Page 4 of 5 (83 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
This post has 82 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 67
Brian Whalen | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:56 PM

Are there people here that think this is a translation?  C'mon now, isn't the translation vs paraphrase difference being taught?

Brian Whalen

http://www.mcnazarene.com

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2009 6:10 PM

BrianWhalen:

Are there people here that think this is a translation?  C'mon now, isn't the translation vs paraphrase difference being taught?

I think that it's pretty clear, if you follow the discussion, that people recognize the difference.

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

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2009 6:18 PM

BrianWhalen:

Are there people here that think this is a translation?  C'mon now, isn't the translation vs paraphrase difference being taught?

Apparently not since many seem to think this is a paraphrase.  A paraphrase is not made from the original language.  This is, and it is therefore a translation.

george
gfsomsel

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

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2009 6:48 PM

George Somsel:

BrianWhalen:

Are there people here that think this is a translation?  C'mon now, isn't the translation vs paraphrase difference being taught?

Apparently not since many seem to think this is a paraphrase.  A paraphrase is not made from the original language.  This is, and it is therefore a translation.

Hi George,

Technically a paraphrase is a restatement of a text or passage, using other words. The term "paraphrase" derives via the Latin "paraphrasis" from the Greek para phraseïn (sorry about the transliteration), meaning "additional manner of expression".

In traditional use a paraphrase is a rewording of a document within the same language, although by definition one can conceivably paraphrase while translating.

In Christ,

Paul

 

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

Posts 5622
Todd Phillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2009 7:04 PM

George Somsel:
A paraphrase is not made from the original language. 

Not to be argumentative, but says who?

In fact, who says that a paraphrase and translation are mutually exclusive? The Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek says:

paraphrase. n. A rewording or translation that conveys the sense of the original but is not necessarily a word-for-word rendering. — v. Restate.

So in that sense a paraphrase is a particular kind of translation--one that I think most people understand makes extensive use of dynamic equivalence.

Then the question isn't whether the paraphrase is a translation, but whether it's a good translation.  No?

Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2009 7:21 PM

Todd Phillips:

George Somsel:
A paraphrase is not made from the original language. 

Not to be argumentative, but says who?

In fact, who says that a paraphrase and translation are mutually exclusive? The Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek says:

paraphrase. n. A rewording or translation that conveys the sense of the original but is not necessarily a word-for-word rendering. — v. Restate.

So in that sense a paraphrase is a particular kind of translation--one that I think most people understand makes extensive use of dynamic equivalence.

Then the question isn't whether the paraphrase is a translation, but whether it's a good translation.  No?

Not to be argumentative, but to argue the matter, huh?  Smile   It seems that people simply do not mean what they say.  They aren't going to mention something yet that is precisely what they do.  They don't want to be argumentative, but argue is precisely what they do.  It's a great life if you don't weaken.

This is a little tidbit I picked up from Wayne Leman who is a translator for SIL and who runs the Bible Translation list.

george
gfsomsel

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

Posts 5622
Todd Phillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2009 9:51 PM

George Somsel:
Not to be argumentative, but to argue the matter, huh?

George,

What about my question?

I'm sorry the manner of asking it distracted you, I'll try to be more direct.  I try to temper statements on the internet since non-verbal sentiment is missing from the medium.  Plus, I DON'T want to be argumentative, which is argument for the sake of arguing. I would like to know why you say what you said for my own edification and understanding.

Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2009 10:17 PM

Todd Phillips:
What about my question?

Asked and answered.  Read my previous reply.

george
gfsomsel

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

Posts 5622
Todd Phillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 26 2009 10:29 PM

George Somsel:
Asked and answered.  Read my previous reply.

Sorry, I thought that you were saying Wayne Leman was responsible for your understanding of people not saying what they mean. Stick out tongue

Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2009 6:55 PM

Wow Guys! Of all the forum threads I've read, this one takes the cake. I had to read it through twice and sleep on it. I am compelled to say some words:

Regarding the EP paraphase or ANY paraphrase--I couldn't  improve on this statement:
Joe Miller   Replied: Sat, Jun 20 2009 2:53 AM
"It is a commentary, published as a Bible."
-------------------------
Same for my response to God's scriptures:
Alain Maashe   Replied: Sat, Jun 20 2009 4:26 PM
"I must conform my thoughts and understanding to Him, not the other way around."

--------------------------------------------
John McComb   Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 3:52 PM
"One has to wonder, though, where exactly it was that Paul was "immersed" when he was baptized in Judas' house. In the hot tub maybe? Perhaps Judas had an indoor well and he was lowered down on a rope."

--My missionary father immersed a Japanese convert in our home "ofuro" (about 24"x24"x42"deep) while standing outside the tub.
--I also figured the chlorine in swimming pool where I was baptized must have been needed to wash away my dirtier-than-usual sins.Embarrassed

But seriously, John McComb   Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 3:52 PM
"I wonder why we choose to argue about methodology like this, as if scripture was a book of incantations whereby every gesture and word must be exactly right in order for the magic to work."

If God didn't really mean "don't touch the Ark of the Covenant" why did Uzzah die for it? I trust God means everything he says!
Like Ted Hans said - "I have too much respect for the Bible to replace it with my own commentary."
-----------------------------------------------

 

 

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2009 6:59 PM

And more words:


George Somsel   Replied: Wed, Jun 24 2009 12:28 AM
"The lunatic fringe of Christianity..."

Everybody here envisions a different culprit when we read this label.
I personally see a big crowd including:
William Barclay - who discounts the supernatural miracles of Christ
Karl Barth - "praying to the saints" ??????
The guy who says the KJV can be used to correct the originals.
Anybody who has a "New revelation" that contradicts the Bible
(like SDA, JWs, Mormon's, most TV evangelists, my friend "Buster"...)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel DeVilder   Replied: Thu, Jun 25 2009 10:10 AM
I always consult more literal versions when doing foundational study. (NASB, ESV, NET--slightly less literal, but not so dynamic as NIV, etc).  Always. But even THOSE translations are not void of their own theological leaning. All you have to do is try to translate the enigmatic Romans 9:22 to see that.  Sometimes even, and especially, "literalness" is not the utopia we make it out to be. certainly "thought for thought" has its problems too. But it is not "wrong" in and of itself....."
".....Each brings something to the table. Find out what it is, use it with all humility and with a relentless heart for the truth and love of God."

My first response almost was "So when can we expect the Milk-Toast Concensus Translation to come out?" But I considered what I actually DO rather than what I say.
That is, although I know the Word of God is alive & powerful,
I do have Barclay's Daily Study Bible,
I read Barth,
KJV is my preference,
I even own SDA commentaries, Mormon texts and still like Buster.

Just remember who's words you are reading!
------------------------------------------------------

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2009 7:17 PM

MatthewCJones:
my friend "Buster"

Who's this, Buster Crabbe?

george
gfsomsel

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

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2009 7:26 PM

My friend "Buster" told me one day the Holy Spirit spoke to him in an audible voice while he was taking a shower. He was told to divorce his wife.

I told him while I wasn't going to dispute that he had heard a voice saying that, I did contend it was not the Holy Spirit talking.

It wasn't Balam's donkey or Karl Barth's dead dog but I KNEW the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict the written word of God.

"Buster" divorced his wife anyway. One of those lunatic fringe things - Like feeling the need to publish one's paraphase of the Almighty God's living word, believing one can improve upon God.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2009 7:35 PM

MatthewCJones:
One of those lunatic fringe things - Like feeling the need to publish one's paraphase of the Almighty God's living word, believing one can improve upon God.

If the Authorized Version is the word of God, why should you learn Greek and Hebrew -- after all, once you translate it, it isn't the same, is it?  On the other hand, if inspiration is verbal and plenary and the originals are the standard, we should be like the Moslems and not translate it.

george
gfsomsel

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

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2009 8:07 PM


I said KJV is my preference. Geneva Bible is a close second.
I read English at 2000 words a minute. My Greek & Hebrew reading skills aren't quite that fast.
I'm sticking with English for now. Geeked
I'm not working on any translating. But I have heard of an American translating the KJV single-handedly into Spanish saying it will be more inspired than the Reina-Valera which predates the AV.

By originals you mean NA27 & the BHS? Why abandon older manuscripts?
I have the Qur'an in English, probably translated by the "lunatic fringe" of Islam.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2009 8:21 PM

MatthewCJones:

By originals you mean NA27 & the BHS? Why abandon older manuscripts?
I have the Qur'an in English, probably translated by the "lunatic fringe" of Islam.

Which older manuscripts?  The NA27 is based mostly on the very oldest manuscripts we have.  Do you mean Stephanus?  That is a relatively new and very corrupt version based mostly on late manuscripts.

The Quran was probably translated by LIBERAL Muslims.

george
gfsomsel

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

Posts 1052
Kolen Cheung | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2010 9:29 PM

Hello, do you guys know which paraphrase is good? I want to find a good paraphrase that the author(s) really know the word and make an accurate "exposition". Are there such kind of paraphrase?

Thanks.

Posts 67
Brian Whalen | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2010 9:53 PM

A paraphrase is by definition not going to be super accurate.

From most to least accurate it goes something like this.

orig. languages--interlinears--word for word translations--thought for thought translations--paraphrases

The Message and other paraphrases are not for for accurate study, they are additional or secondary resources at the most.

Brian Whalen

http://www.mcnazarene.com

Posts 33257
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2010 10:08 PM

Brian Whalen:
orig. languages--interlinears--word for word translations--thought for thought translations--paraphrases

You realize that many language scholars would not agree with you, right? Language is used to communicate thoughts ... in Chomskian terms it is deep structure not surface structure that one attempts to express in a translation.

It occurs to me that while I bemoan the lack of rhetorical, logical and philosophical works in Logos, I ought to add linguistics to the list

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1052
Kolen Cheung | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2010 10:11 PM

But I heard that some dead guys' paraphrase are great. e.g. Conybeare, Hawson. These are kind of semi-commentary. They comment on the text, but within the limit of a paraphrase. And when we talk about commentaries, of course it cannot compare to the Bible, but some of them try to be as objective and accurate as possible to make an exposition on the text. So, are there such kind of modern paraphrase that has similar aim?

Thanks.

Page 4 of 5 (83 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS