Comments on: “Essentially Literal” Advocates Still Don’t Get It

By: Mike Aubrey

Mike Aubrey — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 04:21:47 +0000

Owens

But what does “literal” mean? If it means adherence to the words then it is guaranteed to distort, because language and meaning is far, far, far more than simply the sum total of the meaning of individual words.

So called “literal” translations cannot and do not deal with other forms of meaning expressed by word order, syntax, discourse, and many other facets of language.

I would advice that you pick up and read a good book on translation, such as the one by Gordon Fee & Mark Strauss (_How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth_), Willis Barnstone’s _The Poetics of Translation_, or _The Challenge of Bible Translation_.

Literal translation *do not* get you any closer to the original language than any other translation. This will always be the case unless you’re actually using the Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic.

By: T.S. Owens

T.S. Owens — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:52:04 +0000

I dont want to take risks with misleading people on what the Bible says in the original languages. It seems to me the less literal the more risky. If its not literal enough to use italics for added words Its unnecessarily risky and im not using it as a primary Bible, but always to compare like a commentary.

By: Mike Aubrey

Mike Aubrey — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:38:41 +0000

Yes, I agree that the Canadian you referenced in your post is ignorant of the issues of language translation lol.

Well, one of the Canadians…

By: John

John — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:05:14 +0000

A very nice review. I used to use the RSV until the NIV came out in 1978, then I used that until the TNIV came out. I used the ESV for awhile, but after reading all the militant rantings about how bad the TNIV was and how great the ESV was, I decided to go back to the TNIV. I am praying for the NIV 2011 revision, and if the rheteric remains the same, I’m sure I’ll switch to that. Hateful smear campaigns always turn me away from whatever someoe is selling, especially from Christian brothers (and sisters!)

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:39:37 +0000

Alex:
Absolutely bro. I have no problem with the ESV being someone’s primary bible–at all. They each have their place, and I’m a frequent user of all three you just mentioned.

I do need to get a print copy of the TNIV before they are all burned…er… taken off the shelf. I just have an electronic copy on Accordance.

By: Alex S. Leung

Alex S. Leung — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:54:54 +0000

Are you thus advocating the 2011 N-T-NIV?! j/k
Yes, I agree that the Canadian you referenced in your post is ignorant of the issues of language translation lol.

I am thankful to you and Rick M: I use the TNIV often in my papers because of him, and I’ve learned to use the NLT because of you! Both good, additional translations to add to my primary usage of ESV2007.

By: brian

brian — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:31:25 +0000

you are right – they just don’t get it – or they do and don’t care.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:43:22 +0000

I absolutely recommend readers checking out Joel’s review. It’s an excellent critique of Ryken’s book and should be read.

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:39:49 +0000

Readers here may also be interested in my review of Dr. Ryken’s latest book, where I address many of these issues.

(By the way, regarding shalom in the Bible, it looks like the word used to include “peaceful existence through conquering the enemy,” similar to the Latin pax in the well-known pax romana. One example out of many comes from Psalm 29:11, where part of “peace” is having “might.”)

By: Night and Day « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

Night and Day « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:58:36 +0000

[...] [...]