What Makes a Bible Version a Paraphrase?

[Hidden In Him]

I ask, because there are new versions coming out these days that define themselves as translations when they are in fact paraphrases in my opinion. But the term is defined differently by different sources. Some claim it refers simply to a version that doesn't correspond word-for-word with the original text, whereas others define it as a version reworded from an already existing English translation. This later definition is what is giving license to redefining the word "translation" in very loose terms for me.

So what is correct? Wiki defines the word Paraphrase as “a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.” It then defines the word Rewording as “changing a particular word or phrase to state or express it again in different words.”

Under these definitions, should not a version which takes great liberties with an original text be considered a paraphrase? Yes or no?

I invite anyone's opinions.

A few quotes from sources that tend to agree with the above conclusion that a paraphrase is simply a loose version based off scripture itself, since nothing is mentioned about a preexisting English version in their definitions of the term.

Paraphrased translations use modern language and idioms to try to capture the thought and essence behind the original text.
Paraphrased Bible Translations - Olive Tree Bible Software

A biblical paraphrase is a literary work which has as its goal, not the translation of the Bible, but rather, the rendering of the Bible into a work that retells all or part of the Bible in a manner that accords with a particular set of theological or political doctrines.
Biblical paraphrase - Wikipedia

A paraphrase is a retelling of something in your own words… A paraphrase takes the meaning of a verse or passage of Scripture and attempts to express the meaning in “plain language.”
Should I use a paraphrase of the Bible?

“A paraphrase bible is one that allows the greatest level of liberty in translation. In fact, ‘translation’ is probably too strong a word for many of the paraphrase bibles out there… more and more modern versions are truly paraphrases. The dynamic equivalency doctrine of many modern versions is just a fancy way of saying paraphrase.”
Paraphrase Bibles | Learn The Bible

A paraphrase is a less literal rendering of the Bible – restating the text to give the original sense but not attempting to literally translate each term in the original language.
The Difference between Literal and Dynamic Translations of the Bible

Paraphrased Bibles, such as The Living Bible or The Message… exercise considerable “poetic license” in interpreting biblical terms and passages according to their own personal religious ideas.
What's the Difference Between Various Bible Versions?

 

[Willie T]

I ask, because there are new versions coming out these days that define themselves as translations when they are in fact paraphrases in my opinion. But the term is defined differently by different sources. Some claim it refers simply to a version that doesn't correspond word-for-word with the original text, whereas others define it as a version reworded from an already existing English translation. This later definition is what is giving license to redefining the word "translation" in very loose terms for me.

So what is correct? Wiki defines the word Paraphrase as “a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.” It then defines the word Rewording as “changing a particular word or phrase to state or express it again in different words.”

Under these definitions, should not a version which takes great liberties with an original text be considered a paraphrase? Yes or no?

I invite anyone's opinions.

A few quotes from sources that tend to agree with the above conclusion that a paraphrase is simply a loose version based off scripture itself, since nothing is mentioned about a preexisting English version in their definitions of the term.

Paraphrased translations use modern language and idioms to try to capture the thought and essence behind the original text.
Paraphrased Bible Translations - Olive Tree Bible Software

A biblical paraphrase is a literary work which has as its goal, not the translation of the Bible, but rather, the rendering of the Bible into a work that retells all or part of the Bible in a manner that accords with a particular set of theological or political doctrines.
Biblical paraphrase - Wikipedia

A paraphrase is a retelling of something in your own words… A paraphrase takes the meaning of a verse or passage of Scripture and attempts to express the meaning in “plain language.”
Should I use a paraphrase of the Bible?

“A paraphrase bible is one that allows the greatest level of liberty in translation. In fact, ‘translation’ is probably too strong a word for many of the paraphrase bibles out there… more and more modern versions are truly paraphrases. The dynamic equivalency doctrine of many modern versions is just a fancy way of saying paraphrase.”
Paraphrase Bibles | Learn The Bible

A paraphrase is a less literal rendering of the Bible – restating the text to give the original sense but not attempting to literally translate each term in the original language.
7. Translations
Tyndale | Stories: The Difference between Literal and Dynamic Translations of the Bible

Paraphrased Bibles, such as The Living Bible or The Message… exercise considerable “poetic license” in interpreting biblical terms and passages according to their own personal religious ideas.
What's the Difference Between Various Bible Versions?

Interestingly enough, I have always believed that if a person could not read any particular Scripture, and then explain the essence of it to someone else, in his own words, then (I feel) he probably never really understood the Scripture in the first place.

To me, this represents the majority of Christians:

Typical Bible Class

Instructor: "Brother Jones, will you read Verse 1?"
Brother Jones reads it.
Instructor: "Brother Smith, can you tell us what that verse means?
Brother Smith: "Just what it says!"
All the Class: "AMEN!!!"
Instructor: "Thank you. Now, Brother Brown, will you read verse 2?"

 

[Hidden In Him]

Interestingly enough, I have always believed that if a person could not read any particular Scripture, and then repeat the essence of it to someone else, in his own words, then (I feel) he probably never really understood the Scripture in the first place.

Ok, LoL. That's a bit of a separate issue, though. I'm trying to address what constitutes a paraphrase and what constitutes an actual translation. The definition appears to be shifting, and if we open up the door to practically calling anything a "translation" we can be heading for trouble, IMO. So I'm wanting debate on this issue specifically. The rights and wrongs on the usefulness of Paraphrases is another question, so long as they readily define themselves as such.

 

[Willie T]

Ok, LoL. That's a bit of a separate issue, though. I'm trying to address what constitutes a paraphrase and what constitutes an actual translation. The definition appears to be shifting, and if we open up the door to practically calling anything a "translation" we can be heading for trouble, IMO. So I'm wanting debate on this issue specifically. The rights and wrongs on the usefulness of Paraphrases is another question, so long as they readily define themselves as such.

Do you speak any other languages?

 

[Willie T]

There are three main types of Bible translations: word-for-word, thought-for-thought and paraphrase. A word-for-word translation attempts to translate each Hebrew or Greek word into a corresponding English word. However, some consider a word-for-word translation harder to understand, particularly when it comes to figures of speech that are not used in modern culture. Two examples of word-for-word translations are the King James Version and the New King James Version.

The thought-for-thought translations seek to express the meaning of each sentence or paragraph from the original language in simple up-to-date English without being tied to translating every word. As such, these types of translations should not be exclusively relied on for "doctrinal" study. The New International Version is perhaps the most well-known of the thought-for-thought translations.

A paraphrased translation has the primary goal of conveying the Bible in a simple, easy-to-understand language without regard to word-for-word or even thought-for-thought expressions of the original languages. The authors often exercise “poetic license,” leaving great room for personal religious ideas.

 

[Willie T]

BTW, don't get side tracked by the word, "doctrine" in my last post. We have thoroughly butchered the Biblical meaning of that word.

 

[Hidden In Him]

There are three main types of Bible translations: word-for-word, thought-for-thought and paraphrase. A word-for-word translation attempts to translate each Hebrew or Greek word into a corresponding English word. However, some consider a word-for-word translation harder to understand, particularly when it comes to figures of speech that are not used in modern culture. Two examples of word-for-word translations are the King James Version and the New King James Version.

The thought-for-thought translations seek to express the meaning of each sentence or paragraph from the original language in simple up-to-date English without being tied to translating every word. As such, these types of translations should not be exclusively relied on for "doctrinal" study. The New International Version is perhaps the most well-known of the thought-for-thought translations.

A paraphrased translation has the primary goal of conveying the Bible in a simple, easy-to-understand language without regard to word-for-word or even thought-for-thought expressions of the original languages. The authors often exercise “poetic license,” leaving great room for personal religious ideas.

Yes, and I appreciate these definitions as they are clear and to the point. My issue in this thread is particularly with paraphrases being redefined as "translations" based on the criteria cited from the author of The Passion Translation.

From their official webpage:

“There is often some confusion in the Christian community when it comes to various versions of the Bible, particularly the differences between “translation” and “paraphrase.”

“A paraphrase version of the Bible utilizes an existing English-language translation as its base text. It paraphrases one version into more contemporary language. For instance, in 1971 the creator of The Living Bible paraphrased the existing American Standard Versionof 1901 to create a new English-language Bible version.”

“A translation, however, uses the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts as the base text for a new version of the Bible. It translates these original languages into a modern language. For example, the translators of the New International Version in 1978 worked off the original ancient-language manuscripts to produce a new English Bible by translating those ancient languages into the modern language.”

“Similar to such functional or dynamic equivalent translations as the New International Version and the New Living Translation Bible versions, The Passion Translation is a new version of God’s Word that is considered a translation because it uses the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts to translate the essential message of the Scriptures into contemporary English.”

“The Passion Translation is an excellent translation you can use as your primary text to seriously study God’s Word because it combines the best aspects of what is called formal and functional equivalence Bibles. It is a balanced translation that tries to hold both the Word’s literal meaning and original message in proper tension, resulting in an entirely new, fresh, fiery translation of God’s Word. Furthermore, this is the first modern English translation to use Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the disciples, as a lens through which to view God’s original Word to us, a word of truth and love.”

“This translation philosophy will benefit your serious study of Scripture in several ways.”
“The text was interpreted from the original language, carrying its original meaning and giving you an accurate, reliable expression of God’s original message.”
“The meaning of a passage takes priority over the form of the original words, so that every English speaker can encounter the heart of God through His Word in a way that’s natural and readable.”
“This translation keeps the Bible in step with changes in modern English, helping you clearly understand God’s original message and how it applies to your life in the twenty-first century.”
”This translation reclaims lost Aramaic texts, bringing the full texture of God’s Word to the surface, and helping you recapture the original essence of the teachings of Jesus and His disciples.
”This version taps into the love language of God, letting the words of Scripture go through the human soul, past the defenses of our mind, and into our spirit. Countless people have told us how The Passion Translation has helped them freshly discover intimacy with Christ in their journey through Scripture, and that it has rapidly become their favorite translation of choice for Bible study. We are thrilled to offer this accurate, faithful, clear, and readable translation for your serious study of God’s Word, and look forward to hearing how it helps you encounter the heart of God anew.”

 

[Willie T]

As I said, considering the way we have butchered the meanings of many Biblical words, ("doctrine" and "repent" are just two examples), it doesn't even faze me to see people calling words in our vocabularies different things. Most people even think Empathy and Sympathy are synonymous.

BTW, I only just recently found the TPT (thanks to some people bashing it over on "Worthy Christian" forum), and I am really enjoying it. I especially like the "NOTES" it gives so often.

 

[Willie T]

This is also part of what Biblegateway says about their book:

"There is no such thing as a truly literal translation of the Bible, for there is not an equivalent language that perfectly conveys the meaning of the biblical text. It must be understood in its original cultural and linguistic settings. This problem is best addressed when we seek to transfer meaning, not merely words, from the original text to the receptor language."

"The purpose of the Passion Translation is to reintroduce the passion and fire of the Bible to the English reader. It doesn’t merely convey the literal meaning of words. It expresses God’s passion for people and his world by translating the original, life-changing message of God’s Word for modern readers."

 

[Hidden In Him]

BTW, I only just recently found the TPT (thanks to some people bashing it over on "Worthy Christian" forum), and I am really enjoying it. I especially like the "NOTES" it gives so often.

LoL. That thread was actually the impetus for this one. I got into it with Yowm because he was needlessly opposing me (something I thought needed to be addressed, and not just for my sake only), and then another sister disagreed with me that it was a paraphrase.

Personally, if a person comes to Christ or gets closer to the Lord through a paraphrase, I'm all for it. I simply have strong misgivings about defining them as "translations." People need to remain cognizant of the difference between genuine exegesis and paraphrasing. We have enough theological ignorance as is, and way too many vague understandings of what individual verses mean in their contexts.

 

[Willie T]

My opinion of many of them plummeted when we had that fiasco over The Shack a couple of weeks ago. Such hatred!

 

[Hidden In Him]

My opinion of many of them plummeted when we had that fiasco over The Shack a couple of weeks ago. Such hatred!

I'm glad to say I missed it, LoL (and not because that's what it was about). Sometimes things need to be addressed. I asked the Lord afterwards if I had made a mistake and been too hard on them...

Nope.

 

[Willie T]

I'm glad to say I missed it, LoL (and not because that's what it was about). Sometimes things need to be addressed. I asked the Lord afterwards if I had made a mistake and been too hard on them...

Nope.

"Everything" needs to be addressed. But you don't sharpen your knife and load your gun on the way to the discussion table...…….. unless you never had any intention of dialogue.

 

[lforrest]

IMO, a paraphrase crosses the line of Man teaching man instead of God teaching man. The words are no longer inspired, but subjected to the author's interpretation. While all translations are subjected to a degree of interpretation in the translation process, most are localized to the immediate context of a few verses and based on an understanding of the original language, derived from various sources.

 

[Hidden In Him]

IMO, a paraphrase crosses the line of Man teaching man instead of God teaching man. The words are no longer inspired, but subjected to the author's interpretation. While all translations are subjected to a degree of interpretation in the translation process, most are localized to the immediate context of a few verses and based on an understanding of the original language, derived from various sources.

Exactly. The minute word-for-word equivalence gets cast aside, you open the door to virtually anything being put forward as "scripture" in the name of "communicating the meaning of the text."

 

[Willie T]

Exactly. The minute word-for-word equivalence gets cast aside, you open the door to virtually anything being put forward as "scripture" in the name of "communicating the meaning of the text."

That is why I asked you if you speak any other languages. "Word-for-word" translation of most any language into another, especially English, is probably the most prone to error that there is.
Go compare Luke 14:26. TPT to KJV.

 

[Hidden In Him]

That is why I asked you if you speak any other languages. "Word-for-word" translation of most any language into another, especially English, is probably the most prone to error that there is.
Go compare Luke 14:26. TPT to KJV.

Balderdash! My view is that it's more often than not attributable to interpretative laziness, not an apparent lack of word-for work equivalence between the two languages, at least from koine Greek to modern English anyway. Now from something like Spanish to English, maybe so. I've seen Hispanics try to translate native sayings into English and they have no easy time of it. But 99 times out of a 100, from the NT koine into modern English, equivalence is easy to establish.

Not that I'm being confrontational but rather just as a fun test, feel free to test me. I'd like to put my position to trial. It's been some time since I've studied the Greek, and I could use some motivation.

 

[amadeus]

@Hidden In Him

There are three main types of Bible translations: word-for-word, thought-for-thought and paraphrase. A word-for-word translation attempts to translate each Hebrew or Greek word into a corresponding English word. However, some consider a word-for-word translation harder to understand, particularly when it comes to figures of speech that are not used in modern culture. Two examples of word-for-word translations are the King James Version and the New King James Version.

The thought-for-thought translations seek to express the meaning of each sentence or paragraph from the original language in simple up-to-date English without being tied to translating every word. As such, these types of translations should not be exclusively relied on for "doctrinal" study. The New International Version is perhaps the most well-known of the thought-for-thought translations.

A paraphrased translation has the primary goal of conveying the Bible in a simple, easy-to-understand language without regard to word-for-word or even thought-for-thought expressions of the original languages. The authors often exercise “poetic license,” leaving great room for personal religious ideas.

The whole problem I see with this subject is that all of us who are not experts in the original languages in which the scriptures were written are dependent in a measure on those who have translated them into languages we understand. If the translator is not in someway guided by God, what will the result be?

Communication among men is always a problem among men and apparently always has been if we accept what we read in Genesis 11 [most any translated or paraphrased version... whatever that means].
The solution of course, that is the way to obtain God's truth is to follow the Spirit closely rather than simply accepting what some man has or men have concluded... no matter what his or their credentials happen to be.

We can understand why the Catholics... and others... are slow or even refuse to accept the interpretation of just anyone who comes along as always being what "thus saith the Lord".

The three types described by friend @Willie T may be good ones... if the written Bible is indeed the Word of God without exception or exclusion. Here's where I move away perhaps from both of you... or?

Who can write down the thoughts or ideas of words of God without direct help from Him? Do we have to quote a verse word for word in order to communicate God's message to others? How do we know when we open our mouths to speak that that is what we are doing rather than just following the lead of some translator who was on his own rather than with God being led by the Holy Spirit?

Did God only speak once in the language of those who were allowed to hear and they then wrote down what He said word for word? Or did they receive the idea in their minds [hearts] and they then effectively translated it into their own human language? This is speaking only of those who originally received the inspiration.

The later translators who rewote it for the benefit of people who did not speak or read the original written languages must also have been inspired if God retained control of the dispersion of His Word to men.

You may understand already my point. Word for word, or thought for thought or paraphrased or...whatever? Can not God inspire the reader or can a reader even really understand God's message without inspiration? A "for sure" atheist can read the best of translations of whatever type and because he reads with the wrong intentions and get nothing of God's truth from it. Similarly a believer who is stuck in his own pet beliefs according to himself or his pastor or his denomination will also not get anything different from the scriptures than what he already holds to be truth... unless he is willing to really turn it over to God and open himself up...

As I see it, the written scriptures [just about any version or language or type (word for word, thought for thought, or paraphrase)] are the dead carcass of Jesus who is the Word of God. That carcass must be consumed and brought to Life in us. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in anyone who really is yielded to the Spirit... whether the person has a PhD in the original human languages or is barely able to read his own language.

 

[Willie T]

Balderdash! My view is that it's more often than not attributable to interpretative laziness, not an apparent lack of word-for work equivalence between the two languages, at least from koine Greek to modern English anyway. Now from something like Spanish to English, maybe so. I've seen Hispanics try to translate native sayings into English and they have no easy time of it. But 99 times out of a 100, from the NT koine into modern English, equivalence is easy to establish.

Not that I'm being confrontational but rather just as a fun test, feel free to test me. I'd like to put my position to trial. It's been some time since I've studied the Greek, and I could use some motivation.

I'm pretty sure I asked about Luke 14:26. Was the original language, "hate?" And, if it was, does that mean the same thing in our English? How about the "camel and the eye of a needle" saying?

 

[Enoch111]

Some claim it refers simply to a version that doesn't correspond word-for-word with the original text, whereas others define it as a version reworded from an already existing English translation

It could be both. For a good example please examine the NIV.