Translated Bibles or Word-for-word Interlinear

[Guest shiloh357]

Translators do choose the word the translator feels best fits according to their belief, so they can be wrongfully translated, and the reason why there are so many different translations.

 

 

That isn't really true.

 

Translators work in teams and usually those teams are made up of people from various denominations and theological backgrounds for the express purpose of preventing a translator from allowing his theology to drive how he translates a word.

 

The reason behind the various translations (once you filter out those Bibles that are not actually translations)  You have Bibles like the NIV which are not word for word translations.  They use what we call a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought.   The NASB is one of the more of the Word for Word translations.  And that makes a difference.  Not only that but they work from different sources. 

 

There are lots of safeguards against letting someone get away with putting their own theological view into the text.   The teams are divided up and given different sections of the Bible and each team critiques the work of each of the other teams.

 

Most of the disagreements stem over things like syntax and grammar, not theology.

[OneLight]

 

Translators do choose the word the translator feels best fits according to their belief, so they can be wrongfully translated, and the reason why there are so many different translations.

 

 

That isn't really true.

 

Translators work in teams and usually those teams are made up of people from various denominations and theological backgrounds for the express purpose of preventing a translator from allowing his theology to drive how he translates a word.

 

The reason behind the various translations (once you filter out those Bibles that are not actually translations)  You have Bibles like the NIV which are not word for word translations.  They use what we call a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought.   The NASB is one of the more of the Word for Word translations.  And that makes a difference.  Not only that but they work from different sources. 

 

There are lots of safeguards against letting someone get away with putting their own theological view into the text.   The teams are divided up and given different sections of the Bible and each team critiques the work of each of the other teams.

 

Most of the disagreements stem over things like syntax and grammar, not theology.

 

 

I respectfully disagree, otherwise there wold not be so many disagreements about certain words that do change the meaning of a sentence.  I understand the theory behind such safeguards, but I do not agree they are followed 100%.  At any given time, the group may all agree on a certain meaning, which cold very well be incorrect.  It is always wise to do your own research.

[Guest Butero]

The TNIV was an obvious attempt to change the original meaning, though they tried hard to say that was not their intent.  One of the absolute worst so-called Bibles, which I suppose is really a paraphrase, is "The Message."  Even if the translators aren't intentionally perverting the text, you can still translation shop until you find one that says things they way you want to make your point.  It is like with John 3:16 and the use of the word "should" in some translations and "shall" in others.  If you believe in eternal security, you would want the one that says "shall." 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Translators do choose the word the translator feels best fits according to their belief, so they can be wrongfully translated, and the reason why there are so many different translations.

 

 

That isn't really true.

 

Translators work in teams and usually those teams are made up of people from various denominations and theological backgrounds for the express purpose of preventing a translator from allowing his theology to drive how he translates a word.

 

The reason behind the various translations (once you filter out those Bibles that are not actually translations)  You have Bibles like the NIV which are not word for word translations.  They use what we call a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought.   The NASB is one of the more of the Word for Word translations.  And that makes a difference.  Not only that but they work from different sources. 

 

There are lots of safeguards against letting someone get away with putting their own theological view into the text.   The teams are divided up and given different sections of the Bible and each team critiques the work of each of the other teams.

 

Most of the disagreements stem over things like syntax and grammar, not theology.

 

 

I respectfully disagree, otherwise there wold not be so many disagreements about certain words that do change the meaning of a sentence.

Those disagreements are not theological, necessarily.   There is some confusion among scholars because Greek has changed over the centuries since the first century. Koine Greek is no longer a spoken language and translation of it  isn't easy.  The disagreements are over syntax and grammar, and yes that can change the meaning of a sentence, but the translators are not trying to make the Bible agree with their theology.  That notion is just a conspiracy theory

 

 

I understand the theory behind such safeguards, but I do not agree they are followed 100%.

 

Based on what???

 

 

At any given time, the group may all agree on a certain meaning, which cold very well be incorrect.  It is always wise to do your own research.

 

 

Yes, but all of the resources you use are based on the work of the translators.   It is translators who author all of your dictionaries, commentaries and word studies.  Your resources are based on their work.  So....

 

On what basis do you determine they are incorrect?? 

[GoldenEagle]

Translators do choose the word the translator feels best fits according to their belief, so they can be wrongfully translated, and the reason why there are so many different translations.

That isn't really true.

Translators work in teams and usually those teams are made up of people from various denominations and theological backgrounds for the express purpose of preventing a translator from allowing his theology to drive how he translates a word.

The reason behind the various translations (once you filter out those Bibles that are not actually translations) You have Bibles like the NIV which are not word for word translations. They use what we call a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought. The NASB is one of the more of the Word for Word translations. And that makes a difference. Not only that but they work from different sources.

There are lots of safeguards against letting someone get away with putting their own theological view into the text. The teams are divided up and given different sections of the Bible and each team critiques the work of each of the other teams.

Most of the disagreements stem over things like syntax and grammar, not theology.

I respectfully disagree, otherwise there wold not be so many disagreements about certain words that do change the meaning of a sentence. I understand the theory behind such safeguards, but I do not agree they are followed 100%. At any given time, the group may all agree on a certain meaning, which cold very well be incorrect. It is always wise to do your own research.

Much like Groupthink?

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

[OneLight]

Those disagreements are not theological, necessarily.   There is some confusion among scholars because Greek has changed over the centuries since the first century. Koine Greek is no longer a spoken language and translation of it  isn't easy.  The disagreements are over syntax and grammar, and yes that can change the meaning of a sentence, but the translators are not trying to make the Bible agree with their theology.  That notion is just a conspiracy theory

Theology is based on what people read and believe. If the syntax changes the meaning of a sentence, those who follow one syntax over another will have a different understand that creates a different belief. That is not a conspiracy, but a fact.

 

 

I understand the theory behind such safeguards, but I do not agree they are followed 100%.

Based on what???

Just lay the different translations side by side and compare them. If there were following what is the true meaning, they should all read basically the same, but they don't.

I will agree that those who are in the group agree to what best translated word is to be used according to how they believe the scripture should flow. I have given up on fully relying on what we have as finished translations and have returned to relying on the word for word translation instead. Yes, they had to be translated by those who understand the language, yet they do not loose their context. What we have is derived from the word for word translation, placed into today's language for easy reading, which is yet another translation in itself.

 

 

At any given time, the group may all agree on a certain meaning, which cold very well be incorrect.  It is always wise to do your own research.

Yes, but all of the resources you use are based on the work of the translators.   It is translators who author all of your dictionaries, commentaries and word studies.  Your resources are based on their work.  So....

 

On what basis do you determine they are incorrect??

As I mention above, the closer you get to the original language, the closer you remain to the original context. Every bible that has been printed is derived from the word for word translation, placed into the language of the day for ease of reading for the populaces.

Take the shortest verse in scripture, John 11:35. We read in our bibles "Jesus wept." The word for word translations says "weeps THE JESUS" Something as simple as this will allow one to get a glimpse of how they used to speak. Learning how they use to talk will assist in understanding scripture that is translated word for word. After time, one does see the difference between how they spoke it to how we read it.

[OneLight]

Translators do choose the word the translator feels best fits according to their belief, so they can be wrongfully translated, and the reason why there are so many different translations.

That isn't really true.

Translators work in teams and usually those teams are made up of people from various denominations and theological backgrounds for the express purpose of preventing a translator from allowing his theology to drive how he translates a word.

The reason behind the various translations (once you filter out those Bibles that are not actually translations) You have Bibles like the NIV which are not word for word translations. They use what we call a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought. The NASB is one of the more of the Word for Word translations. And that makes a difference. Not only that but they work from different sources.

There are lots of safeguards against letting someone get away with putting their own theological view into the text. The teams are divided up and given different sections of the Bible and each team critiques the work of each of the other teams.

Most of the disagreements stem over things like syntax and grammar, not theology.

I respectfully disagree, otherwise there wold not be so many disagreements about certain words that do change the meaning of a sentence. I understand the theory behind such safeguards, but I do not agree they are followed 100%. At any given time, the group may all agree on a certain meaning, which cold very well be incorrect. It is always wise to do your own research.

Much like Groupthink?

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

I guess that is a way to label the idea. I have heard of it, but it did not click when trying to describe what I meant.

[Guest shiloh357]

Theology is based on what people read and believe. If the syntax changes the meaning of a sentence, those who follow one syntax over another will have a different understand that creates a different belief. That is not a conspiracy, but a fact.

 

No, that's not how translators think.    Furthermore, since the translators are from differing denominations, you have a filter that keeps each other honest.  Syntax doesn't create theology or belief.  Syntax  and grammar speak to the clarity of the text. Translators are not trying to insert their theology in the Bible. Translational methods are object and don't allow for that. 

 

Just lay the different translations side by side and compare them. If there were following what is the true meaning, they should all read basically the same, but they don't.

 

By that logic, you don't have a Bible you can trust, do you?    When you read your Bible and when post on the boards about what Scripture says, how do you know that what you're posting is true?  Which translation has true meaning and how do you set about determining that?   Every translations has strengths and weaknesses and that because they are the product of humans beings with strengths and weaknesses. 

 

I will agree that those who are in the group agree to what best translated word is to be used according to how they believe the scripture should flow. I have given up on fully relying on what we have as finished translations and have returned to relying on the word for word translation instead. Yes, they had to be translated by those who understand the language, yet they do not loose their context. What we have is derived from the word for word translation, placed into today's language for easy reading, which is yet another translation in itself.

 

 

There is no such thing as a pure "word for word" translation.   Basically you don't have a Bible that you can really trust.

 

As I mention above, the closer you get to the original language, the closer you remain to the original context.

 

No, context has nothing to do with that.  Context pertains to the line of thought and that preserved in all genuine translations.  Context and linguistics are two different things.

 

Every bible that has been printed is derived from the word for word translation, placed into the language of the day for ease of reading for the populaces.

 

No, that's not exactly true, either.

[OneLight]

Theology is based on what people read and believe. If the syntax changes the meaning of a sentence, those who follow one syntax over another will have a different understand that creates a different belief. That is not a conspiracy, but a fact.

No, that's not how translators think.    Furthermore, since the translators are from differing denominations, you have a filter that keeps each other honest.  Syntax doesn't create theology or belief.  Syntax  and grammar speak to the clarity of the text. Translators are not trying to insert their theology in the Bible. Translational methods are object and don't allow for that.

 

 

Let's cut to the chase then.  Why are there so many different translations?

[OneLight]

Just lay the different translations side by side and compare them. If there were following what is the true meaning, they should all read basically the same, but they don't.

By that logic, you don't have a Bible you can trust, do you?    When you read your Bible and when post on the boards about what Scripture says, how do you know that what you're posting is true?  Which translation has true meaning and how do you set about determining that?   Every translations has strengths and weaknesses and that because they are the product of humans beings with strengths and weaknesses.

When there is a question, I return to the word by word translation. What do you do when you find a question about how something was being translated?