Why is Bible Translation so Difficult?

Why is Bible Translation so Difficult? - D.A. Carson

Рет қаралды 25,703

Exploring Hope

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 89

@rickmcmullen6360 6 жыл бұрын

I learn something every time I listen to D.A. Carson. Thanks for posting

@dtkjohnson8461 7 жыл бұрын

Two quotes from this that I find interesting, transcribed from the video with time-stamps: 3:56: "I like formulas like, 'As direct a translation as you can, as flexible as you must.'" 6:46: "So, I don't want to argue that the 2011 is a good translation because it is more understandable than some others (though I think it is), or simply to argue that it is more flexible and understands English usage a little better than some other translations (though I think it is). I also want to argue that in the majority of the disputed cases, *it's actually more accurate* because it is recognizing that the more direct translation can actually lead you astray on occasion precisely because it fails to note how the language itself has changed."

@fnjesusfreak 6 жыл бұрын

There is a phrase associated with the...I want to say NRSV translators. "As literal as possible, as free as necessary" Regarding the comment about a freer translation potentially being more accurate than a literal one: in Japanese you have a phrase, "ude ga ii". It literally means, "arms are good". It actually means "to be skilled", and if you translate it literally, you run into a problem, because the English doesn't actually mean what the Japanese does. A similar example is a phrase in Isaiah 5 translated, literally, "a vineyard is made to my beloved in horn the son of oil"; it makes no sense as it stands, unless you translate it paraphrastically, ""my beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hillside", which is more or less what most translations have.

@pattube 10 ай бұрын

Regarding your quotation at 6:46, I think Carson is referring to the traditional trifecta in what makes for a good translation: clarity, naturalness, accuracy: "So, I don't want to argue that the 2011 is a good translation because it is more understandable than some others (though I think it is) [clarity - how clear is it to its target audience?], or simply to argue that it is more flexible and understands English usage a little better than some other translations (though I think it is) [naturalness - how natural does it sound and flow in its target language?]. I also want to argue that in the majority of the disputed cases, it's actually more accurate because it is recognizing that the more direct translation can actually lead you astray on occasion precisely because it fails to note how the language itself has changed [accuracy - how accurate is it to the original text?]."

@benmig5037 7 ай бұрын

LSB, NAS and ESV by far are most literal and closest to context of the original language hands down and an argument against will quickly end up in a lecture on Hebrew and Greek . With that being said people have favorites but it's increasingly popular now for people to bash the best translations and promote their favorite until they actually study the language for more than a year lol. I hope people listen to Carson.

@barryhofstetter8235 9 жыл бұрын

Interesting. However, when Peter says Ἄνδρες Ἰουδαῖοι is he speaking to the men present as the decision makers and covenant heads of their households? If so, then to translate "Men and women of Judaea" would not be an accurate translation. Of course there, Peter does go on to say οἱ κατοικοῦντες Ἰερουσαλὴμ πάντες, which sounds rather inclusive!

@fnjesusfreak 6 жыл бұрын

There are times I believe translating in gender neutral is wrong. For example, in Paul's letters, I believe that most of the time he is speaking specifically to the males of the church, and when he gives directives for the women, it is usually IN THE THIRD PERSON. Therefore, it is my opinion that words which could be either inclusive or exclusive should be translated exclusively ("men", "brothers", etc.) and not inclusively ("people", "brothers and sisters", etc.) as the NRSV and 2011 NIV do. I actually fault the NRSV for this.

@scottkesner3322 2 жыл бұрын

How many times will the bible be translated till it is so far from what God actually said

@jsharp3165 Жыл бұрын

The Bible is continually translated precisely to keep it FROM becoming far from what God said. All languages change from one generation to another, including English. The meanings of many English words have changed radically just within my lifetime. In order to make the Bible accurately understood by a current audience, we must make translations into current English. This will always be an ongoing task. I'm thankful for those who undertake it.

@olegig5166 4 жыл бұрын

Frogs and cats in throats aside, let us stick to English for the moment. Why do all modern translations disagree with themselves at Num 14:30 and Heb 3:16?

@TheNameOfJesus 4 жыл бұрын

There are so many variations of NIV that I'm afraid to buy any of them now.

@David7399 3 жыл бұрын

Since it's inception in '78, there have been only two revisions, 1984 and 2011, and today, one can only purchase (new) the 2011 revision. I don't think you have to be concerned about "so many variations." But, on the other hand, since there is no perfect translation, and unless you read Greek, it is always good to see how other reputable Bibles translate the Greek so we can have a more comprehensive understanding of the original meaning. :)

@TheNameOfJesus 3 жыл бұрын

@@David7399 I see you aren't counting the NIrV, or the TNIV, or the Inclusive Language Edition, and I know of at least two other variants of the NIV. Add the three revisions you list, and that makes 8 variants. I still use the NIV as much as I use the KJV. but another one of my concerns is that (according to the NIV's Foreword) they use an "eclectic" text for their translations and don't seem to list anywhere exactly which manuscripts they use. The KJV doesn't have to list what it uses because we know it uses the Textus Receptus.

@David7399 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheNameOfJesus Thanks for the reply. You are right, I do not count the NIrV or the TNIV as mainline revisions because the NIrV was written for ESL speakers and younger audiences, and the TNIV is an offshoot to the 1984 which was still the primary translation until the 2011. As for the text, you are also right, the intro does use the word "eclectic" meaning it uses several Greek manuscripts which it goes on to list as the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. And, I whole heartily agree with your sentiment of using multiple translations to better understand the actual meaning of the Greek. Since all translation is a dynamic process, there are always short-comings in bring it into the target language. Anyway, God bless and Merry Christmas :)

@TheNameOfJesus 3 жыл бұрын

@@David7399 You are humble and polite, thanks. The NIV does doesn't provide a correlation between which manuscripts it used for each book/chapter/verse. Basically they want you to trust them. On the other hand, the KJV uses a well documented Greek text and I can always find the corresponding Greek text for any given English verse in the KJV. To most people it's a small thing, and I don't shy from using the NIV because of this deficiency, but it does make me wonder why they don't document something so important as which text they use for each translated verse.

@David7399 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheNameOfJesus Good evening ABC, I hope you had a good Christmas holiday. From my understanding the NIV translators, along with other modern translators, use the NA28, so one should be able to get that book and do a line by line comparison (correct me if I am wrong). But, I agree that having direct access to the Greek for a line by line comparison is critical and something we should all desire. I am just grateful for the wealth of good Bible translations we enjoy in the English speaking world, Especially after having recently returned from a place where calling oneself a Christian can bring trouble. Anyway, have a good day.

@lambo58 3 ай бұрын

As per his example, just because women were present doesn't mean that women were being addressed.

@johncolage1651 7 ай бұрын

Even a Christian cannot brush aside the worship of Jehovah as God. In Revelation 1:5 the Son of God called himself "Jesus Christ, 'The Faithful Witness.'" When on earth as a man he was a Jew, an Israelite, to whose nation the words of Isaiah 43:10 were written: "'You are my witnesses, 'is the utterance of Jehovah, 'even my servant whom I have chosen.'" Jesus demonstrated that he was a faithful and true witness of Jehovah God. His genuine disciples today must be the same kind of witnesses, Jehovah's.

@chrisbarry6217 2 жыл бұрын

Men of Israel. It is very simple does the word men in the original or the old copy have in the Greek the male meaning or does it hold the male and female thought. Any other thinking that wants to bring in modern thought is wrong. You see the Bible is not an old fashion Book. It is Gods Book for all ages and you had better put in what the word means. I think many people do not believe that because it is Gods word , God does not speak anymore, sort of like God does not bring its truth to the hearts of men.

@justingregorious 8 жыл бұрын

What bible does Carson have here?

@Mimi2Three 8 жыл бұрын

That's what I was wondering

@buildtolove 8 жыл бұрын

This one: 978-0310436379 Should be available on Amazon.

@Mimi2Three 8 жыл бұрын

Thanks

@johnlee1818 6 жыл бұрын

What is the Bible called pleas👍

@adamcarpenter1869 3 жыл бұрын

Well, he was the main editor of the Zondervan NIV Study Bible back in 2015. I would guess he has an NIV perhaps

@chrisstubbs5013 2 жыл бұрын

"Gender neutral" and "cultural engagement" in the question may not have been addressed in the way the man asking the question asked it. But those terms can lead to a very slippery slope of turning the true message of scripture into something that tries to please a segment of society that may actually not want the scriptures in the first place.

@Unspoke Жыл бұрын

Reformed theology has often led men astray from being lovers of God than lovers for God

@mrdudedaniel 4 жыл бұрын

Anyone else here from NOBTS?

@gerardmiller7364 3 жыл бұрын

That's because you make it difficult. If you can only see it for it says. Then it's not so hard. The bottomless pit, are oilwells and mines. Steel is mined in pits in the ground. That's where the beast comes from. The automobiles and aircraft are the beast. As you can't buy or sell the automobile and aircraft, without the name and number of it. The next war is a nuclear war, as John wrote that. In chapter 9, v 14 to 19. In one hour by fire and brimstone, is a nuclear or automic war. And it's the sixth angel of revelation. And it's the same events, everytime he writes about the fifth angel, is the war in Iraq, as that is where the river Euphrates is. And it used to be Babylon. And they made war for five months. Is what happened in Iraq. The locusts are the military, as the aircraft were called scorpion, and the stinger missiles were used there. And in the 4 th. King and the fourth angel, are the same events. And the 4th. King was, actually ww2.

@johncolage1651 7 ай бұрын

NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES is the most accurate Bible on this planet earth, and they are free.

@christsavesreadromans1096 4 ай бұрын

Wrong, that translation is a distortion.

@thelastroadrunner 8 жыл бұрын

Bible translation is only difficult without the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14.26; 2 Pet 1.21). The Translators of the King James Bible had the right kind of help.

@ruraprureredi 8 жыл бұрын

Indeed !!

@mirtikaschultz3282 8 жыл бұрын

+thelastroadrunner What makes 1611 so much holier and special than any other year of translation?

@thelastroadrunner 8 жыл бұрын

Mirtika Schultz Firstly, the 1611 matches the current Pure Cambridge, so it's not the publication year that matters. But because the 1611 matches the current KJB it is colloquially referred to as the 1611 (Authorized Bible). Secondly, only the KJB is translated from the stream of manuscripts which is traceable to the pen-men of God's Words. ALL other English translations incorporate to a larger or smaller degree the Bible revision work of Gnostic "scholars" and contain false doctrines (See - Burgon and Miller, Hills, Fuller, Ruckman, et al). Thirdly, since things that are different CAN NOT be the same, modern English "versions" CAN NOT be Bibles, CAN NOT be the pure Words of God.

@mirtikaschultz3282 8 жыл бұрын

Only the original Hebrew and Greek were the PURE Words of God (plus segments of Aramaic). English, any English version, is a translation. And translation is a scholarly art. If you want the true Word of God, find original manuscripts in the original Hebrew/Greek. And by original I mean penned by the original authors, not hand-me-downs and coppies. Otherwise, everything you read is a translation with some judgment calls on how to bring over nuances and idioms. The worship of the KJV is akin to idolatry, imo. And you'd be surprised how few people really understand how to read that centuries-old English. If they don't understand Shakespeare, they can't understand the KJV. And most folks I know don't really understand Elizabethan English all that well. Modern translations are necessary for folks to "get" the original intent in the vernacular of the day. We don't speak Elizabethan English. And neither did the apostles.

@thelastroadrunner 8 жыл бұрын

Mirtika Schultz Hi there Mirtika. You seem to be indicating that the King James Bible somehow differs to the teachings of the "original" manuscripts (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic). Is that correct? If so can you please supply us with an example of a doctrinal difference between "the originals" and the King James Bible? Cheers.