What Makes a Bible Version a Paraphrase?

[Philip James]

Any good version should give you a thorough explanation of texts used, methods, problems etc... In making that version.

 

[Helen]

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?

That says it all.
If a father wishes to re-write the bible in his own words, and his own interpretation of what God has said...fine...but just call it "A Bible".
It will have very little of God, but a whole lot of man in it!!

I agree with what Iforrest said..."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."

As for me an my house, one would come through our door.

 

[Jay Ross]

Perhaps, it is our lack of ability to comprehend things that are so vast that we cannot get our laughing matter around the original language's meaning/understand of the words used in the "original" text that has been translated into our modern day Bibles.

A good example of this is found in our modern day translations where a finite time period is converted into an infinite time period because of our understanding of, lets say, H:1755 dors, which has been given a technical meaning of "many generations" when H:1755 is found twice in succession in the Hebrew text whereas, in other places when two Hebrew words are used in succession it has been translated as "two".

Perhaps we should consider that all modern translations of the original translated texts are paraphrases where the committees have attempted to express their understanding of what a phrase or word may mean.

Be that as it may mean, it is still the best means that we poor single language speaking and reading people have of obtaining an understanding of God, and if we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, then God has a means of providing correct to us.

Shalom

PS: - All translations are not infallible as some would claim them to be.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Greetings, Amadeus!

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?

Yes, I agree. I don't hold the position that every member of the body of Christ should be expected to study original languages, so those who translate bear the same responsibility as those who teach (James 3:1).

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 or men have concluded... no matter what their credentials happen to be.

I agree here as well.

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 I open our mouths to speak that we are doing just that rather than following the lead of some translator who was on his own rather than with God being led by the Holy Spirit?... Can not God inspire the reader or can a reader even really understand God's message without inspiration?

Well yes. This is in principle why I have no problem with paraphrases per se, but parading them off as translations gives the uninformed the idea that they are reading a word-for-word literal rendering of the text, which can be very misleading. Have you ever met someone - a real Bible thumper - who sticks his Bible in your face and says, "See there, it says it right here," and then stresses the exact wording being used in his version? Well, if they do that and they are not even using a genuine translation it's a real problem. Surely there will always be those who generate strife, but those who feel justified to do so based on a loose translation of "scripture" are capable of really creating all sorts of havoc, IMO.

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.

Yes and no. :) When He ascended He did not say "I will send you the Holy Book, and it will lead you into all truth." He said He would send the Spirit who would do so. But the utterances of the Holy Spirit must always be weighed against the written word of God, for if they contract this, it is instant proof that they are not in keeping with what the Holy Spirit has already laid down as the doctrinal foundations of the church.

Thanks for your post. I enjoyed it!

 

[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.

Wow. Did you add that later? I didn't notice it. Oops! I just noticed it was already there when I quoted it.

Well anyway, the TPT is not word-for-word correspondence to start with. "When you follow me as my disciple, you must put aside your father, your mother, your wife, your sisters, your brothers—yes, you will even seem as though you hate your own life."

He is changing this into an imperative for one one thing, when the entire sentence is not. KJV (which is much more faithful to the text) reads, " If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

And yes, the word is "hate," not put aside. This is a case in point. The word could potentially be rendered as "disdain" in this context, which would be applying the principle of how word meanings change with time. But "put aside" is not even coming close to remaining faithful to the text.

Did I answer your question, or am I losing site of your point? I'm getting a little lost at this point, LoL. (Been a long day).

 

[Hidden In Him]

I agree with what Iforrest said..."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."

He did put it well. "The words are no longer inspired." The same thing happens in conversation (which is really an interesting point to meditate on, btw). We talk about the word as believers without ever actually quoting it much. Jesus actually quoted it word-for-word a lot. So did the apostles.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Perhaps we should consider that all modern translations of the original translated texts are paraphrases where the committees have attempted to express their understanding of what a phrase or word may mean.

Ok, now this is cutting even deeper into my argument than I am, but in large part I agree. Ultimately true teachers of the word should be able to cite from the original period. But now, this hard a line might leave out those who glean insights just from examination of the original texts without actually being able to read them. We live in the day when original language reference and parsing works are readily available in print, and this opens the door for that many more people to study the original texts without need of four years of learning how to read the language. I am actually in the process of going back to learning to read now, but that has not stopped me from gaining a great deal of revelation from study of the texts, revelation that still stands in light of what I increasingly learn about proper translation.

 

[Helen]

He did put it well. "The words are no longer inspired." The same thing happens in conversation (which is really an interesting point to meditate on, btw). We talk about the word as believers without ever actually quoting it much. Jesus actually quoted it word-for-word a lot. So did the apostles.

I am sometime guilty of that. If I quote I quote from KJV ..but confess that often I just quote it 'off the cuff' because I learned it...

I am very mixed about posts with lots of quoted scriptures, with little other content. ...some days it irritates me...it's as if the poster doesn't believe that we too have also read and still read the Bible.

Yes, Jesus would "actually quoted it word for word"
He was the Word, and wrote it the first time around!!!

 

[Hidden In Him]

I am sometime guilty of that. If I quote I quote from KJV ..but confess that often I just quote it 'off the cuff' because I learned it...

LoL. Not to worry. There are actually several instances of Bible writers "quoting" a text but actually paraphrasing it. It happens, ok. You just deal with it, LoL.

I am very mixed about posts with lots of quoted scriptures, with little other content. ...some days it irritates me...

Yes! Well now this is another point. That is going completely in the opposite direction, and I find it irritating as well. I also used to find it terribly irritating when preachers would read off a long text, and then go on in their message to not explain a lick of it, as if:

A. No one in the congregation can read for themselves, and
B. Everyone just brilliantly understood the oracles of God contained in the text he just read without him needing to explain anything.

Used to make me cuss a little bit, LoL.

Yes, Jesus would "actually quoted it word for word"
He was the Word, and wrote it the first time around!!!

Beautiful point! And because the Word is supposed to dwell richly within us, we should be a manifestation of the Word made flesh as well. Correct? :)

 

[Helen]

And because the Word is supposed to dwells richly within us, we should be a manifestation of the Word made flesh as well. Correct?

AMEN Yes indeed. :)

Our old Pastor used to say.."read the word, dwell on the word, think on the word , until you become the word. "

Not quite there yet!! lol

 

[Helen]

This may be off topic..but does anyone else remember reading decades ago about a group of bible scholars (no idea which country) That were ( maybe) arguing with or about Ivor Panin the mathematician who wrote about all the divine numbers in the bible...and said how the bible was true ( must have been the KJV ) because every verse in the NT (? or gospels) could be divided into sevens perfectly.
So these men were given the challenge to write just one verse. But the verse must make sense.
These men said that they could do it...( how many men I have no idea) they tried for seven months I think...and finally gave in...they could not write a verse which perfectly could be divided by 7's, Proof of Divine writings that only the Lord could have written.

Anyone else remember this?
I'm sure it was the 60's.
True or not?

My dad used to have a numerical bible. Also books written by Ivan Panin.

I just checked...and found this...( not sure what it has to do with this thread..) ....but I just thought of it!
Ivan Panin - Wikipedia

 

[OzSpen]

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?

Excellent topic HiH,

Oxford Dictionaries Online (s.v. paraphrase) defines paraphrase as: 'Express the meaning of (something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity'.

From my days in high school (a long, long time ago) to now, I've always understood that a paraphrase was a means of taking a narrative and putting the meaning in my own language. Even today, I can say to people: This is my paraphrase of what I remember he said.

The issue is not all that simple today with what you have raised here:

1. Dynamic equivalence translation (meaning for meaning). I put the NIV, NIRV, NLT, NET, ISV, NJB, REB, etc in that category.
2. Formal equivalence (word for word), e.g. KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NRSV.
3. Paraphrase: The Living Bible, The Message, GNB.

However, Greek expert from Dallas Seminary, Dr Daniel Wallace, claims the NLT is a paraphrase. He stated:

It’s no surprise that the TEV [GNB] and NLT have the most words, since these are both paraphrases. But the translations perceived to be more literal are often near the bottom of this list (that is, farther away from the Greek NT word-count). These include the KJV (#12), ASV (#11), NASB (#14), NASB 95 (#13), and RV (#10). Indeed, when the RV came out (1881), one of its stated goals was to be quite literal and the translators were consciously trying to be much more literal than the KJV (Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation – Daniel B. Wallace).​

I agree with him that paraphrases tend to be longer in the number of words but disagree the NLT is a paraphrase.

When Dr D A Carson preached at the Brisbane Baptist Tabernacle a couple of years ago, I went to hear him. I spoke briefly with him about the NLT as he translated the first draft of the Book of Acts and then it went to the committee of translation review. His words were, 'It's a bit too loose', yet he translated according to dynamic equivalence philosophy.

That's my penny worth.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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?

Willie,

The NLT translates as:

“If you want to be my disciple, you must, by comparison, hate everyone else—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple".​

I have only a brief time to check the meaning of 'hate' in Greek.

A T Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament provides this explanation of the meaning of 'hate' in Luke 14:26':

Hateth not (ou misei). An old and very strong verb misew, to hate, detest. The orientals use strong language where cooler spirits would speak of preference or indifference. But even so Jesus does not here mean that one must hate his father or mother of necessity or as such, for Matthew 15:4 proves the opposite. It is only where the element of choice comes in (cf. Matthew 6:24 ) as it sometimes does, when father or mother opposes Christ. Then one must not hesitate. The language here is more sharply put than in Matthew 10:37 . The ou here coalesces with the verb misei in this conditional clause of the first class determined as fulfilled. It is the language of exaggerated contrast, it is true, but it must not be watered down till the point is gone. In mentioning "and wife" Jesus has really made a comment on the excuse given in verse Matthew 20 (I married a wife and so I am not able to come). And his own life also (eti te kai thn psuchn eautou). Note te kai, both--and. "The te (B L) binds all the particulars into one bundle of renuncianda" (Bruce). Note this same triple group of conjunctions (eti te kai) in Acts 21:28 , "And moreover also," "even going as far as his own life." Martyrdom should be an ever-present possibility to the Christian, not to be courted, but not to be shunned. Love for Christ takes precedence "over even the elemental instinct of self-preservation" (Ragg) [source].
​

Oz

 

[Harvest 1874]

Dynamic Equivalence verses Formal Equivalence

The following is an extract from an article written by Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies which might help in this discussion.

Most laymen today think that a faithful translation of the Bible means a word-for-word translation. If the original has a noun, they expect a noun in the translation. If the original has sixteen words, they don't want to see seventeen words in the translation. We might call this translation "formal equivalence." The King James, old American Standard, and the New American Standard come closest to this ideal.

On the other end of the spectrum is a "phrase-for-phrase" translation, or a dynamic equivalence translation. It is not as concerned about the grammatical form of the original language as it is of the meaning of the original. A dynamic equivalence translation is more interpretive--but it is also easier to understand. The New International Version (in part) and the New English Bible follow this philosophy.

Actually, anyone who has ever learned a second language knows that a word-for-word translation is impossible much or most of the time. Idioms in one language need to be paraphrased. Even the King James translators realized this. In a couple of places in the OT, the Hebrew text literally reads, "God's nostrils enlarged." But the King James has something like, "God became angry"--which is what the expression means. In Matthew 1:18 the King James says that Mary was found to be with Child. But the Greek is quite different--and quite graphic: "Mary was having it in the belly"! And in many places in Paul's letters, the King James reads, "God forbid!" But the original has neither "God" nor "forbid." Literally, it says, "May it never be!" (as most modern translations render it!).

Therefore, when we speak of faithfulness in translation, we need to clarify the question: Faithfulness to form? or faithfulness to meaning? Sometimes faithfulness to one involves lack of fidelity to the other. There are problems with each of these. The King James, with its attempted fidelity to form, in some passages makes no sense. And in 1611 they made no sense! The New American Standard, likewise, is often characterized by wooden, stilted English.

On the other hand, dynamic equivalence translations sometimes are too interpretive. The NIV, in Eph 6:6, tells slaves to "Obey (their masters) not only to win their favor. . . ," but the word "only" is not in the Greek and I suspect that Paul did not mean to imply it, either. This reveals one of the problems with dynamic equivalence translations: the translators don't always know whether their interpretation is right.

But some versions don't interpret--they distort. Some are notorious for omitting references to Christ's blood, or for attempting to deny his deity. In these instances, the translators are neither faithful to the form or the meaning. They have perverted the Word of God.

Yet, dynamic equivalence translators who are honest with the text often make things very clear. In Phil 2:6, for example, the NIV tells us that Jesus was "in (his) very nature God." But most formal equivalence translations state that he was in the form of God. The problem with these formally correct translations is that they are misleading: the Greek word for 'form' here means essence or nature. We ourselves as Bible Students are satisfied with either interpretation as both convey the same thought that our Lord in his pre-human existence was in form (essence or nature) a spirit being just as God is a spirit being.

Dynamic equivalence versus formal equivalence: two different philosophies of translation. A formal equivalence translation lets the reader interpret for himself. But too often, the average reader doesn't have the background or the tools to interpret accurately. The net result is that he often badly misunderstands the text.

On the other hand, a dynamic equivalence translation is usually clear and quite understandable. But if the translators missed the point of the original--either intentionally or unintentionally--they will be communicating an idea foreign to the biblical text.

There are pros and cons of each philosophy of translation.”

 

[Harvest 1874]

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?

Let us use a comparison.

The declaration, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13), is to many a "hard saying," because the word “hated” seems to carry with it an antagonism which would be unjustified--so far as the human mind can discern --by anything that Esau did worse than other men, and because it attached to him from birth, "before he had done either good or bad."

The word "hated" evidently signified to love less, as also in (Deut 21:15-17). The thought is that Jacob was favored of the Lord and Esau was favored less; and these two, as the Apostle shows, were types of Israel natural and spiritual. God's favor to natural Israel, represented by Esau, was less than is his favor to spiritual Israel, later born, represented by Jacob. With this thought all is harmony and consistency.

It is of paramount importance that in seeking to have God first in life's affairs, we shall see to it that he is first in our thoughts; --that Jesus there has the preeminence which God intends he should have; that our affections should be preeminently set upon him more than upon husband, wife, or children; more than upon houses or lands; more than upon honors of men. Christ is to be enthroned in our hearts preeminent over all things, --yea, preeminent over self, and with many this submission of self is the most difficult proposition.

This is exactly what our Lord taught, when he said, "If any man come to me, and hate not [love not less] his father, and mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, his own life, [being] also, he cannot be my disciple."(Luke 14:26)

The word “hate” is apparently used in contrast with love. To be a disciple of Christ means that we must love supremely the Lord and the principles for which he stands, so that love for others would comparatively be hatred.

This signifies a cutting off of every love that would conflict with our love for the Lord. Our earthly loves are to be counted as nothing in comparison. Our Lord evidently used this word “hate” to impress the thought that the terms of discipleship are very rigid and exacting.

However let no one say that we are advocating in any way that we are to abandon our love and care for those dependent upon us, this is not our point. We wish merely to emphasize the love of our Lord as being preeminent over all other loves, i.e. love of self, of popularity, of worldly prosperity, of honor of men, of human theories and systems.

The Apostle wrote that any professing to be Jesus' disciples who neglected and fail to provide for their own households was worse than an infidel. (1Tim 5:8)

Jesus himself reproved the Pharisees for saying that a son who would make a large present of money to the temple might thereafter be excused from any responsibility to his parents in their support. (Mark 7:10-13)

Nor, can we suppose that Jesus, who in his dying hour provided for his own mother's care, taught neglect of parents.

One of the apostles, under the influence of the Spirit of Christ, said that a man should love his wife and cherish her as his own body, as the Lord loves and cherishes the Church (Eph 5:25), surely he did not contradict the Master in this.

God does not “hate” anyone, he does not hate the sinner, he hates the sin.

 

[amadeus]

Greetings, Amadeus!


Yes, I agree. I don't hold the position that every member of the body of Christ should be expected to study original languages, so those who translate bear the same responsibility as those who teach (James 3:1).

We all are responsible to God to do what He leads us to do in the way He directs. This should apply to each believer.

Well yes. This is in principle why I have no problem with paraphrases per se, but parading them off as translations gives the uninformed the idea that they are reading a word-for-word literal rendering of the text, which can be very misleading. Have you ever met someone - a real Bible thumper - who sticks his Bible in your face and says, "See there, it says it right here," and then stresses the exact wording being used in his version? Well, if they do that and they are not even using a genuine translation it's a real problem. Surely there will always be those who generate strife, but those who feel justified to do so based on a loose translation of "scripture" are capable of really creating all sorts of havoc, IMO.

Again it comes back to the individual and his walk with God. Teachers of translators have a special walk and responsibility, but no man who sincerely is hungry and thirsty for the righteousness of God is going to be led far from where God wants him to be... even if he is completely illiterate. Each person has to properly use what God has provided him. Not everyone has the same provision.

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matt 5:6

Yes and no. :) When He ascended He did not say "I will send you the Holy Book, and it will lead you into all truth." He said He would send the Spirit who would do so. But the utterances of the Holy Spirit must always be weighed against the written word of God, for if they contract this, it is instant proof that they are not in keeping with what the Holy Spirit has already laid down as the doctrinal foundations of the church.

What is written may be good, but who can correctly judge what another person understands from his reading other than God and/or one to whom God has shared His understanding? In other words:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matt 7:1-2

You can share your interpretation [doctrine, belief, etc.] with me or I can share mine with you, but we may be at different places in our walk with God and we certainly are different parts of the Body of Christ with different functions. For this reason we should be very slow to say another is wrong... even if we believe he is wrong. A question we need to ask of God is, whether or not it is our job to correct this guy who seems so far out of kilter?

 

[Willie T]

Let us use a comparison.

The declaration, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13), is to many a "hard saying," because the word “hated” seems to carry with it an antagonism which would be unjustified--so far as the human mind can discern --by anything that Esau did worse than other men, and because it attached to him from birth, "before he had done either good or bad."

The word "hated" evidently signified to love less, as also in (Deut 21:15-17). The thought is that Jacob was favored of the Lord and Esau was favored less; and these two, as the Apostle shows, were types of Israel natural and spiritual. God's favor to natural Israel, represented by Esau, was less than is his favor to spiritual Israel, later born, represented by Jacob. With this thought all is harmony and consistency.

It is of paramount importance that in seeking to have God first in life's affairs, we shall see to it that he is first in our thoughts; --that Jesus there has the preeminence which God intends he should have; that our affections should be preeminently set upon him more than upon husband, wife, or children; more than upon houses or lands; more than upon honors of men. Christ is to be enthroned in our hearts preeminent over all things, --yea, preeminent over self, and with many this submission of self is the most difficult proposition.

This is exactly what our Lord taught, when he said, "If any man come to me, and hate not [love not less] his father, and mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, his own life, [being] also, he cannot be my disciple."(Luke 14:26)

The word “hate” is apparently used in contrast with love. To be a disciple of Christ means that we must love supremely the Lord and the principles for which he stands, so that love for others would comparatively be hatred.

This signifies a cutting off of every love that would conflict with our love for the Lord. Our earthly loves are to be counted as nothing in comparison. Our Lord evidently used this word “hate” to impress the thought that the terms of discipleship are very rigid and exacting.

However let no one say that we are advocating in any way that we are to abandon our love and care for those dependent upon us, this is not our point. We wish merely to emphasize the love of our Lord as being preeminent over all other loves, i.e. love of self, of popularity, of worldly prosperity, of honor of men, of human theories and systems.

The Apostle wrote that any professing to be Jesus' disciples who neglected and fail to provide for their own households was worse than an infidel. (1Tim 5:8)

Jesus himself reproved the Pharisees for saying that a son who would make a large present of money to the temple might thereafter be excused from any responsibility to his parents in their support. (Mark 7:10-13)

Nor, can we suppose that Jesus, who in his dying hour provided for his own mother's care, taught neglect of parents.

One of the apostles, under the influence of the Spirit of Christ, said that a man should love his wife and cherish her as his own body, as the Lord loves and cherishes the Church (Eph 5:25), surely he did not contradict the Master in this.

God does not “hate” anyone, he does not hate the sinner, he hates the sin.

Nicely spoken. And it demonstrates just what I meant when I said that "word-for-word" translations fail us when we are not familiar with the deeper (or slightly different) meanings of perhaps just one single word such as, in these cases, "hate." You, me, and every other exclusively English speaker had to be given this rather long and involved explanation of the (possibly) "word-for-word" rendering of the word, "hate"….. when if the original translators had simply done like the TPT author (and a few others) have done, and written those passages as the "thought they were intended to convey", many a family break-up caused by misunderstandings among Fundamentalists, down through the ages, might have been avoided entirely. This is a very good example of why I feel a "thought-for-thought" translation is far superior for 98% of the reading public.

 

[th1b.taylor]

You are seeking the truth I take it and although it was the King James Version that I cut my teeth on, it is very difficult to extract the usage of any number of words and terms used. Today, we are an arrogant lot and boneheads that try to use the 1611 English with our modern day definitions and nothing will get you into trouble any quicker than that attitude.

One key example is YHWH's use of 'replenish' in Genesis. YHWH did not command them to refill the Earth but rather to fill the Earth. Today we reject that usage of the word and, more commonly use fill. The link is a complete explanation of the input you seek.

Personally, I prefer the NASB over my KJV, when teaching be3cause it is closer ta the KJV by far than my KJV. For a much more Poetic Reading that tickles the fancy, I read my KJV.

If you are thinking to purchase a copy, you might consider the Hallelujah Scriptures Version. the Hebrew Names read as they sound and are not translated into their English. A prime example is the Name of our Elohim (God) that in English isw spelled YHWH and is pronounced Yah way.it is, in English spelled YHWH but the w is pronounced as a v, as if it were German and the H's are spit out just as the ch in the composer's name, Sabastion Back. The result sounds like Yak-vak because there are no vowels in Pale-Hebrew.

You can get a Hardbound version for free at https://www.halleluyahscriptures.com/https://www.halleluyahscriptures.com/ and the promised link to the guide to the popuar versions is

https://www.mardel.com/bibleTranslationGuide

 

[Hidden In Him]

Actually, anyone who has ever learned a second language knows that a word-for-word translation is impossible much or most of the time. Idioms in one language need to be paraphrased...

Dynamic equivalence versus formal equivalence: two different philosophies of translation. A formal equivalence translation lets the reader interpret for himself. But too often, the average reader doesn't have the background or the tools to interpret accurately. The net result is that he often badly misunderstands the text.

Greetings, Harvest. I truly enjoyed reading your post. Now let me interject some things. About your first statement, I would have to take exception to the words "much or most of the time." Idioms are actually very rare in the NT, and most of what are termed idioms need no paraphrasing to be understood, and in fact shouldn't because the Lord was using figurative language to make the point as He desired to make it.

The following lists the idioms found in the Gospel of Matthew:

Mt. 1:18 she having in the belly (= "she was pregnant")
Mt. 3.8 to make fruit (= "to produce results")
Mt. 6:22 if your eye is good (= "if you are generous")
Mt. 6:23 if your eye is evil (= "if you are stingy")
Mt. 8:12 the outer darkness (= "a place which is dark and removed" (from where righteous ones are)]
Mt. 10:27 what you hear in your ear (= "what you hear in secret")
Mt. 10:38 he who does not take his cross (= be prepared to suffer, including die)
Mt. 11:15 whoever has ears, let him hear (= everyone should listen carefully)
Mt. 22:16 you do not look at the face of men (= you do not judge on the basis of external appearances)
Mt. 23:32 Fill up the measure of your fathers! (= finish what your ancestors began)
Mk. 2:19 sons of the groom (= guests of the bridegroom)

Now, not only is this a short list to begin with (Mark has even less; only three), but most don't need to be tampered with at all. I would argue in fact that only Matthew 1:18 and Matthew 22:16 need to be paraphrased (and the paraphrase they give for the latter is absolutely lousy, btw).

Many of these idioms are using metaphors that carry over into other texts, and build on their teachings (bearing fruit, the cross, having ears to hear, etc). Some can be easily translated clearly (and accurately) through word-for-word equivalence, such as Matthew 6:22-23, where an accurate rendering would be "If your eye is healthy... but if your eye is bad/ diseased." A few may be foreign to the modern ear, but should nevertheless be kept. "Sons of the groom" should probably be kept, as the expression sons of often carries theological meaning behind the literal, such as in the term "sons of disobedience." And "fathers" likewise could be said to contain theological meaning in that it we inherit spiritually what we receive handed down to us from our predecessors, a nuance that disappears when we use the flat word "ancestors."

Now about your statement that with formal equivalence "too often, the average reader doesn't have the background or the tools to interpret accurately," I am arguing to maintain the term "translation" in its strictest sense, and reserved for those who DO have the background and tools necessary to take the word of God with extreme seriousness so as to get the most out of the text as actually written.

Again, I enjoyed your post, so anything you want to share in response would be much appreciated.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The declaration, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13), is to many a "hard saying," because the word “hated” seems to carry with it an antagonism which would be unjustified--so far as the human mind can discern --by anything that Esau did worse than other men, and because it attached to him from birth, "before he had done either good or bad."

The word "hated" evidently signified to love less

Gonna have to pick a bone with you again. My interpretation of Romans 9:13 is that the Lord was using the right terminology because of what He knew Esau would become: A fleshy man, so fleshly in fact that he would sell his birthright for bowl of soup. This is something the Lord "disdains," which as I suggested is a proper translation of μισέω. But to argue that this Greek term meant "to love less" isn't really anywhere supported in Classical or Biblical usage except by supposition. Did he disdain Esau from birth? I think He did, knowing what sort of man he would become.