Translation pet peeve
Comments
-
Bruce Dunning said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Bruce Dunning said:Josh said:
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
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:
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."
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:
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.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Bruce Dunning said:
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."
0 -
Paul Golder said:George Somsel said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gwBruce Dunning said: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.
OK, you made me laugh out loud...
Me too!
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
George Somsel said:
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.Mitchell said: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.
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.
0 -
George Somsel said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gwBruce Dunning said: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.
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.
0 -
Mitchell said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
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.Mitchell said: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.
Yep. Our education needs work. Until it's fixed though, my point stands.
0 -
George Somsel said:elnwood said:
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.
The NIV2011 has generally taken a beating, and change #4 is a major pet peeve. That said, in my humble opinion, NIV2011 is a vast improvement over both the NIV1984 and the TNIV in terms of gender.
The NIV1984 which used masculine words even when the Hebrew and the Greek didn't warrant it, and needed to be corrected. For example, anthropoi is consistently translated "men," tis is translated "any man," etc. Even the Colorado Springs guidelines recognized that these could be translated gender-neutrally.
The TNIV was a major offender for #5 above, but that was eliminated in the NIV2011, and the NIV2011 kept a lot of the positive changes from the TNIV ("people" instead of "men," "ancestors" instead of "fathers," etc.)
0 -
Mitchell said:George Somsel said:
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.Mitchell said: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.
Yep. Our education needs work. Until it's fixed though, my point stands.
It is said of William Tyndale:
"Christ wishes his mysteries to be published as widely as possible. I would wish even all women to read the gospel and the epistles of St. Paul, and I wish that they were translated into all languages of all Christian people, and that they might be read and known, not merely by the Scotch and the Irish, but even by the Turks and the Saracens. Tyndale exhorted that it was in the language of Israel that the Psalms were sung in the temple of Jehovah; and shall not the gospel speak the language of England among us?... Ought the church to have less light at noonday than at dawn?... Christians must read the New Testament in their mother tongue. Tyndale determined to give the English people a translation of the Bible that even a plowboy could understand."
The problem today is that even a HS "graduate" cannot read and understand.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Mitchell said:George Somsel said:
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.Mitchell said: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.
Yep. Our education needs work. Until it's fixed though, my point stands.
It is said of William Tyndale:
"Christ wishes his mysteries to be published as widely as possible. I would wish even all women to read the gospel and the epistles of St. Paul, and I wish that they were translated into all languages of all Christian people, and that they might be read and known, not merely by the Scotch and the Irish, but even by the Turks and the Saracens. Tyndale exhorted that it was in the language of Israel that the Psalms were sung in the temple of Jehovah; and shall not the gospel speak the language of England among us?... Ought the church to have less light at noonday than at dawn?... Christians must read the New Testament in their mother tongue. Tyndale determined to give the English people a translation of the Bible that even a plowboy could understand."
The problem today is that even a HS "graduate" cannot read and understand.
They can understand a little, and they can understand even better with inclusive language. [;)]
0 -
Mitchell said:
They can understand a little, and they can understand even better with inclusive language.
Do you honestly think so when some cannot even read their diploma? Education began with the Church. Perhaps it is time that the Church once again took education under its aegis.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Mitchell said:
Should we punish people for not being classically educated?
By which I hope you mean Chinese, Sanskrit and Latin with Greek, Arabic and Hebrew optional? The world and the Church are changing, you know.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Mitchell said:
Should we punish people for not being classically educated?
By which I hope you mean Chinese, Sanskrit and Latin with Greek, Arabic and Hebrew optional? The world and the Church are changing, you know.
Greek isn't optional if you wish to be considered classically educated.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Greek isn't optional if you wish to be considered classically educated.
I didn't want to give the West undue influence ... so I had to chose between Latin and Greek. Since Latin has many more important descendents I chose it and treated Greek as a gimme language if you knew Sanskrit and Latin.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mitchell said:
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.
Language is always in a state of flux ... and there are always those who consider linguistics to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. I know because of two repeating dinner table arguments - the "correct" pronunciation of ration and gladiola.[8-|]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:George Somsel said:
Greek isn't optional if you wish to be considered classically educated.
I didn't want to give the West undue influence ... so I had to chose between Latin and Greek. Since Latin has many more important descendents I chose it and treated Greek as a gimme language if you knew Sanskrit and Latin.
I think you have indicated that you know Sanskrit, but do you also know Latin? (Bet you do)
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Do you honestly think so when some cannot even read their diploma? Education began with the Church. Perhaps it is time that the Church once again took education under its aegis.
I'd love to see the Church step it up in education, but I'm not certain how that matters in this discussion. As it stands today (and is likely to stand until your school gets off the ground and spreads across the country), "man" is not gender neutral.
MJ. Smith said:Mitchell said: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.
Language is always in a state of flux ... and there are always those who consider linguistics to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. I know because of two repeating dinner table arguments - the "correct" pronunciation of ration and gladiola.
As you may have perceived, I'm a descriptivist, but I don't think you have to be descriptivist to get behind gender-accurate translations.
0 -
Mitchell said:
As you may have perceived, I'm a descriptivist, but I don't think you have to be descriptivist to get behind gender-accurate translations.
I kind of walk the line between the two. A description of practice is somewhat prescriptive for current practice. BTW: The use of "man" in a gender neutral sense IS "gender accurate." I don't favor changing centuries of descriptive prescription simply because a group has suddenly become totally ignorant.george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
The text is perfect, but the understanding of the said text still has the same issues as any other translation/understanding of the text.George Somsel said:The translation is perfect !!
0 -
George Somsel said:
I kind of walk the line between the two. A description of practice is somewhat prescriptive for current practice. BTW: The use of "man" in a gender neutral sense IS "gender accurate." I don't favor changing centuries of descriptive prescription simply because a group has suddenly become totally ignorant.Mitchell said:As you may have perceived, I'm a descriptivist, but I don't think you have to be descriptivist to get behind gender-accurate translations.
It's not just "a group." It's caught on in wider use of the English language. Like it or not, masculine pronouns quite simply no longer refer to both genders, and therefore the use of them when a neutral pronoun is called for is no longer accurate. The CBT commissioned a study on this before translation of the NIV 2011 was finalized, their findings can be found here. Here's an example:
[quote]
1. Generic pronouns and determiners
This part of the study considered the types of pronouns and determiners that are used to refer to indefinite pronouns (such as someone, everybody and one) and non-gender specific nouns (such as a person, each child and any teacher):
A. masculine (he, his, himself, etc.);
B. feminine (she, her, herself, etc.);
C. plural/gender-neutral (they, them, one, themselves, etc.);
D. alternative forms (s/he, him or her, his/her, etc.)
In all the varieties of English analyzed, plural/neutral pronouns and determiners account for the majority of usages. Between 1990 and 2009, instances of masculine generic pronouns and determiners, expressed as a percentage of total generic pronoun usage in general written English, fell from 22% to 8%
e.g. ‘…when a person accepts unconditional responsibility, he denies himself the privilege of “complaining” and “finding faults.”’
Instances of ‘alternative’ generic pronouns and determiners fell from 12% to 8%.
e.g. ‘Any citizen who wants to educate himself or herself has plenty of sources from which to do so.’
Instances of plural/neutral generic pronouns and determiners rose from 65% to 84%.
e.g. ‘If you can identify an individual who metabolises nicotine faster you can treat them more effectively.’
Figures for the other corpora analyzed in the study are broadly comparable with figures from the general written English corpus both in overall magnitude and in the general trend over time.
0 -
Mitchell said:
gender-accurate translations
I am Lost.
Are gender-accurate translations true to the original wordings [[only men]] or true to the the "TRUE" meaning of the text in context. [[gender neutral]]
0 -
Interesting flow.
I have never read the verse: "Man cannot live by bread alone, must have woman" what was that chapter and verse again?...
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
tom said:George Somsel said:
The translation is perfect !!
The text is perfect, but the understanding of the said text still has the same issues as any other translation/understanding of the text.
I believe that you used Bro.George's ""partial quote put of contextual alignment. I am curious to know what point you are attempting to prove/?
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Room4more said:
Interesting flow.
I have never read the verse: "Man cannot live by bread alone, must have woman" what was that chapter and verse again?...
There is no such quote. "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Differently worded according to the version (This is the Authorized Version since that is what I grew up with).
Mt 4.4 and Lk 4.4 (Some coincidence, no?)
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Room4more said:
Interesting flow.
I have never read the verse: "Man cannot live by bread alone, must have woman" what was that chapter and verse again?...
There is no such quote. "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Differently worded according to the version (This is the Authorized Version since that is what I grew up with).
Yuppers, nueter-gender, which way ya wanta go....
DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.
0 -
Mitchell said:
Yep. Our education needs work. Until it's fixed though, my point stands.
This is why we homeschool. My son is in first grade and has better cursive than I do! While I don't think public schools are horrible, most certainly aren't very good compared to what I can give my son at home. Kids now-a-days can't spell, don't like reading, and have ugly print handwriting. [:S]
0 -
Josh said:
Kids now-a-days can't spell, don't like reading, and have ugly print handwriting.
With all the negative things I have to say regarding today's educational system, I will say nothing regarding handwriting. You wouldn't want to see mine. Sometimes I can't read it myself. Why do you think that I use a computer so much? [:P]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:
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?
Yes, I agree with you. Gender-neutral language is not my cup of tea. It can change the authors literary intent at times. For example, in Luke 15, Luke wants to set up a contrast between a man and a women in his two parables. The parable of the lost sheep starts with "What man of you..." (Luke 15:4) and the parable of the lost coin starts with "Or what woman..." (Luke 15:8). At least that is how the ESV has it.
Most new translations ruin this with gender neutral language.
NIV: "Suppose one of you..." "Or suppose a woman..."
NRSV: "Which one of you..." "Or what woman"
[:^)]
0 -
elnwood said:
Some pet peeves:
1. Sentences beginning with "And." It's good Hebrew (and Greek) style, but it's bad in an English translation, and adds nothing to comprehension.
Yeah, this too! I was reading through Second Samuel today using the ESV and there was a lot of this. Poor grammar drives me nuts - even when it's on purpose!
2 Samuel 14:4-7
4When the woman of Tekoa came to the king, she fell on her face to the ground and paid homage and said, “Save me, O king.” 5 And the king said to her, “What is your trouble?” She answered, “Alas, I am a widow; my husband is dead. 6 And your servant had two sons, and they quarreled with one another in the field. There was no one to separate them, and one struck the other and killed him. 7 And now the whole clan has risen against your servant, and they say, ‘Give up the man who struck his brother, that we may put him to death for the life of his brother whom he killed.’ And so they would destroy the heir also. Thus they would quench my coal that is left and leave to my husband neither name nor remnant on the face of the earth.”
0 -
I will point something else out that goes with our education.....60 percent of high school seniors cant pass the GED and its getting 3 times harder as of 2014.
0 -
David Ames said:Mitchell said:
gender-accurate translations
I am Lost.
Are gender-accurate translations true to the original wordings [[only men]] or true to the the "TRUE" meaning of the text in context. [[gender neutral]]
Well first off, I reject the idea that words have meaning outside context. Any word can mean pretty much anything on its own, and only in the usage of a writer within a sentence does it gain specific meaning.
Second, the original wordings didn't say only men. The Greek masculine (whether a pronoun or a noun like ἀδελφοι) doesn't indicate a "group of men," it indicates a "group that includes men." All the masculine tense tells us is that is wasn't just women. It could have been just men, or just as well could have been a mixed group.
It used to be that translators could use the masculine in English to match the masculine in Greek, since both could indicate either a male or mixed group. For better or for worse, English doesn't have that option anymore. There's no good way to express these ideas in the English without committing to a particular gender makeup. Using the English masculine isn't a "literal" translation, because in current usage that explicitly excludes women. Similarly, something like "brothers and sisters" explicitly includes women, which the Greek doesn't do either. Both options are interpretive. So we can go with something awkward that doesn't get the meaning across at all (e.g. "siblings" or "brothers and maybe also sisters"), or we can make the (theologically and Biblically justifiable) interpretive decision that when Paul says "brothers," he probably doesn't just mean men.
Or we could make the interpretive decision that Paul did in fact mean only men. In my view, that's exactly what non-inclusive translations have done, intentionally or not, because that's what "brothers" means. If I say "nobody was at the movie except for me and my brothers," you would be flat out, objectively wrong if you assumed my sisters were there too. If a translation says God has only chosen the "brothers," it says just as explicitly that He hasn't chosen the sisters. That's bad theology, and doesn't belong in anybody's translation. There are some places where an exclusively male translation is appropriate, but the translators must be careful and aware that when they use the masculine, they are excluding women and ought to have good reason to think the author meant to exclude women.
The only other option is to say we have two versions of English - one for the Bible and one for the vernacular. As George's quote above shows, Wycliffe might have something to say about that.
0 -
In my final year in seminary, some 28 years ago, I used my chapel preaching opportunity to call our community to confession over the failure of our language. Back then I sounded alarms about the imagery and vocabulary of everyday church life, but I could just as easily have displayed my passion for gender-inclusive language in Scripture.
Consider this: You’re the interpreter of Matthew 5.47. You have a choice:1) You can choose “brothers and sisters,” a phrase that both clearly and accurately conveys the original text, and is not subject to confusion.
2) Or you can choose “brothers,” a word that accurately conveys the original text, but is also subject to multiple interpretations.
Why would you choose words that can be interpreted to mean something other than what the text intends, when legitimately you have the option of using words that mean only what the text intends?0 -
Mitchell I would generally agree with your thoughts. Of course, words even in isolation are held to a range of possible meaning. Indeed, with the inclusion of other words (i.e., context) their actual/singular meaning is revealed to the reader.
While I enjoy meaning-based translations, with regards to word-for-word translation, I would insist that form also communicates meaning to us. Form is generally obscured or even lost in meaning-based translation.
All this gender discussion is based upon folk’s theology with respect to whether there is a different role for males and females in the church. While I see such a difference in the Word of God, I am not bothered by meaning-based translations being more inclusive where both sexes are being referred too, but admittedly this is a further interpretative challenge by the translation team away from the words in the original languages.
When speaking I pay attention to masculine pronouns, especially in the Gospel meeting, to ensure no young girl thinks for a moment that God’s salvation is not for her too (the assembly uses the KJV, I use the NKJV).
My generation readily understood mankind included men and women, boys and girls. While it is also an important theological reality (i.e., all come from the first man Adam), I understand the changes in society and language, and will therefore use humankind when speaking. I prefer the use of brethren (KJV, NKJV) when appropriate over brothers (HCSB), but I am fine with brothers and sisters (NIV, NLT). With the exception of a few passages, I believe all this gender-inclusion debate has more “heat than light.”
Regards
0 -
Well, I continue to think the issue of hiding 'men' in the Bible is modern theology. Which is fine; quite a few denominations recognize continuing prophetic introductions of the divine, and can re-write the theology as needed.
But you'd be hard pressed to find women in the OT without a sizable number of pages to try to argue it (talking about religious gatherings, or 'at the gate' where the religious writings would have significance).
The NT isn't far behind. Most modern denominations have dumped prophesy, gifts, etc as described in 1 Cor. and instead run with the pastorals. Women are A-OK not even attending the meetings since they already paid their 'Eve' dues. It's the men that have serious problems and have to go.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB, with regards to 1 Corintians, perhaps more so we have adopted the divisions and spiritual pride, and I fear the sin within the church, in addition to those things Paul corrects them concerning the Lord's Supper.
Regards
0 -
Paul Golder said:George Somsel said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gwBruce Dunning said: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.
OK, you made me laugh out loud...
George! *smile* Thank you! Very appropriate indeed! Peace to all!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Josh said:
Kids now-a-days can't spell, don't like reading, and have ugly print handwriting.
I belong to a congregation that offers a day school and is very interested in educating the next generation. They have also been know to host student-teachers as well. A few years ago the K/1 teacher had a student teacher and they found out that the college student-teacher was unable to even READ cursive handwriting... It is a different world out there.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
As an educator, I don't see the same level of need for the skill of cursive handwriting that has existed in times past. I don't think it is a bad skill to develop, but keyboarding (whether on computers or smart phones) has utterly eclipsed handwriting as a means of communication. Don't misunderstand, handwriting is always going to be necessary, but the purpose behind learning cursive has lost most of its shine. I just scanned the papers I collected today from high school aged students, and only one or two used cursive-like style, and even that was applied to essentially print-like letter forms. Fwiw, that is pretty much what my cursive style is too--a combination of print and cursive. Honestly, I much prefer trying to read print as opposed to cursive; the discreet elements make discernment less of a chore. Don't be at all surprised if cursive goes the way of swordplay, equestrian, and blacksmithing in terms of "must have" skill sets...and in my opinion, each of those three precede cursive in the importance cue.
En garde! [I]
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
My aunt born in 1908 rarely used cursive - it was diminishing in importance even before keyboarding became critical. After all, when did the typewriter replace handwriting in legal documents?
And, BTW, can we stay out of theology? Translation if done well should be a linguistic not theological endeavor. Yes, I recognize that every translation is an interpretation but the intent of any translation should be to reflect the original meaning as well as possible in the target language not to reflect the translators' theology.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
You're certainly welcome to pursue your theology. But the transition from hebrew/aramaic to greek was pure theology. And so today as well. There's nothing neutral in human communication.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
And, BTW, can we stay out of theology? Translation if done well should be a linguistic not theological endeavor. Yes, I recognize that every translation is an interpretation but the intent of any translation should be to reflect the original meaning as well as possible in the target language not to reflect the translators' theology.
That's fair, but my main point is that there is no non-theological translation available to us when it comes to gender issues. Either we explicitly include women (thus going further than the original languages) or we explicitly exclude women (thus, again, going further than the original languages). Theology is the only way to adjudicate.
0 -
DMB said:
There's nothing neutral in human communication.
Hey, hey, hey...the Swiss are neutral!
[8-|]
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
And, BTW, can we stay out of theology?
So if we comment on an discussion that is against the forum rules to begin with, we can't discuss that which is also against the forum rules? [:)]
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Mitchell said:
there is no non-theological translation available to us when it comes to gender issues.
I disagree. I see it as strictly a linguistics issue that some have chosen to make theological. It is a case in which English is changing in a manner that requires a change in the English translation. But either way it's not a Logos issue.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Ahah! That's why they can hit those high notes when they yodel. [:S]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0
