What Makes a Bible Version a Paraphrase?

[Hidden In Him]

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.

Amen! Good word!

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.

Absolutely! I actually think a better passage for this is the Parable of the Talents, where the Lord gave to each man, according to his ability.

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?

Absolutely again. Couldn't agree with you more. ALL things - our every word in fact - should be guided by the leading of the Holy Spirit. Anything else is sin in my opinion.

 

[Hidden In Him]

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.

Willie, as per my rely in Post #40, I think the danger is in missing on the proper thought-to-thought. IMO it would be far better to labor to translate accurately, using word-for-word equivalence with a translation like "disdain," than to potentially water down proper interpretation by re-defining the actual wording used in the text to make God appear more "kind."

 

[Hidden In Him]

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.

Greetings, Taylor. If you are saying that proper names are enunciated textually via translation, I would find that useful; possibly more so in things like readings and recordings than in print, but I like the idea.

 

[Stranger]

If one is going to paraphrase, then he is paraphrasing from a version. As a paraphrase is left to the one doing the paraphrasing, then it seems you must establish what version is being paraphrased from.

So which one. KJV. RSV. etc. etc.

Stranger

 

[Willie T]

Willie, as per my rely in Post #40, I think the danger is in missing on the proper thought-to-thought. IMO it would be far better to labor to translate accurately, using word-for-word equivalence with a translation like "disdain," than to potentially water down proper interpretation by re-defining the actual wording used in the text to make God appear more "kind."

Let's stick with one thing rather than confuse the issue by trying to somehow compare maybe eighteen different things.

Luke 14:26. How do you say it should be printed for 21st century Christians to understand what was meant when it was first spoken?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Let's stick with one thing rather than confuse the issue by trying to somehow compare maybe eighteen different things.

Luke 14:26. How do you say it should be printed for 21st century Christians to understand what was meant when it was first spoken?

Disdain.

 

[Willie T]

Disdain.

dis·dain
disˈdān/
noun
noun: disdain; plural noun: disdains

1. 1.
   the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.
   "her upper lip curled in disdain"

*********
Really? Is that how you think Jesus told us to feel about our families? Now, let's try it again. Only this time, in a serious answer.

 

[Hidden In Him]

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.

Oz, thank you for this post, brother, and I hope you are well. I agree with Robertson that "detest" is a potentially accurate word-for-word, and preferable to "hate" since it carries a nuance of displeasure without necessarily a resignation to a spirit that is generally considered to be foreign to the Christian God. I also appreciate his observance of how the ancients used more graphic and expressive language than we do. This would make more sense than to say that a clearly derogatory Greek word should simply be rendered as communicating a preference.

 

[Willie T]

Oz, thank you for this post, brother, and I hope you are well. I agree with Robertson that "detest" is a potentially accurate word-for-word, and preferable to "hate" since it carries a nuance of displeasure without necessarily a resignation to a spirit that is generally considered to be foreign to the Christian God. I also appreciate his observance of how the ancients used more graphic and expressive language than we do. This would make more sense than to say that a clearly derogatory Greek word should simply be rendered as communicating a preference.

What you just said right here is exactly what Simmons, the author of The Passion Translation, said he felt was necessary, and what he tried to do in that translation.

 

[Hidden In Him]

noun: disdain; plural noun: disdain

1. the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.

In its strictest sense, de- (expressing reversal) + dignari ‘consider worthy’ = To not consider worthy. How are our families worthy of our continued devotion to them if they reject Christ our Lord?

Really? Is that how you think Jesus told us to feel about our families? Now, let's try it again. Only this time, in a serious answer.

I was giving you a serious answer, LoL. What are you asking me? If our family members reject Christ, oppose Him, oppose what He teaches and stands for, out of love for Him would we not disdain them for that?

 

[Hidden In Him]

What you just said right here is exactly what Simmons, the author of The Passion Translation, said he felt was necessary, and what he tried to do in that translation.

Oh come on, LoL! Demonstrate that I am in full agreement with the man.

 

[Willie T]

In it's strictest sense, de- (expressing reversal) + dignari ‘consider worthy’ = To not consider worthy. How are our families worthy of our continued devotion to them if they reject Christ our Lord?


I was giving you a serious answer, LoL. What are you asking me? If our family members reject Christ, oppose Him, oppose what He teaches and stands for, out of love for Him would we not disdain them for that?

In the verse under discussion, the Bible said nothing at all about "IF" your family does this or that. The translators very distinctly said that you had to hate your family to be a disciple of Christ's... period. There is no "IF" or any "conditions" in that verse, anywhere.

If someone picked up a KJV, and had no one around to tell them the things Jesus "REALLY" meant in various verses, they would be up the creek without a paddle.

What is the fear of reading what was really meant right there in the Bible… instead of having to find someone to interpret the words for you? This is how the Catholics operate, letting the Pope tell them how they should read certain words.

 

[Hidden In Him]

In the verse under discussion, the Bible said nothing at all about "IF" your family does this or that. The translators very distinctly said that you had to hate your family to be a disciple of Christ's... period. There is no "IF" or any "conditions" in that verse, anywhere.

It is implied, Willie. Look at the context. In Luke 14:16-24 He teaches on what God will do when those whom He called to the feast do not come. He will be angry (Luke 14:21), and go and call others who will come. Then He turns and says to them that they had better be prepared when their own families do likewise and reject Him. The implication is "You may lose your families over Me because they may reject Me. And if you do not choose Me over them you cannot be My disciple. You will not be taking up your cross." (Luke 14:27).

I'm sure there's a parallel passage somewhere - I think so anyway. Let me see if I can find it.

 

[Willie T]

It is implied, Willie. Look at the context. In Luke 14:16-24 He teaches on what God will do when those whom He called to the feast do not come. He will be angry (Luke 14:21), and go and call others who will come. Then He turns and says to them that they had better be prepared when their own families do likewise and reject Him. The implication is "You may lose your families over Me because they may reject Me. And if you do not choose Me over them you cannot be My disciple. You will not be taking up your cross." (Luke 14:27).

I'm sure there's a parallel passage somewhere - I think so anyway. Let me see if I can find it.

See? Even right here, you could not use the same words the translators chose to insert. You, yourself, had to offer an interpretation derived from going to other verses. How much easier it would have been if the translators had done that for you, so that you didn't have to try to explain their choice of words as you just did.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I'm sure there's a parallel passage somewhere - I think so anyway. Let me see if I can find it.

Ok, look. The parallel passage is in Matthew 10, and look at how much He prefaces this teaching around the possibility of people rejecting the disciples first. Notice the underlined words:

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. 11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. 12 And when ye come into an house, salute it. 13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. 16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; 18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. 21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. 24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? 26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. 27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. 32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. 40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. 41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. 42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

He gives the same teaching here, and in this passage identifies that there will be enmity in families specifically because family members will not receive them once they have given their allegiance to Christ.

 

[soul man]

There are numerous mistakes in the newer translations, I don't know that it really matters untill we understand the total plan of God anyway. The word has to be revealed to the believer by the HolySpirit. My opinion is a bigger problem lies with men's interpretation and teaching their interpretation.

 

[Harvest 1874]

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.

Unfortunately my friend you are looking at it from the natural man’s perspective and missing the spiritual significance. As we had stated, the apostle here was quoting Gen 25:23 and Malachi 1:2, 3 and using them in a metaphoric sense as depicting a type and an antitype.

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.

God is not said to have loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were born but after they had existed as peoples many centuries. The Bible shows how Esau’s descendants--Edom--brought the judgment of God upon themselves by their wickedness. God hated their wickedness. He is often described in the Bible as hating iniquity of all kinds. Paul puts the quotations from Genesis and from Malachi together because they both emphasize God’s choice of the younger in place of the elder, the rightful heir.

Your difficulty may be that you are relying too heavily upon definitions as given in lexicons and concordances, forgetting that the true child of God (the spiritually enlightened) has another more reliable source of interpretation, and that is the Word of God itself, “God is his own interpreter and he will make it plain.” God’s word does not contradict itself but is in full harmony with itself, thus we compare scripture with scripture to find out just exactly what the true intent or interpretation is.

If we read in one place that God hates this person or this people and in another he states that he so loved the world that he sacrificed his only begotten Son there must be something we are missing. And so we find it, God does not hate the individual, what he hates is the sin in the individual; he loves the individual so much so that he willingly sacrificed his beloved Son.

Did God disdain his natural people? Yes he hated “disdained” their iniquity, their wickedness, but not the people themselves, he is well aware of the fact that the whole world lies in the Wicked One, and so, “As concerning the Gospel they are enemies ... but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers’ sake.” (Rom 11:27, 28)

 

[Hidden In Him]

Unfortunately my friend you are looking at it from the natural man’s perspective and missing the spiritual significance... Your difficulty may be that you are relying too heavily upon definitions as given in lexicons and concordances, forgetting that the true child of God (the spiritually enlightened) has another more reliable source of interpretation, and that is the Word of God itself.

Ok, now for starters can we please forego this? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it's time to start leveling mild insults at them as being unspiritual. You're at least polite about it, but I get this sort of thing a lot, and it's labelling. You're insinuating I'm not a "true child of God" in the sense that I'm not spiritually enlightened.

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.

God is not said to have loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were born but after they had existed as peoples many centuries. The Bible shows how Esau’s descendants--Edom--brought the judgment of God upon themselves by their wickedness. God hated their wickedness. He is often described in the Bible as hating iniquity of all kinds.

LoL. Yes, all is harmony when the wicked are judged. Edom later becomes emblematic of what God hates and brings judgment upon.

Harvest, in Romans 9, Paul is not comparing those who are favored versus those who are "less favored." He's comparing those who are true children of God from those who are not true children of God (Romans 9:8). Esau was a child of the flesh. Come on, buddy. I'm trying to start my day here, and you're fogging up my head, LoL.

we read in one place that God hates this person or this people and in another he states that he so loved the world that he sacrificed his only begotten Son there must be something we are missing. And so we find it, God does not hate the individual, what he hates is the sin in the individual; he loves the individual so much so that he willingly sacrificed his beloved Son.

Oh, Heavens... Harvest, I was talking about the foreknowledge of God. He disdains those who reject Him. They will have not only rejected Him but the Father. Does He walk in hate? No. Does He disdain the wicked, which means view them as not worthy of reward but rather torment? Yes. (Matthew 25:26–30).

“As concerning the Gospel they are enemies ... but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers’ sake.” (Rom 11:27, 28)

Yes they are beloved, but this does not negate the fact that if they don't repent of rejecting Christ as Savior they are headed for eternal torment, and those in Hell are not simply "less favored."

 

[Willie T]

Listen to the questions the American pig finally asks the other two. (From about 6:30 onward) THESE are prime examples of what I would like to ask most translators. It just makes no sense to keep grinding out copies of a book written in a language that doesn't even come close to what we use and understand today.
three little pigs shakespeare john branyan - Google Search

 

[Hidden In Him]

Listen to the questions the American pig finally asks the other two. (From about 6:30 onward) THESE are prime examples of what I would like to ask most translators. It just makes no sense to keep grinding out copies of a book written in a language that doesn't even come close to what we use and understand today.
three little pigs shakespeare john branyan - Google Search

LoL. I once had a friend in college who was an English major. I remember her telling me how a certain Old English scholar revised his translation of Beowulf several times throughout his life. As translators pick up new insights, they constantly have to go back and tweak things here and there in light of them. No idea if she was talking about word-for-word or thought-for-thought equivalence. It just came to mind in watching the video.

But I definitely think The Three Little Pigs should remain in 21st century English, LoL.