You've got a little glory on your face
I was reading 2 Corinthians 3 this morning (yes, I read "Our Daily Bread") and thought it was really cool. I had a slightly different take on it than the ODB author. First of all, there's something cool in the first 3 verses. Paul calls the church of Corinth "Christ's letter." It made me imagine that God is trying to communicate with the people of the world, and the way He choses to do that, besides with His Word (the Bible), is by writing them another letter through the lives of His church. Unfortunately, there are plenty of churches perverting His message and actually hurt His message instead of expressing it. We should accurately express the love and judgment of God to others in our lives and as a church body. If nothing else, to show the love and peace we have as members of God's family!
Paul jumps into his "Romanesque" talk about how we need to shed the Old Testament law structure (he refers to it as "the letter" in verse 6) and take on the new convenant of faith in Christ alone and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The part I took from 7-18 was more about Christ's glory reflecting on our faces. Moses's face was shining so brightly as a reflection of the glory of God, that his face had to be veiled. However, it eventually faded away. Just like the necessity of keeping the law of the Old Testament. So if obtaining the law and meeting with God once made Moses's face shine with glory, how much more obvious should it be to other that we are "glowing" with Christ's glory? Because the salvation we are offered now through the faith in Christ is so much more powerful than the keeping of the law was back then. The keeping of the law was simply to point out that it couldn't be done and that everyone was a sinner needing God. Now we have full access to God and can communicate with Him whenever we want!
Verse 15-16 says "However, to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is removed." The Jews were still following the Old Testament law and regarding their good works as their way to salvation. They were dimming the true glory of God. It can only be fully recognized through faith in Christ!
And here's my favorite. Verse 18. "We all, with unveiled faces, are reflecting the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory; this is from the Lord who is the Spirit." We should have glowing faces (figuratively speaking)! People should know right away that there is something different about us when they meet us. They should see a happiness and a love for God that shines brightly. We are like the moon is to the sun. We should be reflecting God's glory to the people around us. We should be like Christ! That's what sanctification is all about. Being made more like Christ. Let's not wait until we die to be like Christ, let's be like Him now while people on earth can witness it and want to have the joy that we have and "turn to the Lord."
In Him,
Aaron
Brasilian Dancers
Check out my
Tech Blog to see some dancers I videoed in Brasil. Unfortunately, MSN Spaces won't let me link up the video here, so you'll have to check it out on my
Tech Blog...
Legal Disclaimer
Legal Disclaimer: "Merry Christmas" (hereafter "The Greeting")... this
announcement is not intended to offend, alienate, foster hate or be a
precursor for any egregious acts (legal or illegal), thoughts, words or
deeds. "The Greeting" is made only in the context to which it may be legally
received, if in fact, it is received at all. It is not intended to be nor
should it be, in any way, connected to any other type of greeting, real or
imagined, past, present or future. No references to any persons,things or
substances, animate or inanimate, real, fictional or otherwise should be
assumed by the reader or receiver of the greeting (hereafter, 'the
greetee').
The greeting is not being made to (nor will tenders be accepted from or on
behalf of) nonbelievers in 'The Greeting' in any jurisdiction in which
making and or accepting the greeting would violate that jurisdiction's laws
or feelings (also refer to local statutes and ordinances related to'The
Greeting'). In any jurisdiction in which perceived 'greeting' is not
welcomed nor agreed upon by all 'greetees', then the 'greetor' of 'The
Greeting' will be held harmless in this life and the next, including
allissuing posterity both now and forever. 'The Greeting' may be made by a
licensed 'greetor' and any liability assumed or created by the 'greetee'
shall be the sole responsibility of said 'greetor'.
If you have been aggrieved, offended, waylaid, parlayed, filleted or delayed
in any way, either real, imagined or perceived by said 'Greeting' and or by
'greetor' as the result of receiving said 'greeting', you can call toll free
1-800-CHRISTMAS to speak with legal counsel."
Copyright: Urban Family Council, 2001
Re: Translation discussion
Well, we're obviously at a key disagreement in the philosophy of dynamic equivalent translation. For those that are having a hard time following, let me try to summarize. Remember, Dynamic Equivalence is the theory of translation used by such works as the NIV, the CEV, GNB, NLT, etc.
Aaron - Dynamic Equivalence translation actually interprets (both in language and in doctrine) what the Bible says in order to make it more readable for the reader.
Wally - Dynamic Equivalence does not interpret, it translates the original authors' meaning into English.
Wally, definitely let me know if you think I misrepresented your stance on the issue. I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth.
First of all, we've made some progress. Originally, it was stated that "
There is NO "interpretation" inherent in this process" and now we're agreeing that interpretation is inherent in the process, but debating whether it's "language interpretation" or "doctrinal interpretation." Obviously, if we were talking about translation with the complete removal of interpretation, we would be offering a literal word for word translation instead of a "thought-for-thought" interpretation.
So what's the difference between "language interpretation" and "doctrinal interpretation?" Language interpretation is a judgment that translators make regarding which English words best render the meaning of the words in the original biblical text. For example, is the Hebrew word zera best rendered as "seed" or "offspring"? Were the Israelites led through the "desert" or the "wilderness?"
Let's talk about doctrinal interpretation then. Obviously doctrinal interpretation is a judgment about the theological meaning of a passage. Something I think we should all agree should not be included in a Bible, but should be left for the reader to decide, or for commentaries to expound upon. So do dynamically equivalent translations embed doctrinal interpretation? Let's look.
Romans 1:17 says that in the Gospel "the righteousness of God is revealed" (RSV, NASB, ESV). This literal translation of what the original says does not proceed to interpret
whether this righteousness of God is an attribute of God's character or whether it is God's gift of righteousness conferred on those who believe leading to salvation . So how would a dynamic equivalent translate the "thought" of this verse? With any doctrinal interpretation? NIV - "For in the gospel a righteousness FROM God is revealed." NLT - "This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight." GNB - "For the gospel reveals how God puts people right with himself." CEV - "The good news tells how God accepts everyone who has faith." This is far from the literal meaning of the original which said "the righteousness of God is revealed."
Here are some examples from the dynamically equivalent Contemporary English Version:
Rev. 22:21—"The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen." (ESV) becomes "I pray that the Lord Jesus will be kind to all of you" (CEV). (The term "grace" means free unmerited favor and blessing" and it carries a lot of rich theological meaning when it is studied in the various contexts. To change this blessed Bible word to "kindness" is to dilute the Word of God and change its meaning.)
Eph. 2:8—"For by grace you have been saved through faith" (ESV) becomes "You were saved by faith in God's kindness" (CEV). (Again, "grace" is changed to "kindness." The dynamic equivalency translators have also changed almost everything else in this important verse.)
Phil. 1:1—"overseers and deacons" (ESV) becomes "to all of your church officials and officers" (CEV). (The term "deacon" is a technical and important term that is used consistently in Scripture. To water this term down to the vague "church officials and officers" is inexcusable.)
Phil. 1:1—"the saints in Christ" (ESV) becomes "all of God's people who belong to Christ Jesus" (CEV). (The term "saint" means one who is set apart for God, one who is holy; it is from the same Greek words that are translated "holy" and "sanctify." The term has a great depth of meaning when it is studied in the various contexts, but the dynamic equivalency translators typically choose one of the weakest definitions and replace the choice theological word with that definition.)
Rom. 3:10—"none is righteous" (ESV) becomes "none acceptable to God" (CEV). (The term "righteous" means right living, godliness; by changing it to "acceptable," the meaning is diluted and changed. It is true that sinners are not acceptable to God, but that is not what this verse says. The dynamic equivalency translators have interpreted the verse and given the readers their interpretation rather than a precise translation.)
Rom. 3:24—"are justified by his grace" (ESV) becomes "he freely accepts us" (CEV). (The term "justification" means declared righteous.")
1 Cor. 6:11—"But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (ESV) becomes "But now the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the power of God's Spirit have washed you and made you acceptable to God" (CEV). (In this verse, in addition to many other changes, the glorious Bible terms "sanctified" and "justified" have been watered down to "made acceptable to God.")
As Ryken says, "For dynamic equivalent translations, all translation is potentially interpretation - interpretation defined as we define it hermeneutically to mean interpreting the thought of a statement or passage." And further, "For essentially literal translations, translation is translation, and its task is to express what the original says. Only for dynamic equivalent translations is all translation potentially interpretation - something added to the original or changed from the original to produce what the translators think the passage means."
Does a dynamically equivalent translation include doctrinal interpretation? I think the examples above shows it does.
So a dynamic equivalent bible would strive to translate meaning rather than words. Here are quotes from the preface of a few dynamically equivalent translations: GNB - "the meaning of the original." NIV - "the thought of the biblical writers." NLT - "a thought-for-thought translation...has the potential to represent the intended meaning of the original text even more accurately than a word-for-word translation." Here's the problem. Ideas and thoughts depend on words are are expressed by them. When we change the words, we change the meaning. I'll grab a comparative example from Ryken:
Psalm 1:3 ends with a statement of the complete prosperity of the godly person.
"Whatsoever he doeth shall prosper" (KJV)
"In all that he does, he prospers" (RSV, ESV; NASB similar)
"In all that they do, they prosper" (NRSV; NLT nearly identical)
"Whatever he does prospers" (NIV)
"They succeed in everything they do" (GNB)
Do these translations communicate the same meaning? No. Some translations say the prosperity comes in the future (shall prosper) and some say it's a present state (prospers.) Some translations say the person prospers (he prospers) and some say it's "whatever he does" or "they do that prospers. Some translations say it's a godly person (singular) and some say it's a group of people by saying "they." When the words differ, the meaning differs. We can't translate the ideas instead of the words.
Since Todd and Caleb have both said that readability is not the ultimate goal of a dynamic equivalent, I won't argue that point, but some people do say that readability is the key. I like the way Wally put it "Clearer understanding is the ultimate goal." Excellent. To that I would say, if you want to clearly understand God's Word, then read what the original author's of God's word wrote via a literal translation (or as Caleb says, ultimately by reading the original language in which it was written), and then use the Holy Spirit and external commentaries to better understand it.
It bothers me that the dynamically equivalent translations adapt God's Word because they consider me a "modern reader." I want to know what the author had to say in their original text, not what the modern reader dictates it says. Here are some examples from dynamically equivalent prefaces:
GNB - "...to express that meaning in a manner and form easily understood by the readers."
NLT - "Metaphorical language is often difficult for contemporary readers to understand, so at times we have chosen to translate or illuminate the metaphor."
NIV - "Because for most readers today the phrases 'the Lord of hosts' and 'God of hosts' have little meaning, this version renders them 'the Lord Almighty' and 'God Almighty'"
NCV - "Ancient customers are often unfamiliar to modern readers"
Ok, so the last point got off the original topic of conversation. I think I have shown that the dynamic equivalent translations DO indeed entail interpretation, both of language and of doctrine. The length of my e-mail directly correlates with the length of sleep I get at night, so I'm going to call it a night and hope that my point has been sufficiently argued. If not, I'm happy to go more rounds. I'd much rather be doing this than wasting time watching television or participating in some other eternally meaningless activity. :-) This is great fun, I hope we haven't lost everyone with our novel like e-mail thread, but based on some conversations we've had, I'm guessing we might have. My bad, Wally does a good job of keeping his points succinct, I'm the one that rambles...
In Him,
Aaron
Proverbs 30:5-6 ESV - "Every word of God proves true...Do not add to his words"
On 12/15/05, Todd Wallace
wrote:
Responses in BOLD:
-----Original Message-----
From: hornit@gmail.com [mailto:hornit@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aaron Horn
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:39 AM
To: Todd Wallace
Cc: Caleb Ehlers; John Scheppler; Larry Novak; Brett; doctormichael@netins.net; Brian Packard; Andrew [EPM/MTN] Paullus; ritchie@chieves.org; scott@randallcorp.com; shenry@iowatelecom.net
Subject: Re: Translation discussion
Now we're on a roll! Again, can't respond due to the fact that it doesn't really assist in getting this website done for BU, but I wanted to address one key point.
Wally - Aaron, I think you should be careful here. Aaron, you are not a proud man. This phrase can be taken to sound like you are though. I don't think that's what you want to communicate. " Specifically for new believers and young people who have a difficult time following the language of a more literal translation."
Aaron - Excellent point. You are correct that my statement could sound arrogant and I certainly didn't mean for it to. I appreciate your statement that I'm not proud, I'm glad we know each other well enough that you know that, and I appreciate the warning that those that don't know me as well might see it that way. I am FAR from really understanding God's Word. Nor can I easily pick up a King James Version Bible and easily grasp the verses without need for discernment. The idea I was trying to express was that new believer in Christ needs to be fed with milk. As they grow in Christ and continue to walk with Him and meditate on His Word, they start to need the meat of God's Word. (Hebrews 5:12-14) In my opinion (and this could be wrong, they are just examples I think of), the milk is learning about the stories of Christ, the way a Christian should act, the characteristics of God, the call of baptism, stories from the Old Testament, etc. The meat gets into doctrine like election, predestination, true meaning of communion, characteristics of elders/deacons, literal/figurative, etc. When we start to talk about doctrine and things that literally shapes your belief system, it is vital that we are getting the true literal translation, and not what the authors of a "dynamic equivalent" thinks it means.
Again, Aaron, you are making a wrong assumption here. A "dynamic equivalent" should not communicate what the "translator" thinks the TEXT means! It should communicate what the "original author" means!
Predestination and election is a perfect example. Some people take predestination to mean that we have no control over whether we are saved or not. God has already predestined some people to be saved and others to not be. This belief makes for a drastically different attitude about evangelism and the gospel than the belief that man has free will to choose God and that God's predestination is for believers and based on the fact that He is omniscent and already knows whether you will accept Him. I really don't want to get into the predestination/election debate right now, I just wanted to point out that if someone is interpreting God's Word in their translation, then we are reading it as it's already filtered through their ideas of what predestination means (or rather, whether they should be using the word predestination or if that was really the word/idea the author was conveying.) I'd rather see the raw text and use commentaries and studies to determine what it means for myself.
You are continuing to make the same errors, here Aaron. There is a huge distinction between the PROCESS OF LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION, and the process of DOCTRINAL INTERPRETATION.
The best resource I have found on this whole topic is the book "How to Read the Bible for All it's worth". There is an entire section in this book on translations.
Anyway… I will do some more reading, and get back to you.
Thanks Aaron.
Todd
Caleb posted an excellent comment on my blog in response to one of my posts and said, "I think a secure approach, rather than swearing by one version, would be to use multiple translations when studying a text. That way at least you can see the text in different lights and hopefully come to view the original meaning of the text more clearly."
Absolutely. If nothing else, this study has shown me that we can't just say that one version is the perfect infallible translation of exactly what God's authors wrote, unless we study the original manuscripts. This has, on some level, frustrated me that I don't speek Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. Or that God didn't just have it written in English! :-) Stupid Tower of Babel...
The point I was trying to convey was that most young/new believers aren't going to dive into studying the semantics of 5 different versions of the Bible. They mostly want to learn more about Christ and their relationship with Him and to develop that walk. (Note, I'm saying "they" because I don't consider myself a YOUNG believer at this point as I've been a believer for 17 years and have been exposed to and have been pursuing more knowledge for most of those years. I guess relative to those that have been believers for 40 years, I'm definitely young, but my point is that I am moving from "milk to meat" and that stage happens at different times for different people. Am I a seasoned and experienced teacher of God's Word? NO! But I'm working towards it just like the rest of you!) We should ALWAYS be developing our walk, that's for sure. And I'm not saying that I'm any further in my walk than any of you, far be it from me to convey that.
Ok, this e-mail took way too much time. I'd better stop. I apologize for any arrogance I may have conveyed as that was the last thing I wanted to do. We can discuss more about interpretation and the details of dynamic equivalence a bit later...
In Him,
Aaron
On 12/15/05, Todd Wallace < toddwallace@cornerstone-church.com> wrote:
This is fun! Thanks Aaron for the dialogue.
One quick thought…. I will give more later…
I realized that in my response (and then reading your response) that we are talking about 2 types of interpretation:
1. Language interpretation (what does this Greek word mean in English)
2. Theological interpretation (what does this word or phrase say about God)
Yes, and I agree, all translation is LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION. So I will grant to you, that LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION is happening. What I just learned is that that's not what I am arguing against.
In a good translation, the MEANING of the original text should be clearly translated. I am not quite sure why you think one word is better than a phrase, and I disagree with your statement
"Specifically for new believers and young people who have a difficult time following the language of a more literal translation.".
Aaron, I think you should be careful here. Aaron, you are not a proud man. This phrase can be taken to sound like you are though. I don't think that's what you want to communicate.
The problem with the KJV is that the language is wrong in many places. The words have changed their meaning. Language is an ever changing beast. For example, if something is "the Bomb" in 2005, it's cool. In 1992, that meant it wasn't cool. Same holds true for our language in translations. Here is just a quick example:
The King James Bible Word Book by Ronald Bridges and Luther A. Weigle, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, states the following on the inside jacket:
"Did you know that in the King James Version of the Bible the word 'advertise' means 'tell,' 'allege' means 'prove,' and 'conversation' means 'behavior'? That 'communicate' means 'share,' 'take through' means 'be anxious,' and 'prevent' means 'precede'? That 'meat' is a general term for 'food,' and 'anon' and 'by and by' translate Greek words which mean 'immediately'?
These words -- and many like them -- made perfect sense to readers when the KJV was published in 1611. But today, after nearly four centuries of changes in English, few readers know what such words mean. And most readers miss the riches of the all-time favorite King James Bible" [emphasis ours].
I am ok with a translator interpreting for me the English equivalent to the original Greek text. If done properly, it should have the same MEANING in a literal and dynamic equivalent translation. What I do not want, is Theological Interpretation. That would be the definition of a bad translation.
Anyway, I'm rambling. My point? It is quite possible that a DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT translation better communicates the original MEANING of the GREEK, HEBREW, or ARAMAIC text.
Mr. Horn. Your turn. I've taken too much work time already.
Mr. Ehlers? You out there?
Todd
New Translation for the Ten Commandments
Speaking of new translations...
People here in Arkansas have trouble with all those "shalls" and "shall nots" in the Ten Commandments. Folks here just aren't used to talking in those terms. So, some folks in middle Arkansas got together and translated the "King James" into " Pulaski County " language:
The Hillbilly's Ten Commandments
(1) Just one God.
(2) Honor yer Ma & Pa.
(3) No tellin' tales or gossipin'.
(4) Git yourself to Sunday meetin'.
(5) Put nothin' before God.
(6) No foolin' around with another fellow's gal.
(7) No killin.'
(8) Watch yer mouth.
(9) Don't take what ain't yers.
(10) Don't be hankerin' for yer buddy's stuff.
Now that's kinda plain an' simple, don't ya think? Y'all have a good day
[Originally posted December 17, 2005 - 2:59PM]
Re: Translation discussion
[This interaction happened over e-mail, but I thought I would include it here for the benefit of the followers of this debate via Blog]
First of all, this is great fun. If I didn't have guys challenging me on my statements, I might slip into a lull, but you guys keep me digging and reading, I love it! PS, I'm going to give the same caveat that Caleb gave as we have similar styles. If I come right out and say something contradictory, it's not a personal attack by any means, I just don't like to come up with the fluff to make it sound pretty and unoffensive. That being said, I feel like my debate is with the theories, not with any person in particular...
1.
Wally said - I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "dynamic equivalence". If a translation uses this method, the translators are only trying to find words or phrases that " better communicate" the original meaning where no suitable word exists for the current culture. Readability is not the only goal of this process. Clearer understanding is the ultimate goal! There is NO "interpretation" inherent in this process! I think that is the biggest hang up here. Do some use interpretation when translating? Probably. But that's not the fault of the "dynamic equivalence" process. They should not be interpreting the text. It is strictly a language to language conversion.
Aaron replies - Yes, the translators are trying to find words or phrases that "better communicate" what they think the text is trying to communicate. It's not a matter of a word not existing, it's a matter of them feeling the words won't make sense to the readers. You've probably heard dynamic equivalence refered to as "phrase by phrase" as opposed to "word for word" translation. They aren't interpreting each word literally, they are taking the idea and interpreting it.
Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) article on what dynamic equivalence is: Dynamic equivalence (or functional equivalence) attempts to discern and render the thought of the original.
"to discern and render" = "interpret"
I have to straight up disagree that "there is NO 'interpretation' inherent in this process!" The fact that someone is deciding what the literal words MEAN and are providing me with another way of saying what they think the author MEANS or by giving me another analogy, is the very definition of interpretation. From Webster's Dictionary, here are the definitions of "interpretation":
1 : the act or the result of interpreting
2 : a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style
Definition 2 is right on. They are providing you with a particular version of a work. Their version of what the original author of the Scripture was saying. "It's too hard to understand when read literally, so they are going to give you another version (or interpretation) of it so you'll understand it better."
I found an article called "Dynamic Equivalence: A Method of Translation or a System of Hermeneutics" written by Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary. Due to the word being in the title of the article, I'll provide Webster's definition of
hermeneutics:
the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible) Here's a quote from that article:
"From the perspective of a traditional definition of hermeneutics little doubt can be entertained that D-E [Dynamic Equivalence] is, among other things, a system of hermeneutics [Aaron's note: or interpretation]. Perhaps some will respond, however, that all translations are commentaries and hence incorporate the application of hermeneutical principles in arriving at their renderings. This is absolutely true. A certain degree of interpretation is unavoidable, no matter how hard the translator tries to exclude it. Yet a characteristic of formal equivalence [Aaron's note: or essentially literal translation] is its effort to avoid interpretation as much as possible by transferring directly from the surface structure of the source language to the surface structure of the receptor language. By omitting the step of analysis that is built into the D-E approach, interpretation can be excluded to a much higher degree. Since D-E intentionally incorporates interpretation, it obviously has a significantly higher degree of interpretation than formal equivalence and is in a much stronger sense a system of hermeneutics than is formal equivalence."
So, I disagree with the idea that dynamic equivalence is not interpretation. I can go into this further if I haven't fully supported my position that dynamic equivalence does in fact entail interpretation of the original in order to present an acceptable substitute for the reader.
2. Wally said (In reference to my distrust of Wescott and Hort) - Again, their doctrine and/or history of these men should not be in consideration here. The question is "How well did they translate?" and "Can we verify what they did translate?" I would rather have a Mormon who believes in reincarnation translate the text, if I knew fully well he would us the rules of translation well.
Aaron replies - I think their doctrine has to be considered when you take into consideration the fact that these men were motivated to replace the Received Text and made crucial decisions about which verses to delete or question (48 verses), which verses to remove significant portions of verses (193 verses) and which names and titles of the Lord to delete (221). In each of those cases, Westcott and Hort were more liberal in ommission than later translators. When a man is in charge of translating the word of God, I think it's fair to criticize his doctrine. However, the point is well taken that if it is a true literal, word for word interpretation of the Scripture, this shouldn't weigh heavily on the outcome. If Westcott and Hort wrote a dynamically equivalent Bible, however, I'd have some serious issues with calling it the Word of God.
Are we having fun yet? You betcha! I think I should point out here that I really believe that dynamically equivalent translations can have their place. Specifically for new believers and young people who have a difficult time following the language of a more literal translation. However, when we sit around to discuss the deep doctrines of God's Word like in a Bible Study, or in a teaching setting, I think it's important that we read what the author's wrote, not a paraphrase of what they wrote. It seems like in every other Bible Study we've had lately, symantics regarding the original Greek word has come up. I tend to put more faith in a literal translation at that point than a dynamically equivalent translation where there is a "similar meaning" given instead of the original word translated into English.
You've heard the phrase, "The devil's in the details." Well I believe "The doctrine's in the details."
Larry has challenged me to look at the NASB as arguably one of the most literal translations into English available. I've seen that phrase thrown around a lot, but I'm having trouble getting to the meat and potatoes about why that is an accurate statement. However, I'm very open to being convinced that the NASB is the way to go! :-) By the time this is over, I'm probably going to own 30 different translations and it will take me an hour to read 3 verses. Thank goodness for the Compare feature in
e-Sword! :-)
In Him,
Aaron
On 12/14/05, Todd Wallace
wrote:
Hey guys… again, great conversation.
Aaron, let me ask a few questions.
1. You said,
" When you start talking about translations that apply dynamic equivalence instead of essentially literal, you're allowing someone to institute their interpretation right into the text of God's Word, which to me isn't worth the "readability" it provides"
I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "dynamic equivalence". If a translation uses this method, the translators are only trying to find words or phrases that " better communicate" the original meaning where no suitable word exists for the current culture. Readability is not the only goal of this process. Clearer understanding is the ultimate goal! There is NO "interpretation" inherent in this process! I think that is the biggest hang up here. Do some use interpretation when translating? Probably. But that's not the fault of the "dynamic equivalence" process. They should not be interpreting the text. It is strictly a language to language conversion.
2. The second comment I have is with this:
The last thing I'd ever do is read a dynamically equivalent translation by Wescott and Hort knowing a little bit more about the history of who these men were and what they believed (their doctrine).
Again, their doctrine and/or history of these men should not be in consideration here. The question is "How well did they translate?" and "Can we verify what they did translate?" I would rather have a Mormon who believes in reincarnation translate the text, if I knew fully well he would us the rules of translation well.
A similar situation is being played out right now in our courts, with all of the new candidates for Supreme Court Justice. The question (in my mind) is not what political view, religion, or personal lifestyle these men or women uphold.. but whether they will fulfill their duty of judging based upon the law.. with a non partisan judgment. I know that's a big statement, and problems arise when there are cases that needed to be interpreted using the law (so I could be in trouble here). I am about putting the right people in the right places… conservatives if possible.. not because they will judge conservatively, but because they more often are convicted to judge by the law, and not their own preferences. I think you understand my point.
Let me know what you think Aaron. Again, conversations like this are so helpful. Keep us the great work!
Todd
5 Fallacies of the Bible
Ryken mentions in chapter 4 that all translation theories presuppose certain things about the Bible. I'll summarize the fallacies he believes underlie some modern translations.
Fallacy #1 : The Bible Is A Uniformly Simple Book After listing countless examples of how it's NOT a simple book, and that the verses that don't need interpretation are actually the exception to the rule, he points out why this fallacy is a problem. One example he gave of why it's not simple is Matthew 13:11 where Jesus says he speaks in parables because "seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." Many of the statements made, Jesus did not intend to be taken at face value and were deeper than the surface. So when a translator begins with the assumption that the Bible is uniformly a simple book and simplify the vocabulary and syntax, they eliminate theological language. This isn't up to them to be doing, they need to allow the reader to draw conclusions on what is really meant.
Fallacy #2 : The Bible Is A Book Of Ideas Rather Than Concrete Particulars Many translators have the opinion that the Bible is a book of ideas. It does embody many ideas, but we need to be concerned with what the actual text is like before we extract religious meaning from it and translate the details of the text into a set of ideas. What difference does it make? As always, the tendency will be to use translation from one language into another as the occasion to produce the kind of biblical text that corresponds to the translators' conception of what kind of book the Bible is.
Fallacy #3 : The Bible Is A Modern Book Many translations worry about how WE would phrase things today, not how the authors said them. In many translations, ancient customs are replaced by formulations that are immediately accessible. The Bible is an ancient book, not a modern one. It is SUPPOSED to take us back to a different place and time. We don't need to translate it to make it look modern.
Fallacy #4 : The Bible Needs Correction He gives 6 examples of modern translation prefaces that talk about the need to change some text for the benefit of the contemporary reader. One example includes the preface to the SEB: "Sentences are purposely kept short, transparent, and uncomplicated to promote greater understanding. Complex sentence structures are often unnecessary anyway."
Fallacy #5 : The Bible Is A Book Devoid Of Mystery And Ambiguity He gives 4 examples of modern translation prefaces that state the Bible intended one meaning and is unambiguous. However, one look at an example of Scripture like John 12:24-25 will show that it IS mysterious. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains along; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life."
Ryken likens the modern translators trying to put the Bible in understandable terms to medieval Roman Catholic priests that read the Bible in Latin, which the attendees didn't understand, and interpreted it FOR the ignorant church goers.
So, these are the presuppositions that translators might have before they even start translating, which can greatly affect the outcome of the final translation. His next chapter talks about the seven fallacies about translation.
Digression
I want to digress from the topic of Bible Translation for a second. I've been thinking about and talking to people close to me about gossip and backbiting, specifically in the church. It's amazing to me how easy it is for some people, even people I revere as extremely Godly people, to slip into a judgmental state and "innocently" discuss the actions of others with fellow believers. How destructive is it to the body of Christ? At what point do we realize that discussing our negative thoughts of someone with others is not helping anyone? Sadly, I really believe that some people don't even realize they have this problem. It's become such a way of life for them, that it doesn't even occur to them that their slander isn't just innocent conversation, it has a true impact on the body and it's Satan tool to make us less strong and less effective for Christ. As Paul would say, "LET IT NOT BE SO!" I thought I'd list a bunch of verses on the topic of gossip. To bring this full circle to my topic of Bible translations, I'll be quoting from the English Standard Version. :-) Read these verses and prayerfully consider in your heart whether God brought
you to read this post because
you might struggle on some level with this topic. Yes, I'm talking to
you...
Lev. 19:16 - 16You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life[ a] of your neighbor: I am the LORD.
Psa. 34:13 - 13Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit.
Psa. 101:5 - Whoever slanders his neighbor secretly I will destroy. Whoever has a haughty look and an arrogant heart I will not endure.
Prov. 6:19 - a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
Prov 10:18 - The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool.
Prov. 11:9 - 9With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor, but by knowledge the righteous are delivered.
Prov. 11:13 - 13Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered.
Prov. 16:28 - 28A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.
Prov. 17:9 - 9Whoever covers an offense seeks love, but he who repeats a matter separates close friends.
Prov. 18:8 - 8The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels; they go down into the inner parts of the body.
Prov. 20:19 - 19Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with a simple babbler.
Prov. 26:20 - 20For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases.
Matt. 12:36 - 36I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
Eph. 4:29 - 29Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
Eph. 4:31 - 31Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
2 Thess. 3:11 - 11For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.
1 Tim 3:11 - 11Their wives[a] likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.
1 Tim 5:13 - 13Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.
Titus 2:3 - 3Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good,
Titus 3:1-2 - 1Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.
Jam. 4:11 - 11Do not speak evil against one another, brothers.[ a] The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.
1 Peter 2:1 - 1So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.
1 Peter 3:10 - 10For "Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit;..."
I don't have all of the answers and I couldn't be further from perfect, but sometimes I feel like we need to be slapped in the face with these exhortations and not just nod our heads in agreement, but actually digest them and realize that these messages might be intended for
ME. God has used the face slapping technique on me quite a few times in life, and as painful as it is, I have grown leaps and bounds thanks to it.
In Him,
Aaron
History of Translation
Again, my source here is Leland Ryken's book "The Word of God in English." He summarizes some of the main translations that have come about in the History of English Bible Translation. He summarizes them and I will summarize his summaries, so they'll be very basic, but you can learn more about them by Googling their history if it intrigues you.
Wycliffe Bible (1380). John Wycliffe translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into Middle English.
Tyndale's New Testament (1525). This is where Modern English Bible translation begins. William Tyndale was only able to translate the new testament before being killed by a Catholic traitor. 80% of Tyndale's translation eventually found its way into the King James Version. He really started the tradition of English Bible translation as we know it.
Coverdale's Bible (1535). Miles Coverdale was an assistant to Tyndale and continued on his work. This was the first complete Bible in English. It was also the first Bible to include chapter summaries and marginal notes.
Matthew's Bible (1537). John Rogers, pen named "Thomas Matthew", divided the material into chapters and paragraphs, but not verses in included copious notes and cross-references. The first English concordance was based on Matthew's Bible.
The Great Bible (1539). Very large in size, it was championed by Thomas Cromwell, and was a revision of the Matthew's Bible.
Geneva Bible (1560). Bible of the Reformers who fled from Catholic persecution. Contained copious anti-Catholic notes that provided running commentary on the text. Had mass appeal due to it's small size and affordability. It used italics for words not found in the original text but needed to make sense in English and broke paragraphs into verses.
Bishops' Bible (1568). Initiated by Queen Elizabeth to counteract the bias of the Geneva Bible. The committees that produced the King James Version were mandated to use it as the starting point for their translation work.
The King James Version (1611). John Reynolds proposed a new English translation to King James, who commissioned 6 committees of the most knowledgeable biblical scholars of England. It was a revision of previous translations and the beneficiary of the earlier evolving history of English Bible translation. It is an essentially literal translation. Alister McGrath claims that a careful study of the way in which the King James Bible translates the Greek and Hebrew originals suggests that the translators tried to 1) ensure that every word in the original had an English equivalent, 2) highlight all words added to the original for the sake of intelligibility, and 3) follow the word order of the original where possible. Instead of translating the same Hebrew or Greek consistently in the English, the King James translators loved the principles of synonymity (using synonyms instead of verbatim repetition for the same Hebrew or Greek word) and variety; so they multiplied the number of English words used for a given Hebrew or Greek word. Stylistically, the KJV is the greatest English Bible translation ever produced. Its rhythms are matchless. It did not maintain its supremacy after the mid-twentieth century for three main reasons: Its language is now outdated, the translators' knowledge of ancient languages was less reliable than modern knowledge is, and the translation uses a New Testament text (the Textus Receptus) that most scholars no longer consider the most reliable.
Revised Version (1881-1885). Tried to overcome the increasingly obsolete language of the King James Version. Arranged content by paragraphs and improved consistency in placing words added to the original in italics. This was a British movement. American scholars converted it into the American Standard Version to make it less "British," but it didn't catch on.
J. B. Phillips' New Testament (1947-1957). The first real dynamic equivalent Bible. A truly loose colloquial English version.
Revised Standard Version (1946 [NT], 1952 [OT], 1957 [complete], 1971 [rev. NT]). Intended as a revision to the American Standard Version, but also considered a revision to the King James Version. Next to the KJV, the most literary (not literal, literary) translation. Some of its literary excellences, though, carry the price tag of being based on emendations that, although they have the support of ancient versions (especially the Septuagint), have lost credibility in more recent exegetical theory. In translation philosophy, the RSV inclined toward verbal equivalence. It was the first ecumenical (universally accepted across denominations in Christianity) translation. The New Revised Standard Version came out in 1989, but it's not a genuine heir to the RSV, it's a dynamic equivalent that is quite liberal. The true heir to the RSV is the English Standard Version (more on that later.)
New American Standard Bible (1971). For evangelicals who wanted a modern Bible and were distrustful of the RSV, the NASB was the translation of choice until the NIV appeared. The NASB was a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. It's great virtue is its reliability and fidelity to the language of the original. Its weakness is that it ranks low in readability and literary style.
Good News Bible (1976). Also known as Today's English Version. Pushes new translation philosophy to its limits. Very contemporary American speech. The GNB was sponsored by the American Bible Society, which in 1995 also produced the Contemporary English Version, which is even freer than the GNB, which is gender inclusive and avoids theological terms like atonement, redemption, and righteousness. A Bible without the philosophy of righteousness?
New International Version (1978). A true dynamic equivalent, but on the conservative side, it often moves beyond what the original text says to the interpretations preferred by the translators. Readability was a high priority so as readable on a seventh-grade level. Today's New International Version, however, is completely gender-inclusive and very liberal.
New English Bible (1970), Revised English Bible (1989). British translations not making much of a splash in the US. NEB was the first dynamic equivalent produced by a committee whose members were regarded as the best British linguists in the scholarly world at large. However, looked at by many scholars as experimental.
New Living Translation (1996). Published by Tyndale House, the NLT was based on a desire to refute charges that its predecessor, The Living Bible, was unscholarly. Based on the ancient texts, but firmly committed to the principle of dynamic equivalence.
English Standard Version (2001). Strove to be a more literal translation than was available, wanted more stylistic flair than the NASB, and more accurate than the New KJV. The committee took the RSV (as slightly revised in 1971) as it starting point. The entire Bible was subjected to comparison with the original texts, and the committee ended up changing about 6% from the RSV text, more than originally envisioned. The entire oversight committee of 12 members met in full for all deliberation on spadework done by specialists, with literary interests fully represented at the table in all deliberations. Leland Ryken, who was on that committee, believes it to have the highest possible degree of consistency and unity throughout the Bible.
Ok, that's enough for this blog. I'll let you ponder some of the major translations throughout history and decide which ones peak your interest to learn more about...
In Him,
Aaron
Bible Translations
Ok, so as many of you know, I am doing a study on Bible translations in my "free time" and have been doing so for several months. I've always had a strong bias against the NIV and for the KJV, but I realized that I really didn't know why, so I set to find out. My original thought was that I could Google it and figure it out in an hour or two. What I didn't realize was the extent to which this can of worms reaches. It's open, and I can't stop, so I'm going to pursue it and see where it leads me. So far, my bias against the NIV is still strong due to it's translational theory of dynamic equivalence, but I am now also equally convinced that the KJV is not the most accurate translation to use either. I'll start to lay out the basics here, and then add more posts as I learn more.
I decided that for me personally, I needed a bible that most accurately reflected the original text. I needed an essentially literal translation. I realize this means it will probably be harder to read, but I really don't like the idea of a translator changing what the text said so that I would understand it better. If I need help, I can always make use of commentaries. This is the debate of "essentially literal" versus "dynamic equivalent." Let me define some key phrases here, because these phrases will continue to pop up through my posts (these are from the book, "The Word of God in English" by Leland Ryken:
Receptor Language - The language into which a text written in a foreign language is translated (in this case, English).
Native Language - The original language in which a text is written.
Dynamic Equivalent - A meaning in the receptor language that corresponds to (is "equivalent" to) a meaning in a native-language text (for example, the "heart" as the modern way of denoting the essence of a person, especially the emotions, which for the ancients was situated in the kidneys.)
Dynamic Equivalence - A theory of translation based on the premise that whenever something in the native-language text is foreign or unclear to a contemporary reader, the original text should be translated in terms of a dynamic equivalent.
Functional Equivalent - Something in the receptor language that differs from what the original text says but that serves the same function in the receptor language (for example, "firstfruits" translated as "special offering.")
Functional Equivalence - A theory of translation that favors replacing a statement in the original text with a functional equivalent whenever the original phraseology or reference is obscure for a modern reader in the receptor language.
Equivalent Effect - A translation that aims to produce the same effect on readers of the translation as the original text produced on its native-language readers.
Formal Equivalence - A theory of translation that favors reproducing the form or language of the original text, and not just its meaning. In its stricter form, this theory of translation espouses reproducing even the syntax and word order of the original; the formulas word for word translation and verbal equivalence often imply this stricter definition of the concept.
Essentially Literal Translation - A translation that strives to translate the exact words of the original-language text in a translation, but not in such a rigid way as to violate the normal rules of language and syntax in the receptor language.
Besides Googling this topic to death to learn more about the "reliability" of the Greek manuscripts used in translation, the two main sources I have been using thus far include a letter written by a woman named Sue Winters that is basically a KJV only argument. It's about 38 pages and I have it in PDF form, which I will link to later if I can remember to. Otherwise, I'd be happy to e-mail it to anyone. It has some good points, but overall appears to be a stubborn attempt to say that God used the evolution of the KJV as it was brought together in 1611 as His ultimate Word and nothing else will suffice.
My other source is the book I mentioned by Leland Ryken. His bias is towards the English Standard Version, which holds to the philosophies of the KJV, but is based on the Revised Standard Version, which is a revision of the KJV, but used more accurate manuscripts (Google Textus Receptus versus Septuagint for more information than you could ever want on this topic.) Ryken's book is available for download at:
http://www.esv.org/assets/pdfs/woge.pdf Ok, so that's the start. You have to decide which theory of translation you agree with before you can start looking at all of the translations that are available (and there are TONS, just check out
www.biblegateway.com and click the drop down to pick a translation, you'll see what I mean.)
Next post I'll give a summary of some of the most common translations, or at least the ones that made a huge impact and that many of the other translations are revisions of. I hope someone else is enjoying this stuff, cuz I sure am!
In Him,
Aaron
Third Day
Our CFO informed me today that Third Day is coming to Ames with the David Crowder Band in January. How could I pass that up? I mean, I drove straight down to Atlanta for a weekend with very little sleep to see Third Day, of course I'm going to drive 10 minutes to see them! I had him put me down for two tickets. It reminded me to play their newest album (Wherever You Are). I'm a big fan of their song Communion. I'm not sure why, it's not really my favorite style, I just like the lyrics and the idea I think.
In Him,
Aaron
We hunger and thirst for your love and your righteousness. We long for your presence here, Lord. Be with us again.
This is the body, this is the blood. Broken and poured out for all of us. And in this communion, we share in His love. This is the body, this is the Blood.
Smell the Color 9
These Chris Rice lyrics really hit me today as I was driving down the road. I'll let them speak for themselves...
Now I've never felt the presence,
But I know You're always near,
And I've never heard the calling,
But somehow You've led me right here,
So I'm not lookin' for burnin' bushes,
Or some Divine graffiti to appear,
I'm just beggin You for Your wisdom,
And I believe You're puttin' some here...
Election
I was listening to a sermon on Election (link provided below) and took notes while listening to it. I thought people might enjoy looking over the notes to hopefully gleam some understanding from them.
Notes on Election
This link is to a 40 minute sermon by Lehman Strauss on Election:
http://flester.dyndns.org/vfc/VFC-GOLD/Strauss_Lehman/Strauss-WOM-p0656-05.mp3 Guidelines in studying Election
1) The Bible does not provide all of the answers to our intellectual and theological inquiries.
There are issues involved that our finite minds cannot comprehend.
2) God is completely holy and righteous in all that He does, whether we understand his ways or not.
Psalm 145:17
3) The total extent of our knowledge is limited to that of which God chooses to reveal. Beyond the revelation of Holy Scripture, there is no room for human speculation or reasoning.
Deuteronomy 29:29
There are some things that God has not revealed and they belong to Him. What He has revealed belongs to us.
4) A work which is dependent upon God's grace cannot in any way involve man's works. Grace and works cannot be combined to establish a reason for anything God does.
Romans 11:6
Definition
Election is the sovereign act of God whereby He chooses certain parts of His creation, always to accomplish a special purpose.
God has the right to make choices, He is the sovereign God and the creator of the universe. Where would we be without God's choices? If he didn't pick people and events to accomplish his purposes, we would be drifting in a purposeless world.
Examples of election in the scriptures
Psalm 106:21 - God ELECTED Moses
Psalm 89 - God ELECTED David
New Testament examples:
Election->Salvation->Predestination->Adoption->Redemption
Ephesians 1:4 – Salvation cannot begin if God doesn’t start it. Salvation begins with election. Verse 5 - Predestination is the sovereign act of God where he sets a goal/destination for the believer. God NEVER predestinated anyone to go to hell. It’s always a destination for the believer. Adoption – spiritual blessings that come from God. He takes the born again believer and puts them in the position of a full grown mature son. Romans 8 – we are waiting for the adoption, the future of our bodies. It is yet to come. Then the doctrine of redemption in verse 7.
The real purpose for why God makes a choice. 1 Cor. 1:26. “That no flesh should glory in His presence.” God decided that sinners should be saved. He made that choice. Suppose you had something to do with your salvation. We could brag about what we did to get saved. Salvation begins with God’s election. God is pro choice. God gave man the essential attributes of personality. God created man in his own likeness and image. The includes the basic essentials of personality. The capability of thinking, the capability of feeling (emotions), and the capability of making a choice (free will.)
For those of us that made a choice to believe in Christ. Romans 8:33. It is God that justifies and declares us righteous. This is where our eternal security comes from. From God’s election. It gives us the basis for our assurance.
Nothing can separate us from God’s love.
Distinguishing marks of God’s elect (those that made the choice to believe in Christ.)
Colossians 3:11 +. Every believer is among the elect of God. If you didn’t make that choice, you wouldn’t be in the family.
What is my behavior like? Do I behave as one of God’s elect?
1 Thess. 1
John 3:18 – He that believeth NOT is condemned already. Those that haven’t accepted Christ is already under condemnation. You can only get out of that condemnation by making a choice of accepting Christ. If you end up going to hell, it’s because you CHOSE to go there, not because God chose for you to go there.
It is our job to witness. And the only way we’ll know if the person we are witnessing to is one of God’s elect, is if they chose Christ. We have a responsibility to continue to witness. God has given us the capability of making a choice.
Talking about When Chimps Attack News Anchors
Who's idea was it to have a monkey live on the set of a News show? :-)
Quote
When Chimps Attack News AnchorsMikey the monkey goes ape wild on the set of a news program in Baltimore.
Rocco Di Horn
So for those of you that don't know, we have a new family member.
My mom raises Doberman Pinschers and for Christmas, they gave us a fawn Dobberman. We named him Rocky (boxing reference? Maybe.), but his AKC registered name is Rocco Di Horn. Nice and Italian, don't ya think?
He's getting along quite well, except Eli doesn't really appreciate being attacked with puppy bites very much. :-) If Rocky gets after him, he falls to the ground in a fetal position to protect himself. It's very humorous, although it probably shouldn't be. Maybe we're just bad parents. :-)
I just had to go get a shoe out of his mouth. Typical puppy. He's already 14 pounds (our Boston Terrier is 16), and he's expected to get to over 100 lbs. It'll be different for us to have a big dog like that. He and Harley just got done with a 20 minute wrestle fest. Finally Harley had enough and when Harley has enough, game's over. She'll be smaller, but she'll always be the boss.
I'll post a few pictures we have of him, even though they are from before the snow, so they aren't THAT recent. Check the photo gallery for more...
Music
I just bought two new CDs yesterday and thought I'd share my thoughts on them here. They are awesome. :-)
The first one is MercyMe's Christmas album. It's like any other Contemporary Christian Artist's Christmas album. Classic songs, redone in their style. The great part about MercyMe is their style is good old rock! They really jazzed up the songs, but kept the integrity of the harmony, which I think is pretty important so you can still sing along with it. So yeah, great album. $14 at Lemstone.
The other one I bought was Chris Rice's "Short Term Memories" album. It's basically like a Greatest Hits album, but the thing I liked about it was that they were truly his Greatest Hits. It's got 17 songs and I think I loved at least 13 or 14 of them. The first 7 were my all time favorites. There's two new songs on it as well. It really reminded me of the time I saw him in concert in Des Moines. Just a man and a guitar on stage at a church singing some of the most amazing lyrics written. He is truly a talented and blessed man.
So, that's it, just two recommendations for ya for the Christmas season. :-)
I also bought several CDs last night through
www.sound-and-spirit.com for $5.99 each and free shipping. Kutless "Strong Tower", Jeremy Camp "Restored", Audio Adrenaline "Until My Heart Caves In", and Big Daddy Weave "One and Only." Can't wait!
