Tag Archives: translation

The quest for the perfect version of the Bible

23 Replies

bible1Over on the Better Bibles Blog, Rich Rhodes talked about listening to an audio version of the King James Version. He found that the epistles were very difficult to listen to because of the vocabulary employed. He concludes his post by writing:”This is why I’m so passionate about getting a translation that speaks to the heart of English speakers.”

That’s what I find with the versions I use in Spanish. In my radio programs, I use the Spanish equivalent of the GNT, which isn’t my favorite version. I use it because it’s the easiest to understand in a spoken format like that. In our bilingual service, I use the bilingual NIV/NVI Bible because our congregation owns a number of those and most of our Spanish-speakers use them. (I like the NIV in English, but don’t like the Spanish version much at all)

Maybe I’m too picky, but I really haven’t found a Bible that truly fits what I would like to see in a Bible. For now, I settle for “the lesser of evils.”

What about you? Have you found what you’re looking for in a Bible version?

[Edit at 3 p.m. CDT: Matt Dabbs tells about a church burning all non-KJV Bibles. I’m guessing they’ve found the version they like!]

As I mentioned before, I’ve been participating in the Tyndale Blog Network, reviewing products that I receive from Tyndale. This time I’m a part of one of their virtual book tours, the Mosaic Bible blog tour. This Friday, October 16, The Kitchen will be hosting the tour, with Kevin O’Brien doing a Q&A session about the book.

In addition, Tyndale will be giving away a copy of The Mosaic Bible to one of the readers of this blog. On Friday, leave a comment indicating that you would like to be in the drawing for the giveaway.

Today’s stop on the blog tour: Internet Monk

How literal should a translation be?

9 Replies

bible1As I mentioned before, I’ve been participating in the Tyndale Blog Network, reviewing products that I receive from Tyndale. This time I’m a part of one of their virtual book tours, the Mosaic Bible blog tour. This Friday, October 16, The Kitchen will be hosting the tour, with Kevin O’Brien doing a Q&A session about the book.

In addition, Tyndale will be giving away a copy of The Mosaic Bible to one of the readers of this blog. On Friday, leave a comment indicating that you would like to be in the drawing for the giveaway.

Today’s stop on the blog tour: life. caffeinated.

A few months ago, we spent some time discussing versions of the Bible. I discussed, among other things, the theory of dynamic equivalence. This is the theory behind many of the Bible translations that have come out in the last 40 years or so.

Recently, I’ve been reading some articles by Leland Ryken (yeah, him again) that seek to promote “essentially literal translations” as being superior to those translated using dynamic equivalence. He makes some convincing arguments, some of which can be seen in the following articles:
On Bible Translations, Part 1
On Bible Translations, Part 2
Bible Translation Differences

I’ve had to admit that Ryken touches on some things that have bothered me over the years. Sometimes I find that “dynamic equivalence” translations seek to explain too much, that they try to pin a passage down to one certain interpretation, when the original is ambiguous enough to allow several translations. A prime example is the Greek word sarx, which the NIV translates as “sinful nature.” The word actually means “flesh,” “the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood.” I prefer a literal translation that gives us room to determine the metaphorical sense the author is using.

In many settings, I favor a “simpler” version, especially for the person who is just beginning to read the Bible. But we can’t be overly dependent on such translations. As I said before, we need to use multiple versions in our serious study of the Word. (Does that conflict with yesterday’s post?)

Do some reading on Ryken’s arguments and tell me what you think of what he has to say. (He has an entire book on the subject, but I haven’t had a chance to look at it.) How literal should a translation be?

Choosing a translation: better Greek manuscripts

7 Replies

KJVGenesispg1In the last post, I discussed one of the reasons I prefer one of the modern versions of the Bible: the archeological discoveries that have shed further light on the meaning of certain terms and passages.

Another important reason for using the newer versions are the manuscripts that have been discovered in the last few centuries. Fragments have been found from just a few decades after the original writing. Many manuscripts have been found that have helped us improve our understanding of what the text said before copies were made.

In the 16th and 17th century, when the first translations were being made in English, the most commonly used Greek text was known as the Textus Receptus. This text tended to be what we call an inflated text; when two manuscripts had different readings, both readings were included. That’s why you’ll find many words and verses in the older versions that aren’t in the newer versions.

When choosing a Bible version, I’m going to choose one that uses the better Greek texts. That’s one of the basic criteria I use when making that choice.

Translation and Playing Charades

6 Replies

KJVGenesispg1I do a lot of translation. Most Sundays, I preach a bilingual sermon, translating myself. I do radio programs in Spanish during the week; most of my study materials are in English. I’ve done simultaneous interpretation, where I’m translating for a speaker that is neither hearing me nor pausing to allow me to translate. Much of what I know comes from those sorts of experiences.

I’ve come to see that translation is not an exact science. Just now, I was reading a story about this Argentine woman that the governor of South Carolina had an affair with. The story referred to a 2005 article where the woman was interviewed about her experiences learning Chinese. The article quoted the woman as saying, “It was like playing mimics all the time.” Technically, the translation was correct. However, it makes no sense. “Playing mimics”? There was no meaning in that phrase. Therefore the translation was wrong.

In Argentina, there is a common game called “Mímica.” Players act out the names of books or movies or TV shows. Their teammates try to guess the title being acted out. You know the game: Charades. This woman compared her experience learning Chinese to playing Charades. It’s possible (I’m not sure) that about the only way you would know that would be to have lived in Argentina and have lived in the United States. At the very least, you would need some way to pick up that cultural insight beyond what the dictionary could tell you. Languages have subtleties that come from culture and context.

That’s why it’s not fair to compare old versions like the King James Version to modern versions. The KJV cannot begin to compete in terms of accuracy. Too many archeological discoveries have occurred over the last 400 years.

Take for example the Greek word monogenes. In the 17th century, translators hadn’t seen this word before. They had to guess at its meaning. They went for mono “one” and genes “born” (like genetics) — “only begotten.” Since then, the word has been found in other writings, and the meaning has become clearer: mono “one” and genes “genre” — “one of a kind.”

You still hear people argue that “only begotten” is the correct translation, based not on linguistics, but on what they “know to be right.” And this happens with numerous passages. One older gentleman told a friend of mine, “We never used to lose arguments when we used the King James Version.” Unfortunately, that’s because many arguments were based on the wording of the KJV rather than the actual meaning of the text.

We have to be willing to let new discoveries shed light on ancient texts. If not, we’ll just find ourselves playing mimics as we discuss the Bible.

Dynamic equivalence and the translation of the Bible

7 Replies

KJVGenesispg1As we discuss Bible translation, we really ought to stop a minute and pay our respects to the concept of “dynamic equivalence.” The concept of dynamic equivalence was developed by linguist Eugene Nida. It describes the attempt to translate (specifically the Bible) via “thought by thought” rather than “word by word” translation.

While Nida gave name to the concept and was largely responsible for popularizing it, dynamic equivalence did not begin with Nida. Translations as old as the Septuagint (translation of the Old Testament into Greek that was done before the time of Christ) made use of this very practice. Nida made the use of dynamic equivalence intentional, with the goal of better expressing the thoughts behind the text and not just the words themselves.

An alternative to dynamic equivalence is formal equivalence, which seeks to maintain, where possible, the original word order, verb tenses, idiomatic expressions, etc. Beyond formal equivalence is a literal translation, which holds strictly to word by word translation.

Versions like the New American Standard Bible are translated using formal equivalence. The Today’s English Bible (also known as the Good News Bible) is the best example of dynamic equivalence, especially because of the large role Nida and his theory played in the translation. Most translations fall in between these two extremes. Even stricter than the NASB would be versions like Young’s Literal Translation; among versions that are freer than the TEV we find paraphrases like The Message and The Living Bible.

We’ll continue talking about Bible translation this week; feel free to share your ideas on any of these theories or any others that you know of.