0
   

Re-thinking over Bible translations

 
 
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 11:48 am
Please find strength to read through the boring beginning. I admit if I make logical or other mistakes – I’m not a disciplined expert. Yours pros and contras are really welcomed. Grown in another culture (russian) and having rather poor linguistic background I may sound confusing, offending or illiterate.
The subject – one of western-culture Bible translations – is enough inciting by itself, and the fact that me, somewhat alienated from you culture, starts to speculate on it so bluntly – can lead to negative. ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do’ (Russian equivalent – one does not enter a monastery with his own regulations). I intend not to hurt anybody's feelings. The followings are mere appearances in my speculating mind, and what I seek for by posting it are some discussions on language, philosophy, intercultural subjects, whatever – with no other aim than to exchange knowledge and thought outcomes.


So,
I should foreword that the sources I use directly are just Wikipedia articles. Two reasons for that: 1) I care not about verifying the sources now, because my text is not an expert resolution;
2) The fact that general public refers to Wiki, so it is commonly perceived as truth-stating. (interestingly for me, it is accordant to the idea that follows down the text)
Now I finally begin. There is a translation – New American Standard Bible, one of the most popular Bible versions nowadays, and the following is from Wiki:
‘The New American Standard Bible is widely regarded as the most literally translated of major 20th-century English Bible translations.’
My first reaction to this text is disturbance since I believe mostly (or entirely) no literal (word-for-word) translation is an adequate or equivalent one. You get my message through a sophisticated process, not just through combination of words you’ve 'digested'. So why should I go for literality in reading sacral texts? For me literal translation (LT) simply means literalism. (though now I know the literal translation approach is used in some limited cases)
Wiki:
‘…the translators had a "Fourfold Aim" in this work:
1. These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized.’
Firstly, the Aim №4 sounds very curious for me. I believe it would not be extremely false to call it cultist. But my point is not there.
I've discovered a term 'metaphrase' referring to LT, and quoting Quintilian: 'Metaphrase changes a word, and paraphrase, a phrase'.
So, back to the above, ‘the Words.’ Aren’t they understood literally? It comes from Ancient Greek ‘Logos’. Is Word equals Logos? This is a translation itself, but is it adequate? Though, that's not the point, too.
‘…give Lord his proper place’? ‘The place which the Word gives him’? But look, you’ve changed the words, by the way. So you’ve changed his place to the PROPER? You gave him a room? Seriously? To do this you need a good logistics and nomenclature, you may need to give Christ an ID Card, and enter ‘God’ in his personality status.
In the same Aim №4:
‘…no work will ever be personalized…’ – i.e. the names of scholars translating the texts are never to be discovered. Are there many ways to maintain this in the modern society? Sacrifice these guys maybe?
Next, Wiki on the ‘secrets’ of the translation:
‘…the translators sought to produce a contemporary English Bible while maintaining a word-for-word translation style. In cases where word-for-word literalness was determined to be unacceptable for modern readers, changes were made in the direction of more current idioms.’
Sounds more like a guide for electric teapots translation. Idiomatic processing as the only used step towards adequacy. This makes the whole text chopped in low-level slices. And these slices cannot naturally provide a living whole, an ensemble, a unity. Don’t these last words even sound more spiritual than ‘slicing’ the text? Absurd – as a distortion of original meaning –is simply an outcome of such approach…
The followings (and why not the aboves) are mere my guesses and speculations:
Again, ‘…regarded as the most literally translated…’ Let’s assume the original texts of Bible (if any) as authentic, true – i.e. true to themselves – then the New American Standard is false since it lacks attempt to provide meaning (what is intended to be expressed) but successfully attempts to provide form.
So any references made by commentators and administrator to the readers are inevitably false. But the reference system itself is perceived by the ‘insiders’ as true. It looks like the Matrix.
That’s the end of my speculations for now.
P.S. I went through the Bible website, and evidenced the updates of information (1995), e.g.: 'Verses with difficult word order or vocabulary have been retranslated into smoother English.'
So the inadequate translation went through meaningless but even more 'absurdizing' transformations. Meaningless - because such updates convey no meaning of the original, absurdizing - because now they scatter the words around so now even the structure of sliced elements is distorted.
Conclusion. This word – ‘smoother’… We smooth something to get more comfort, not to get more action. Does Comfort equal to Peace in its Christian meaning? I believe we humans are easily confused in meanings but have strong desire for symbols. Now MY MOST FOOLISH GUESS: this translation is made by symbolists for symbolists to symbolize life. Only true deeds we need to get to Heaven – that’s the point of Christ, I believe. Action, not reaction! And I believe Bible is supposed to CONVEY his true intention, TRUE LOGOS –which the Christ IS – not the symbol, idol, icon, which the literalized text represents.
I would stop not to sound like a preacher, ‘cause I’m not. That’s just a touching point for me for an unknown reason. Thanks for attention (if any)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,660 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 12:15 pm
@PanarinI,
Panarinl,

I know you put some effort into this but to me it's like if you were a sculpter looking at a piece of shitty abstract art for its reflection of realism, which it lacks and wondering about if the abstract label could be dropped.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 12:20 pm
@PanarinI,
Pan I'm impressed, would only suggest paras ea w/ tab; and by all means carret 'tween

W/ possible an intro para

Okay Pan it means "carriage return." But how'dya like it
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 12:41 pm
@PanarinI,
Good translation or bad translation doesn't change how the individual accepts the words of the bible.
In our family of four children, I'm the only one who denounced christianity, because the bible is full of errors and contradictions.
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 12:42 pm
@Krumple,
Got the idea, but what would have changed if I looked at a piece not of shitty, but of just any other example of abstract art?
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 12:49 pm
@dalehileman,
Get no idea what it all means with paras, tab, and 'carret 'tween' SORRY but I believe your suggestions are for good)) If you explain me the 'carriage return' thing, I'd be grateful
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 12:49 pm
All Bible translations have a point of approach. There can be presuppositions when a Bible translation is approached from a point of believe. Many Bible translations attempt a literal translation with interpretive glosses for idioms.
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 12:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Why can't translation change your 'how'? This is the perception which matters, when we choose to accept or not. Isn't it?
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:03 pm
@InfraBlue,
Thanks for your reply. From which point may we approach Bible if not a point of believe? From a point of reality? Do we know or believe a lot about the reality?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:15 pm
@PanarinI,
PanarinI wrote:

Got the idea, but what would have changed if I looked at a piece not of shitty, but of just any other example of abstract art?


The issue is we dont know what the end result "should" be. There is too much reliance on faith to be objective enough. We honestly dont know if any of the bible is tryly linked to a god.

I know for believers they claim it is but they have a bias of faith where it is necessary for it all to be sourced from personally see too much in it that is the barbaric ideals of bronze age humans to have any divine link.

None of it is exceptional to me. I have found other sources that are far superior. Buddhism is one such example.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:17 pm
@PanarinI,
Quote:
the 'carriage return' thing
Sorry Pan, I do that to stimulate q's on the part of an esl like yourself

Para: Paragraph

Tab: Space at beginning of each para. Can be achieved by hitting space bar a few times

Carret: Carriage Return, makes space 'tween paras Admittedly a tough'n

'Tween: Between


Quote:
believe your suggestions are for good
Pan thank you most kindly for your interest and curiosity
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:30 pm
@Krumple,
I know not much about Buddhism, but I admire various learnings and practices of non-duality, if it's generally called Buddhism I dunno.
Can we really KNOW the end result? What if it is beyond the 'cause-reason' type of perceiving it? (excuse me for non-duality referrings) I mean is there a claim against the texts that we can't know anything from them? Well, that's absolutely beyond the topic:) Thank you!
0 Replies
 
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:31 pm
@dalehileman,
Thanks, that's clear and useful now)
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:37 pm
@PanarinI,
Pan I have a Pan's idea about God and happy to discuss it if u like
...tho you might be bored to death....

Forgive the pun. Pan for Pantheist
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:47 pm
@dalehileman,
Would like to, that's anyway of some interest to me. Wonder if the Pan pun appeared accidentally)
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 01:51 pm
@PanarinI,
Quote:
Pan pun appeared accidentally
Nah Pan it was purposeful

http://able2know.org/topic/335215-1
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:05 pm
@PanarinI,
PanarinI wrote:

Thanks for your reply. From which point may we approach Bible if not a point of believe? From a point of reality? Do we know or believe a lot about the reality?

It can be approached from the points of non-belief, skepticism, etc.

Epistemologically speaking, one chooses the point from which they accept belief as reality.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:36 pm
@PanarinI,
How would any translation change the message in it?
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Being a translator for living I can tell it is sure possible to (mostly unwillingly) change the meaning when it comes to troblesome texts (and many of them are troublesome) Thanks
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:51 pm
@InfraBlue,
So belief is the core to any approaches; then any belief and non-belief is real? But the reality is itself something to be accepted as. Thanks for thoughts!Smile
 

Related Topics

There is a word for that! - Discussion by wandeljw
Best Euphemism for death and dying.... - Discussion by tsarstepan
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Question by lululucy
phrase/name of male seducer - Question by Zah03
Shameful sexist languge must be banned! - Question by neologist
Three Word Phrase I REALLY Hate to See - Discussion by hawkeye10
Is History an art or a science? - Question by Olivier5
"Rooms" in a cave - Question by shua
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Re-thinking over Bible translations
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/15/2024 at 03:30:12