Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. Verse Tool: show

Preferred Bible Translation

Re: Preferred Bible Translation

Postby Timios » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:45 pm

The mechanics of the Spanish language just makes a word-for-word translation of 2 English words into 3.


To me, the expression "word for word" means that every single word in a passage in one language is translated into a single word in another. The example you gave above is not "word for word." It is "3 words for 2 words." Perhaps "thought for thought" would be a better way of putting it.
Timios
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:57 pm

Re: Preferred Bible Translation

Postby Homer » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:38 pm

Hi remade,

You wrote:

"God atones for our sin," might be, "God dies and pays the price for our sins," in a thought for thought translation. It's the same thought, but just not a word-for-word translation, why? Because they extracted the thought of "atones" into more contemporary words.

Does that all make sense?

The problem with the "thought for thought" translations is that not everyone agrees on what the thoughts are. Underlined in the quote above is a perfect example because it is a statement of opinion (which I have no disagreement with). Theologians have disagreed, for many centuries, about what the atonement accomplished.

Thought for thought is, more or less, opinion. I think it is best, as nearly as possible, to translate word for word, then if we need to we can go to the Greek. And that will not settle some questions (see above). Then we look at context, what the scriptures say elsewhere, etc.

Anyway, I prefer the NASB or NKJV.
User avatar
Homer
 
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Preferred Bible Translation

Postby willowtree » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:36 pm

Timios wrote:
The mechanics of the Spanish language just makes a word-for-word translation of 2 English words into 3.


To me, the expression "word for word" means that every single word in a passage in one language is translated into a single word in another. The example you gave above is not "word for word." It is "3 words for 2 words." Perhaps "thought for thought" would be a better way of putting it.


Original. - "An inch is as good as a mile."

Word for word -- 2.5cm is as good as 1.6 kilometers.
Thought for thought - a centimeter is as good as a kilometer.

Graeme
God, who is Rich in mercy, made us Alive with Christ, Even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by GRACE you have been saved. Eph 2:4.
User avatar
willowtree
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 1:56 pm
Location: Sooke BC Canada

Re: Preferred Bible Translation

Postby dwilkins » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:07 pm

In the last few years I've become a fan of the ESV. Before that, I split my time between NKJV and NASB. Translations can't be perfect.

Doug
dwilkins
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Preferred Bible Translation

Postby Singalphile » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:25 pm

The distinction between "word-for-word" and "thought-for-thought" that makes sense to me can be seen by this demo:

Select English-to-Spanish at translate.google.com.

Word-for-Word

Type in "God" --> you get "Dios".
Erase "God" and type "loves" --> you get "ama"
Erase "loves" and type "you" --> you get "tú"

That would be a true word-for-word translation. You work on one word at a time, without respect to context or grammar. The translator doesn't even know what the previous or next word is.

Thought-for-Thought

Type in "God loves you." --> you get "Dios te ama."

That's thought for thought. It obviously took grammar/context into account.

Thought-for-thought is necessary if you want anything grammatically correct and readable.

blueletterbible is pretty awesome, alright.
Singalphile
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Preferred Bible Translation

Postby psimmond » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:13 pm

I prefer NASB but like others have said, it's good to compare to see how other translation teams handle various texts. What I appreciate most about NASB is when they insert additional words, they place them in italics so you can see they were not part of the original text.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen
User avatar
psimmond
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA

Re: Preferred Bible Translation

Postby Si » Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:04 pm

I have read quite a lot out of four major translations: KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB. I finally landed on the NKJV being my main Bible translation. Although I do use all the above mentioned translations (and others) in parallel to study.

First of all, I think the NKJV has the most literary beauty of the modern translations, which is important for me; but it also maintains a high degree of formal equivalence, and italicizes words not found in the original. Also, it is important for me to have a fixed Bible text to use. Understandably the ESV and NASB must be updated regularly to keep up with current scholarship. That is wonderful as a study resource, but not as my main Bible. I like that the NKJV maintains a lot of traditional Biblical vocabulary (brethren, tares, incorruptible, seed, instead of brothers, weeds, imperishable, offspring). I also like how the NKJV has all the major variants from the critical and majority text in the footnotes. In that sense it is somewhat of a neutral Bible. They present the straight textus receptus, and let you decide if a critical or majority variant is the better reading.
Si
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:03 am
Location: Wisconsin

Previous

Return to General Bible Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest