View Single Post
  #15  
Old 12-05-2008, 12:15 PM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Bro. Avery,

As usual, we seem to be on the same page on most of this. The only responses to your statements I offer are the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
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.
I only brought that up to demonstrate that an exact word for word equivalent is not always possible. I was using that example to preface my next statement that idiomatic expressions are also an example of when a literal translation is not possible. (bearing in mind that such are exceptions and exceptions prove the rule) Nevertheless, I'll try to be more clear next time.
Quote:
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
Dr. Cobb's whole point to the article is that those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the KJV and those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the Greek & Hebrew are both wrong. All resources should be considered.

Dr. Cobb's last statement was, "So, do we translate from the English or the Greek? Yes—and from the Portuguese too!"