I'm sure you will agree that in this day and time we all need to be able to point to God's Word and say to the ungodly, et. It is most important that we all know and be sure of what we are talking about, in order to be witnesses of the true Word of God. Thank you very much for your response. In His Name, In response to these letters, we have developed this statement: Thank you for your recent letter and encouragement concerning our tape ministry.
The question you raised concerning various Bible versions is a very complex issue that cannot be adequately discussed in a letter. Often times it is filled with more emotion and heat than it is knowledge and light. Let me share with you my own conclusions after studying these issues. Bible versions, such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible, have been translated by godly men of demonstrated academic repute from the very best manuscript evidence that is available today.
May I add, the manuscript evidence that is now available is far superior to that which was available to the King James Version's translators in I would have no reservation in recommending these versions, yet I myself choose to continue using the Scofield Reference Bible because it is the text with which I am most familiar.
Let me recommend a recent book which very carefully discusses the issues. At least 18 major translational errors in KJV. Not even close to the most accurate. Was great for its time and accomplished much in getting the Word into layman hands, but now?
Most accurate? Certainly not. I will still point out to my colleagues when the texts differ. Thanks for that info. I assume you are not slavishly following NA27, are you? Ibexdr, Perfect, obviously using both of these editions, or at least having someone present to include the THGNT is a great addition. This translation is necessary from MacArthur's point of view.
I'm not sure of your background or understanding of the ANE historical world, Greg, but I would question your questioning of MacArthur on this. You may prefer a typical, modern, Western approach to the topic of slavery, which obviously is a "flashpoint" topic and easy to follow "slavishly," but that typical understanding is far from in line with the Bible Philemon and Colossians, for example.
My question for you is from where you ultimately take your cue on this topic, if it's a question you even would be willing to answer to yourself, let alone publicly. Douglas Petrovich Prof. I'm sorry, Doug, but I'm not sure I understand your response. Do you understand my complaint against MacArthur's treatment of doulos? I can't imagine someone in the field would defend his thesis that the translators of the ESV are involved in a coverup so as to "lessen" the impact of the "real" meaning of doulos by translating the word "bondservant".
The ESV translators went with this translation precisely because slavery in the ANE is so different from what we modern westerners often think of it as. MacArthur cites Murray Harris and Edwin Yamauchi, whom I have no qualm with and "take my cue from" if you prefer , but unfairly applies their scholarly conclusions to the aforementioned thesis. Responsible translation involves more than exegesis of the ancient world, and I believe MacArthur missed that.
I wrote John Macarthur off years ago as a spiritual leader when he proclaimed on his radio station that anyone who did not embrace John Calvin's theology was a "heretic" and "destined for hell. Lost all credibility there with me Anonymous, can you provide any evidence that he said what you claim?
That strikes me as a likely extrapolation beyond a milder assertion he may have made. I enjoy reading formal equiv. English trans. The NASB is wonderful for those whom have their lexicon beside them because we want what the writer said in the Language not simply a committee opinion.
To say it is more consistent is erroneous because context matters. But, the role of a translator is not the same as the role of a pastor or a teacher. Translators render what God said. Pastors and teachers disclose what God taught. Translators disclose what God wrote. Some have argued that trying to achieve a transparent translation of Scripture is a futile pursuit because no language perfectly matches the vocabulary and syntax of the biblical languages. Indeed, the various languages do not overlap perfectly.
A rigid, mechanical word-for-word translation from one language to another can render a sentence unintelligible. Nevertheless, one can still successfully endeavor to have tight correspondence between a translation and the features of the original text.
The closer the translator stays to a verbatim rendering of the original text, the clearer that windowpane will be. At that point, the window has accomplished its mission despite its imperfections.
Translations are the same way. People might not understand everything the first time they read a passage. But, there are plenty of study tools to help any serious-minded Bible student go behind the window and get a clearer look at the meaning of the text. However, for that to even happen, people need a transparent translation, one through which they can see as much as of the original text as possible.
Thus, the proper concern for translators is not how much we can reduce and simplify a translation, but how much detail we can bring out from what is included in the inspired text as originally written. If God has written His Word with such precision, upholds it to that degree 2 Cor , and holds the believer accountable to all of it Deut ; Heb ; ; Jas , should not the translator abide by the same standard as closely as possible?
Just as inspiration demands the preacher to proclaim every word of Scripture, so it demands the translator to account for every word of Scripture. The precedent for being as transparent as possible when translating Scripture is set by the New Testament itself. Overall, the New Testament renders the Old Testament in a close word-for-word manner. We can point out numerous examples where the apostles represent each word of an Old Testament passage in their translations Matt ; cf.
Deut ; Rom ; cf. Gen ; Heb ; cf. Hab They even use Greek words consistently to correspond with certain Hebrew terms. They sometimes follow Hebrew syntax even if it means this will defy the normal conventions of Greek grammar Acts ; cf. Isa For them, readability was not the issue. They wanted their translations to correspond faithfully to what was written. Because the apostles believed the Old Testament was verbally inspired 2 Tim ; 2 Pet —meaning every word was vital. Their translations reflected that conviction.
Their goal was to make a window showing as clearly as possible what was really there, not a screen that might filter out some of the light or obscure some of the details. These examples stand out precisely because they are departures from the consistent practice of meticulous verbatim translation. These supposed exceptions therefore prove the rule.
0コメント