Comments on: Three types of Bible translation readers

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:45:16 +0000

Ruben,

Thanks for the comments – my post was born out of some frustration with discussions about the “translation wars”, and without that context, I agree that the list could be read as “negative”. I apologize if this has given offense and welcome any thoughts you have on “more positive categories”!

By: Ruben Mitchell

Ruben Mitchell — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:50:31 +0000

Has anyone considered that this list might be incomplete? All three seem pretty negative to me. Could there be more positive categories of Bible translation readers? Just thinking out loud for now.
Ruben, an ESL teacher based in Asia

By: Beg to differ « Lingamish

Beg to differ « Lingamish — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:23:49 +0000

[...] ElShaddai Edwards: Three types of Bible translation readers [...]

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:48:50 +0000

@Kevin – Thanks for chiming in! Keep in mind that a “skeptic” is not necessarily negative; it’s just that they’re constantly weighing and comparing the merits of what they read against what they know, rather than accepting a translation blindly.

By: Kevin Sam

Kevin Sam — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:39:50 +0000

ElShaddai, yes I can see you being contrarian because of your love for the REB. This is an interesting way to categorize bible translation readers. If I have to put myself in one category, I’d have to say I’d be a “skeptic”. I never thought of myself as a skeptic before. I’ve always thought of myself as being mostly a positive person.

Gary, you have to keep writing more posts.

By: Gary Zimmerli

Gary Zimmerli — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:40:25 +0000

This is intriguing, ElShaddai, since I just switched back to the NKJV. I’m gonna have to contemplate this, and figure out why I’m so comfortable with it all of a sudden. Hmmm, I may have to write another blog post.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:59:21 +0000

I don’t exactly like the label ‘skeptic’, though by your definition that’s probably the best category I’d fit in, if I had to choose one. Thing is that I enjoy traditional language, but I don’t see it as necessary in all circumstances, nor for that matter always preferable. Given that I’ve studied textual criticism in school, I like to consider such issues in Bible translations. That said, though, my preference is to accept the usual interpretation unless there’s a very good reason to do otherwise.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:15:22 +0000

I don’t know… these days I often find myself craving a simple mind uncluttered by contrarian or skeptical musings.

By: rogermugs

rogermugs — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:13:22 +0000

i’m a traditionalist… maybe someday i’ll mature.

By: Damian

Damian — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:26:53 +0000

I’d have to say I’m a generous dose of all three.

For the most part I choose my translations as a contratrian would, to find alternative interpretations of scripture.

But I read them sceptically in that I do rely on an understanding of critical issues.

And this scepticism seems to happen most when I find something that doesn’t “sound or feel right”, which you call traditional.

However, I’m nitpicking . If I had to pick one, I’d call sceptic.