View Single Post
  #13  
Old 12-05-2008, 11:31 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

Greetings, Manny. Nice to chat again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
I'm sure you already knew these things about me from past conversations. I state my position for the sake of others.
Yes, your position has always been stronger than what is on the web-site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
If I may be a little knit-picky, I disagree with referring to Scrivener's text as a "back-translation".
I agree that it is imprecise, and modified it later. "(ie. picking and choosing sources from Beza, Stephanus and other)". The problem with calling it a back-translation is that it can imply new translation. A better phrase would be back-reconstruction and I likely will switch to that in the future, or something similar (back-compilation, reverse-source-text .. hmmm, what is best). Perhaps "source reconstruction with Beza as the primary text".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
.. some of these men have a sincere desire to help people by providing them the pure words of God. They are doing the best they know how to figure out what is the best way to do that.
I agree. There is an isolationist tendency among King James Bible defenders that allows our opponents to ignore the foundational base of our position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
I disagree with referring to the KJV translators' choice of wording (God forbid) in this instance as Dynamic Equivalence.
From my way of thinking, a "dynamic equivalence" translation can, on occasion, be an accurate translation, more meaningful and accurate that a slavishly literal translation. However if you view DE as ipso facto a bad thing, then you need a more involved construct, as you have given. A Formal Equivalence translation can, on some occasions, be un-literal (e.g. some idioms in either the source or target language). I just allow for calling those occasions "dynamic equivalence" and you are concerned that this would represent or allow a DE translation philosophy, an understandable concern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
2 Tim. 3:16 when they translated the 1 compound word "theopneustos" into 5 english words "given by inspiration of God"..
Yes, but I would not consider the result of a phrase representing a single word to have much to do with the "Dynamic Equivalence" question, since the single word has component parts of the phrase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
The KJV translators were experts in the original languages on a level that today’s pseudo-scholars will never attain to.
Right, no comparison. Likely, very few today can take an unpointed Hebrew text and give a sermon in English fluently, directly out of the text. Similar with Hebrew and Greek "lexicon scholars". This stumbling limitation is the soft underbelly of today's computer-oriented scholarship. The folks (with an occasional exception) simply are not fluent masters of the languages, as were the Oxford and Cambridge and Westminster scholars of the 1600s. Publish or perish, consult on a version, study arcane cognates, but no simple, powerful depth and clarity. No living, breathing, daily conversation, study and understanding of the languages. Replaced by looking into an Akkadian cognate and running around town to pick up a roast beef sandwich and dozens of media and puter and scholarly diversions ; of little import. I've had enough discussions with the 'experts' today to tell that their brain synapses tend to be somewhat frazzled as well, it seems more important to them to try to prove the Bible is unpure or unknown or strange than simply the pure and perfect word of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
Those who criticize the KJV translators for translating an idiom in the original languages (mA genomia) into an idiomatic expression in the receptor language (God forbid) fail to appreciate the expertise of the KJV translators for this proper methodology.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
Keep in mind that we are dealing with EXCEPTIONS here.
Right, most verses and sections do not have these types of questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
it is an error to refer to exceptions in word for word translation as Dynamic Equivalence because the dynamic equivalence method of translating is not concerned with conveying the most literal sense of the source but rather the most "understandable" sense for the reader.
Since "dynamic equivalence" historically was a term used for a translation as a whole, I'll consider only using it in that regard in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
Bro. Avery, you obviously must have skimmed through the articles. Dr. Rex Cobb was trying to explain that both the KJV and the original languages should be used when translating into another language.
The main statement begins as follows:

1. A translation should always be based upon the right source text: For the Hebrew Scriptures, (i.e. the Old Testament) the Masoretic Text ...For the New Testament, the Received Text as edited by Dr. Scrivener in 1894


No mention of the King James Bible, the closest is point #8.

8. Translation efforts should be compared to long-established Received Text translations to verify accuracy in translations.

Which is still not a direct reference.

They also have.

11. Translators should remember that the grammar of the original languages “trumps” the grammar of the national language. This may create some “unusual phrasing” but it preserves accuracy.

This could be read as "trumping" the King James Bible grammar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-05-2008 at 11:40 AM.