM

Hi folks.

MarkStevens:
What is with Logos and the ESV? Every video it is used as the preferred Bible translation (not to mention I still cant remove it in the exegetical guide). Is there a reason why it is always used?

You can consider this a non-official response, but it is really less nefarious and less theologically-motivated than some seem to think.

In the LDLS3 world, the ESV was the only English reverse interlinear with OT and NT content reverse-interlinearized. So our examples necessarily used the ESV since that would be applicable to OT and NT study.

This carries over since we're used to talking about the ESV with this feature, and since most of our users (our upgrading users) are used to using the ESV with reverse interlinears. And we do know that a fair portion of our existing users are familiar with the ESV and use it as one of their top, say, 3 English Bibles.

I'd imagine as Logos 4 matures and folks become more comfortable, the version used may depend on preference of whomever makes the video.

[let the translation philosophy discussion continue now ... ]

Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print

Posts 2212
Damian McGrath | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:22 PM

Richard DeRuiter:
But few would, and none should, expect any reliable accuracy in searching from the English text.

I expect great accuracy in searching the English text.... I just don't expect it to tell me how many times a particular Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic word is used....

 

Richard DeRuiter:
With the rev int tools so readily available, one doesn't have to know Greek to be able to do original language searches and see the results in English, in a way that makes sense. (Which is really, really, cool. And really potentially dangerous, since it opens the door to all sorts of common translation errors.)

This is both the beauty and the "danger" of Logos..... 

Posts 709
Russ Quinn | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:23 PM

Richard DeRuiter:

It's true that if you search from the English text, you'll get different results than if you search from the Greek text. But few would, and none should, expect any reliable accuracy in searching from the English text.

You are right, Richard, that one cannot expect complete accuracy from an English text.

I am merely trying to offer a justification for the preference of the ESV as a reverse interlinear.

Posts 709
Russ Quinn | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:29 PM

R. Mansfield:

I guess my main issue is with your use of the word accurate above. It's not really that the ESV is going to give more accurate results, but rather it's going to provide a greater number of results on the basis of word-for-word concordance than some translations. But if this is the goal, why not use the NASB which I imagine would gain even greater word-for-word concordance?

I don't personally use reverse interlinears, but it would seem to me that once the underlying Greek or Hebrew word was discovered, it would be better to run a search on the original language word in the reverse interlinear (I assume this can be done) to find the full number of results--regardless of how many English words there were.

Rick,

You said it much better than I have thus far. I am glad to drop my use of "accurate" for your "greater number of results on the basis of word-for-word concordance than some translation."

I suspect the preference of ESV over NASB has to do with marketing considerations in light of the fairly restrictive licensing policies of the Lockman Foundation. I'm not sure of all the details but my impression is that the ESV is simply expected to be more widely distributed than the NASB.

I would not use reverse interlinears for my personal research either but a central design goal of Logos seems to be to provide easy access to the original languages through reverse interlinears. I'll leave the merits of that up to others to debate.

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:35 PM

Rick Brannan:
[let the translation philosophy discussion continue now ... ]

No!  Please, no!

Let it end now.

Please.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 709
Russ Quinn | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:42 PM

Richard DeRuiter:

R. Mansfield:

Understand, Russ. And I hope you just view my responses as part of a discussion and not adversarial.

Ditto

Rick,

I have never sensed an adversarial bone in your body, my friend (or you either Richard).

I was sincere when I said I defer to you.

Philosophy of translation is not my area of expertise.

I appreciate the interaction and sharpening.

Posts 439
Mark Stevens | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 3:39 PM

Rick Brannan:
You can consider this a non-official response, but it is really less nefarious and less theologically-motivated than some seem to thin

 

Many thanks for the response Rick. Can you please tell though if we will ever be able to use the NRSV or TNIV as the preferred interlinear alongside NA27 in the exegetical guide?

Posts 376
Dan Sheppard | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 4:22 PM

MarkStevens:

Bryan Brodess:
What is wrong with the ESV? I have not studied it much, I was planning on starting to use it in my study'

Where do I begin?!?!  If you are interested Ben Witherington has some posts on his concerns (not that I agree with them all). You could also try Mounce's website for a counter argument.  

 

 

It sounds like the argument regarding the "flaws" in ESV are more of a political nature, than a theological one.  More accurately, it is an argument between traditionalists and revisionists.

Several church bodies have adopted ESV as their standard, citing the high regard for accuracy in translation, going back to the originating languages.

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (hereafter LCMS) is one, who adopted it.  I believe that ELCA adopted it too, although they have different narrative comments in their version.  The statement regarding NRSV from the LCMS website says:

The NRSV, published in 1989 by the National Council of Churches, is an improvement over the RSV in that
it updates the archaic language addressed to God (as in the Psalms). However, it perpetuates the worst aspects of
the RSV: faulty Christology and inaccurate translations of passages about the fulfillment of prophecy (examples
26, 27, 30). It adds a few new problems that were not present in the RSV, such as changing many masculine singular
forms into generic plural forms for the sake of inclusive language (examples 3, 4, 5, 6; see also 28). Its rendering
of some verses raises questions about other important doctrinal issues, such as the inerrancy of Scripture
(example 35) and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (examples 9, 10, 11, 12).

So it appears that the two issues which are prominent in the discussion are: inerrancy of Scripture, and gender neutralizing the Word.  Of course, ESV is very specific in other areas, such as inclusion of homosexuality in the definitions of such places as 1 Corinthians 6:9 but contrasting to NRSV, the impact appears to be lessened.

We all have our favorite translations: NIV, NASB, ESV.  It would be impossible for Logos to deliver the software "tailor-made", having all my desired defaults in the order I want them.  They are making a good effort at getting the info out there, so we can all figure out how to change the "feel" of the product to suit ourselves.

 

Posts 19139
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 4:29 PM

Jon Rumble:

MarkStevens:
Well the ESV might be a word for word translation but in my opinion it isn't very accurate! Why not use the NRSV? It is the premier word for word translation.

Really? I thought the ESV was the spiritual successor to the NRSV... Why do you think its inaccurate?

I know someone who was on the translation committee for the NIV, and his family used to joke that it was the Never Inaccurate Version.

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 4:31 PM

"We all have our favorite translations: NIV, NASB, ESV.  It would be impossible for Logos to deliver the software "tailor-made", having all my desired defaults in the order I want them.  They are making a good effort at getting the info out there, so we can all figure out how to change the "feel" of the product to suit ourselves."

 

I agree wholeheartedly!!

Posts 653
Alex Scott | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 6:03 PM

For years, one of my greatest desires has been to find a good, accurate literal translation.  Every time a new one comes out, I find myself disappointed yet again.  

While I prefer the NASB myself, it, like every other translation, is tainted with the theological biases of the translators.  One of the first things I do now when a new 'literal' version comes out is to check a small number of passages which are commonly mistranslated, such as Ephesians 4:22-24 and Colossians  3:9-10.  Any translation that purports to be literal and yet translates anthropos as 'nature' or 'self' loses all credibility as far as I'm concerned.  Even the translators of the NASB must have seen the inappropriateness of Colossians 3 translation when they realized that no self was so confused that it saw itself as being Greek or Jew etc. and so they twisted the translation of verse 11 by inserting a word (and concept) that isn't there, "a renewal in which".  ESV is much the same, and the NRSV compounds the error in Ephesians 4 by saying "your" old self when there is no "your" there at all.

I then thought the only way to get a good literal translation was to do it myself whereupon I soon discovered that no matter how hard I tried, it was virtually impossible to keep my own biases out of the equation, coupled with the impossibility of finding a single word in English that accurately translated a Greek or Hebrew word fully, without implying some meaning in English that wasn't there in the original.

All of which convinced me that the only way to get the true meaning of the scriptures, for me at least, was to get back to the Greek and Hebrew - a lot more work, and for those who have followed the same path, with its own set of difficulties in arriving at the correct meaning.  Translation is truly a formidable task.

 

Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.

Posts 376
Dan Sheppard | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 6:10 PM

Damian McGrath:
I have no bun in the fight

 

Therein lies perhaps, your problem.  You are fighting with your buns???

 

 

Posts 3810
spitzerpl | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 6:13 PM

Alex Scott:
All of which convinced me that the only way to get the true meaning of the scriptures, for me at least, was to get back to the Greek and Hebrew

There is another way. Just give me a call and I'll tell you what the translation is supposed to be.

Posts 491
R. Mansfield | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 6:38 PM

Alex Scott:

One of the first things I do now when a new 'literal' version comes out is to check a small number of passages which are commonly mistranslated, such as Ephesians 4:22-24 and Colossians  3:9-10.  Any translation that purports to be literal and yet translates anthropos as 'nature' or 'self' loses all credibility as far as I'm concerned. 

How would you translate ἄνθρωπος in these passages, Alex? These passages are covered in the fifth entry under ἄνθρωπος in BDAG. 

 

RMansfield@mac.com
http://thislamp.com 
youtube.com/user/rfmansfield
twitter/thislamp
facebook.com/rmansfield

Posts 653
Alex Scott | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 7:17 PM

R. Mansfield:
How would you translate ἄνθρωπος in these passages, Alex?

By its literal meaning, 'man'.  To give it some other meaning is not translation but interpretation.  Now you may give it some other interpretation such as "a being in conflict at a transcendent level" but as soon as you do that you have narrowed down the various interpretations of the statement to a single one, and in so doing you totally miss the possibility of the corporate aspect of the new man as defined in Ephesians 2:15.

Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.

Posts 2212
Damian McGrath | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 7:29 PM

Alex Scott:
By its literal meaning, 'man'.

But therein lies the rub, surely?  What is the "literal meaning" of a word? Can the "literal meaning" of a Greek word be an english word?

 

Alex Scott:
not translation but interpretation

Traduttore, traditore!

Page 3 of 6 (112 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS