Comments on: Style and tradition in translation http://heissufficient.com/2007/12/18/style-and-tradition-in-translation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=style-and-tradition-in-translation A personal walk in a wilderness of words Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:32:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2007/12/18/style-and-tradition-in-translation/#comment-539 ElShaddai Edwards Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:56:37 +0000 http://heissufficient.net/2007/12/18/style-and-tradition-in-translation/#comment-539 Thanks for following up. I think we're on the same page -- I've just always been a "big picture" guy and detail-level things like awkward grammar always prove to be a distraction to my process of comprehension. I like being able to read, for example, Paul or John's logic statements and think about the implications, rather than try to work out the logic twists itself. For me, the application of the logic is the "result", not the logic itself. So the "elevated" language of the Tyndale tradition that is deliberately archaic only creates another hurdle for me to understanding the meaning. I don't see that as requiring "no thinking", just different thinking. And yes, it's good to have multiple translations for different language comprehension styles - we truly are blessed to have this store of riches available! Thanks for following up. I think we’re on the same page — I’ve just always been a “big picture” guy and detail-level things like awkward grammar always prove to be a distraction to my process of comprehension. I like being able to read, for example, Paul or John’s logic statements and think about the implications, rather than try to work out the logic twists itself. For me, the application of the logic is the “result”, not the logic itself.

So the “elevated” language of the Tyndale tradition that is deliberately archaic only creates another hurdle for me to understanding the meaning. I don’t see that as requiring “no thinking”, just different thinking. And yes, it’s good to have multiple translations for different language comprehension styles – we truly are blessed to have this store of riches available!

]]> By: Geocreationist http://heissufficient.com/2007/12/18/style-and-tradition-in-translation/#comment-540 Geocreationist Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:28:14 +0000 http://heissufficient.net/2007/12/18/style-and-tradition-in-translation/#comment-540 <i>but I’d prefer to wrestle with understanding the meaning rather than understanding the grammar.</i> I am wondering if you misunderstood me. What I meant is that I ultimately understand the scripture's <b>meaning</b> better because the presentation causes me to think about the text more. I enjoy dwelling on each part of the author's thought, and pondering their choice of words; I internalize it better. While it is true that the more modern translations require no thinking for me to understand them, it is because someone else has already done the pondering and is presenting me with the answer. Sure, it decreases my reading time, but in doing so, I don't remember the scripture as well. That's just how my brain works. My wife's brain is like a steal trap; mine is not. Perhaps I should have written about my pastor, who hates those older translations. They don't speak to him... all the thy's and thous and shalts. The NLT was the first translation that ever presented God's word to him in a manner that made sense the first time he read it, and obviously the HCSB does this for people to. I applaud that. So, I agree with you that understanding God's meaning is indeed the bottom line. I was hoping to support your original point, that there is a purpose in having multiple translations, because different people are impacted differently. But again, I agree that any impact is meaningless if the communication of God's message is not the final result. but I’d prefer to wrestle with understanding the meaning rather than understanding the grammar.
I am wondering if you misunderstood me. What I meant is that I ultimately understand the scripture’s meaning better because the presentation causes me to think about the text more. I enjoy dwelling on each part of the author’s thought, and pondering their choice of words; I internalize it better. While it is true that the more modern translations require no thinking for me to understand them, it is because someone else has already done the pondering and is presenting me with the answer. Sure, it decreases my reading time, but in doing so, I don’t remember the scripture as well. That’s just how my brain works. My wife’s brain is like a steal trap; mine is not.

Perhaps I should have written about my pastor, who hates those older translations. They don’t speak to him… all the thy’s and thous and shalts. The NLT was the first translation that ever presented God’s word to him in a manner that made sense the first time he read it, and obviously the HCSB does this for people to. I applaud that.

So, I agree with you that understanding God’s meaning is indeed the bottom line.

I was hoping to support your original point, that there is a purpose in having multiple translations, because different people are impacted differently. But again, I agree that any impact is meaningless if the communication of God’s message is not the final result.

]]> By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2007/12/18/style-and-tradition-in-translation/#comment-541 ElShaddai Edwards Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:42:22 +0000 http://heissufficient.net/2007/12/18/style-and-tradition-in-translation/#comment-541 <i>Personally, I like the NKJV and the NIV for similar reasons: the grammar is imperfect and causes me to dig.</i> No pain, no gain?! I suppose there's something to be said for learning by wrestling with the text, but I'd prefer to wrestle with understanding the meaning rather than understanding the grammar. That's been a significant factor in my attraction to translations like the HCSB and REB - modern English grammar. <i>I hadn’t heard of the hcsb before finding it on your site, but I imagine I’d say the same of it</i> For more on the HCSB, be sure to check out <a href="/2007/12/19/interview-with-dr-ed-blum-general-editor-for-the-hcsb/" rel="nofollow">the transcript</a> of an interview with Dr. Ed Blum, General Editor of the HCSB. Personally, I like the NKJV and the NIV for similar reasons: the grammar is imperfect and causes me to dig.

No pain, no gain?! I suppose there’s something to be said for learning by wrestling with the text, but I’d prefer to wrestle with understanding the meaning rather than understanding the grammar. That’s been a significant factor in my attraction to translations like the HCSB and REB – modern English grammar.

I hadn’t heard of the hcsb before finding it on your site, but I imagine I’d say the same of it

For more on the HCSB, be sure to check out the transcript of an interview with Dr. Ed Blum, General Editor of the HCSB.

]]> By: Geocreationist http://heissufficient.com/2007/12/18/style-and-tradition-in-translation/#comment-538 Geocreationist Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:01:48 +0000 http://heissufficient.net/2007/12/18/style-and-tradition-in-translation/#comment-538 I agree that we should not get too caught up in finding an innerrant translation... there is no such thing in my opinion. I find purpose in several translations. Personally, I like the NKJV and the NIV for similar reasons: the grammar is imperfect and causes me to dig. Furthermore, because each is an attempt at using accurate words, I can usually find the significant words in my Strong's concordance to get a better understanding of a given verse. If I need yet more insight, I can always use the tools on blueletter. NLT is good for me when I just want to read the scripture afresh without triggering my preconceived notions of what the scritpure means, and just let the LORD speak to me like He did Moses, "as a man to another man." Studying with the NLT is too difficult for me, but when I am reading for inspiration, devotional, or bottom line message, I really am not missing out on much. (I hadn't heard of the hcsb before finding it on your site, but I imagine I'd say the same of it). In short, I like the 3-legged stool analogy. I think it describes a constructive use of scripture and its various translations quite well. I agree that we should not get too caught up in finding an innerrant translation… there is no such thing in my opinion.

I find purpose in several translations. Personally, I like the NKJV and the NIV for similar reasons: the grammar is imperfect and causes me to dig. Furthermore, because each is an attempt at using accurate words, I can usually find the significant words in my Strong’s concordance to get a better understanding of a given verse. If I need yet more insight, I can always use the tools on blueletter.

NLT is good for me when I just want to read the scripture afresh without triggering my preconceived notions of what the scritpure means, and just let the LORD speak to me like He did Moses, “as a man to another man.” Studying with the NLT is too difficult for me, but when I am reading for inspiration, devotional, or bottom line message, I really am not missing out on much. (I hadn’t heard of the hcsb before finding it on your site, but I imagine I’d say the same of it).

In short, I like the 3-legged stool analogy. I think it describes a constructive use of scripture and its various translations quite well.

]]>