Comments on: Beautiful translations, redux http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/ Searching for wit and wisdom in a wilderness of words... Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:51:30 +0000 hourly 1 By: Nathan http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-876 Nathan Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:55:21 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=553#comment-876 The layout is identical to those images in the link. The Message uses a very similar layout, not sure if it's identical but I think it is. The layout is identical to those images in the link. The Message uses a very similar layout, not sure if it’s identical but I think it is.

]]> By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-875 ElShaddai Edwards Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:18:00 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=553#comment-875 Interesting. I only have the Oxford Study Edition of the NEB, which is a double column setting like the REB. However, I've heard plenty of good things about the original NEB layout as well, so perhaps you're on to something. See <a href="http://jmarkbertrand.typepad.com/bibledesign/2007/11/design-case-stu.html" rel="nofollow">this link</a> for some related discussion. The OT revisions were probably the most significant between the two, as the NEB OT (released later than the NT) had never been re-reviewed after the complete Bible was released in 1970 (whereas the NT, originally released in 1961, had been revised for the 1970 publication). Interesting. I only have the Oxford Study Edition of the NEB, which is a double column setting like the REB. However, I’ve heard plenty of good things about the original NEB layout as well, so perhaps you’re on to something. See this link for some related discussion.

The OT revisions were probably the most significant between the two, as the NEB OT (released later than the NT) had never been re-reviewed after the complete Bible was released in 1970 (whereas the NT, originally released in 1961, had been revised for the 1970 publication).

]]> By: Nathan http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-874 Nathan Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:13:31 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=553#comment-874 After a few days reading I'm finding that I much prefer the layout of the NEB over that of the REB. The single columns with ch. & verse off to the side makes for easier reading. If I were to only buy one of these translations I wonder how much revision I'd be missing if I went with the NEB. I'm actually quite surprised that the layout on the page has affected my perception of the translation differences. The revisions may make it a better bible overall, but I'm beginning to think that maybe I should go with the original for both it's layout and for being more daring in comparison with other translations. As far as beauty in translation, I had noticed the literary quality of these translations immediately. I think they compare closely to the NJB more than to any other translation that I can think of. Also, I hope I'm not taking your comments on too much of a tangent, but your advice has been helpful and is appreciated on my end. Any other ideas would be great, thanks. Nate After a few days reading I’m finding that I much prefer the layout of the NEB over that of the REB. The single columns with ch. & verse off to the side makes for easier reading. If I were to only buy one of these translations I wonder how much revision I’d be missing if I went with the NEB. I’m actually quite surprised that the layout on the page has affected my perception of the translation differences. The revisions may make it a better bible overall, but I’m beginning to think that maybe I should go with the original for both it’s layout and for being more daring in comparison with other translations.

As far as beauty in translation, I had noticed the literary quality of these translations immediately. I think they compare closely to the NJB more than to any other translation that I can think of. Also, I hope I’m not taking your comments on too much of a tangent, but your advice has been helpful and is appreciated on my end. Any other ideas would be great, thanks.

Nate

]]> By: Nathan http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-873 Nathan Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:36:51 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=553#comment-873 Thanks for the reply. I'll check out the REB from the library this Thursday. Will take me some time to read through it enough to get some idea for it's style vs. others, but I'll try to remember to post back here with some observations. Thanks for the reply. I’ll check out the REB from the library this Thursday. Will take me some time to read through it enough to get some idea for it’s style vs. others, but I’ll try to remember to post back here with some observations.

]]> By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-872 ElShaddai Edwards Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:16:43 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=553#comment-872 If you like dynamic translations that are daring and push the envelope, then definitely find a copy of the NEB. The REB is still outstanding, but they definitely pulled back a bit in the revision. The NEB took a lot of chances, especially with variant texts and reordering verses to tighten up the various threads of thought. A little too aggressive perhaps to be a primary translation these days (the REB is better suited for that), but definitely worth having for reference. <i>I can’t remember whose blog I read this on, but he recommended reading the bible in large swathes 5 days a week, and doing in depth study 2 days.</i> That loosely fits what I'm able to do - I try to read each day on the bus to/from work (30-40 minute trip), then study on the weekend mornings before the rest of my family gets up. If you like dynamic translations that are daring and push the envelope, then definitely find a copy of the NEB. The REB is still outstanding, but they definitely pulled back a bit in the revision. The NEB took a lot of chances, especially with variant texts and reordering verses to tighten up the various threads of thought. A little too aggressive perhaps to be a primary translation these days (the REB is better suited for that), but definitely worth having for reference.

I can’t remember whose blog I read this on, but he recommended reading the bible in large swathes 5 days a week, and doing in depth study 2 days.

That loosely fits what I’m able to do – I try to read each day on the bus to/from work (30-40 minute trip), then study on the weekend mornings before the rest of my family gets up.

]]> By: Nathan http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-871 Nathan Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:44:22 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=553#comment-871 The REB is one of the only major translations that I do not yet have a copy of. There have been a few occasions where I've had one in hand to purchase (used) but changed my mind. I noticed last thursday my university has one on the shelf so I may check it out and possibly buy one after that. I guess I'm just not certain where it falls in the translation space-time-continuum. Also, some of the scathing comparisons of it to the NEB had me wondering whether or not that version might be better to obtain. I took the plunge with my NJB (vs. JB) and really like it, so perhaps I will give the REB a shot. As far as which translations I prefer right now, I've been reading a little pocket TNIV with a magnetic closure that makes for easy traveling. My wife just bought me The Books of the Bible (the one w/o chap & verse) and it will become my new 'daily reading bible.' For study however I always go to my NASB, my greek/hebrew interlinears and concordances. I've got a few commentaries and other books as well but I really don't understand how people can attempt to gain insight into scripture based solely on a single english translation. Even with all of my helps it is a difficult though rewarding task. So perhaps what I'm trying to say is that in the light of the current discussion, I prefer an easier to read modern English translation such as the (T)NIV, CSB, or NJB for daily reading and usage. However when it comes to looking into the deeper (original?) meanings or to clarify a passage, I always go to a variety of translations, the source languages, and the commentaries. I've only recently been exposed to the philosophy that one should read the bible in large chunks and that under girds my present approach. I can't remember whose blog I read this on, but he recommended reading the bible in large swathes 5 days a week, and doing in depth study 2 days. The REB is one of the only major translations that I do not yet have a copy of. There have been a few occasions where I’ve had one in hand to purchase (used) but changed my mind. I noticed last thursday my university has one on the shelf so I may check it out and possibly buy one after that. I guess I’m just not certain where it falls in the translation space-time-continuum. Also, some of the scathing comparisons of it to the NEB had me wondering whether or not that version might be better to obtain. I took the plunge with my NJB (vs. JB) and really like it, so perhaps I will give the REB a shot.

As far as which translations I prefer right now, I’ve been reading a little pocket TNIV with a magnetic closure that makes for easy traveling. My wife just bought me The Books of the Bible (the one w/o chap & verse) and it will become my new ‘daily reading bible.’ For study however I always go to my NASB, my greek/hebrew interlinears and concordances. I’ve got a few commentaries and other books as well but I really don’t understand how people can attempt to gain insight into scripture based solely on a single english translation. Even with all of my helps it is a difficult though rewarding task.

So perhaps what I’m trying to say is that in the light of the current discussion, I prefer an easier to read modern English translation such as the (T)NIV, CSB, or NJB for daily reading and usage. However when it comes to looking into the deeper (original?) meanings or to clarify a passage, I always go to a variety of translations, the source languages, and the commentaries. I’ve only recently been exposed to the philosophy that one should read the bible in large chunks and that under girds my present approach. I can’t remember whose blog I read this on, but he recommended reading the bible in large swathes 5 days a week, and doing in depth study 2 days.

]]> By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-870 ElShaddai Edwards Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:45:52 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=553#comment-870 Yes, probably impossible to achieve both, so ultimately I fall on the side of dynamic equivalence. I tried to gauge where folks were at in my post, <a href="/2008/02/08/which-translation-would-you-choose/" rel="nofollow">Which translation would you choose?</a> Wayne Leman captured the essence of my thoughts in this comment to John's post: <blockquote>[W]e must never forget that a translation is supposed to communicate the meaning of the biblical texts to native speakers of another language. If we translate so that only people who have specialized knowledge of biblical metaphors and idioms can understand them, then how can we call such a translation beautiful?</blockquote> I've chosen to use the HCSB as my preferred bible translation for study, but I <i>love</i> to read the REB. Those two, plus the NLT, cover many bases. Yes, probably impossible to achieve both, so ultimately I fall on the side of dynamic equivalence. I tried to gauge where folks were at in my post, Which translation would you choose? Wayne Leman captured the essence of my thoughts in this comment to John’s post:

[W]e must never forget that a translation is supposed to communicate the meaning of the biblical texts to native speakers of another language. If we translate so that only people who have specialized knowledge of biblical metaphors and idioms can understand them, then how can we call such a translation beautiful?

I’ve chosen to use the HCSB as my preferred bible translation for study, but I love to read the REB. Those two, plus the NLT, cover many bases.

]]> By: Kevin Sam http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-869 Kevin Sam Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:28:29 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=553#comment-869 <i>.... what I called “literary equivalence“, in which the semantic and syntactic “intertextual web” of an original text are ideally maintained in translation to the target language. It was correctly pointed out that literary equivalence really is what dynamic equivalence (DE) was intended to be.</i> It's a great proposal ElShaddai for an ideal situation to get both FE and DE together. At least that is what I think if I understand you correctly. If so, this would be very very hard to achieve, if not down-right impossible. That's why I like to have my NLT, TNIV, and NASB next to me. That would make for a good parallel bible. …. what I called “literary equivalence“, in which the semantic and syntactic “intertextual web” of an original text are ideally maintained in translation to the target language. It was correctly pointed out that literary equivalence really is what dynamic equivalence (DE) was intended to be.

It’s a great proposal ElShaddai for an ideal situation to get both FE and DE together. At least that is what I think if I understand you correctly. If so, this would be very very hard to achieve, if not down-right impossible. That’s why I like to have my NLT, TNIV, and NASB next to me. That would make for a good parallel bible.

]]> By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-868 ElShaddai Edwards Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:47:26 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=553#comment-868 Lingamish clarified: <blockquote>Shoulda said…</blockquote> I was gonna say... Lingamish clarified:

Shoulda said…

I was gonna say…

]]> By: Read the Bible naked « Lingamish http://heissufficient.com/2008/02/10/beautiful-translations-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-867 Read the Bible naked « Lingamish Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:43:22 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=553#comment-867 [...] Language is just a medium for thought. Translations that try to mimic the original distract from the... [...] [...] Language is just a medium for thought. Translations that try to mimic the original distract from the… [...]

]]>