Tweet
Originally posted by molly bloom
I don't have to prove the N.I.V. 's bias one way or another: I have only to show my point, that a translator changes a text when putting it into another language.
They may do so because there is a specific term that doesn't translate too easily (Weltanschauung, elan, chutzpah, manana) because there is a concept not fully understood, or non-existent in the language/culture the text is being put into, or because of their particular bias, be it sectarian or political, and so on.
I fail to see what's ecumenical about your use of the N.I.V.- Roman Catholicism may be the latest sect you've joined, but your use of a particular version of the Bible is your choice, presumably because it suits your viewpoints.
English Presbyterians or Scots Calvinists may quote from the Authorized King James Version rather than the Geneva Bible, but it makes them no more ecumenical than me- it could simply be they recognise good prose when they see it.
I know that many evangelicals favour the N.I.V and many don't; I'm also aware that there have been (and presumably will be) many translations of the Bible into English and other languages, and that differing Christian sects prefer their interpretations and their translations to others.
Presumably you don't favour the Quakers' injunction against oath-taking- for which they cite Biblical justification. Or the Jehovah's Witnesses' injunctions against celebrating birthdays, Christmas or the transfusion of whole blood- for which again they cite Biblical precedent.
With regard to your prose style- snippy comments about humility don't enter into it- I've studied the English language and literature in English and thought I'd just give you the benefit of my experience.
I don't have to prove the N.I.V. 's bias one way or another: I have only to show my point, that a translator changes a text when putting it into another language.
They may do so because there is a specific term that doesn't translate too easily (Weltanschauung, elan, chutzpah, manana) because there is a concept not fully understood, or non-existent in the language/culture the text is being put into, or because of their particular bias, be it sectarian or political, and so on.
I fail to see what's ecumenical about your use of the N.I.V.- Roman Catholicism may be the latest sect you've joined, but your use of a particular version of the Bible is your choice, presumably because it suits your viewpoints.
English Presbyterians or Scots Calvinists may quote from the Authorized King James Version rather than the Geneva Bible, but it makes them no more ecumenical than me- it could simply be they recognise good prose when they see it.
I know that many evangelicals favour the N.I.V and many don't; I'm also aware that there have been (and presumably will be) many translations of the Bible into English and other languages, and that differing Christian sects prefer their interpretations and their translations to others.
Presumably you don't favour the Quakers' injunction against oath-taking- for which they cite Biblical justification. Or the Jehovah's Witnesses' injunctions against celebrating birthdays, Christmas or the transfusion of whole blood- for which again they cite Biblical precedent.
With regard to your prose style- snippy comments about humility don't enter into it- I've studied the English language and literature in English and thought I'd just give you the benefit of my experience.
a lot of bibles are just changes made to the king james
there was a literalness chart I saw a decade or so ago, on it it had bibles that tried to literally write word for word from some original on one end, and bibles that were translated paraphrases on the other
the NIV is more paraphrased than most btw, but when you get far towards the literal side you get ones that aren't very readable or that arguable has meaning lost by not including context
I would guess the very best thing to do (if you were really interested) would be to learn greek and latin (and hebrew) and read all the copies that bible translators base there work on
of course, as you pointed out, there is still going to be some big interpretation going on, but at least that will mostly be your own (it would of course be a lot better if you were a native speaker of the languages in question)
Jon Miller
(I beleive that there are three very old copies of the NT that are second century or so that most translators use today, one is in Rome, one is in England, and one is somewhere elese?)
Comment