QUOTE(sylar111 @ Oct 16 2014, 03:58 PM)
A literal interpretation is always much better then a not so literal interpretation like the NIV.
The reason is very clear. You are reading the Word of God. Not man's interpretation of the word of god.
After reading the first page which says that KJV is too literal, I dun think I would want to read the rest.
So fast close up already?
Anyway, I think there is no perfect translation la as each has its own plus and minus. As the author suggested, it is use a primary translation and use few others good one for reference when unsure of the point or meaning.
Just wondering, don't you find it hard to read or understand KJV with those old obsolete English?
----
Translational Theory :
Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible
to the exact words and phrasing in the original language, yet still
make sense in the receptor language. A literal translation will keep
the historical distance intact at all points.
Free: The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to
another, with less concern about using the exact words of the original.
A free translation, sometimes also called a paraphrase, tries to
eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible.
Dynamic equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and
grammatical constructions of the original language into precise
equivalents in the receptor language. Such a translation keeps historical
distance on all historical and most factual matters, but
“updates” matters of language, grammar, and style.
----
QUOTE
The best translational theory is dynamic equivalence. A literal translation is often helpful as a second source; it will give you confidence as to what the Greek or Hebrew actually looked like. A free translation also can be helpful—to stimulate your thinking about the possible meaning of a text. But the basic translation for reading and studying should be something like the NIV.
The problem with a literal translation is that it keeps distance at the wrong places—in language and grammar. Thus the translator often
renders the Greek or Hebrew into English that is otherwise never written or spoken that way. It is like translating maison blanc from French
to English as “house white.” For example, no native English-speaking person would ever have said “coals of fire” (KJV, Rom. 12:20). That
is a literal rendering of the Greek construction, but what it means in English is “burning coals” (NIV) or “live coals” (NEB).
A second problem with a literal translation is that it often makes the English ambiguous, where the Greek or Hebrew was quite clear
to the original recipients. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:16 the Greek phrase kata sarka can be translated literally “(to know)
according to the flesh” (as in the NASB). But this is not an ordinary way of speaking in English. Furthermore the phrase is ambiguous.
Is it the person who is being known who is “according to the flesh,” which seems to be implied in the NASB, and which in this case
would mean something like “by their outward appearance”? Or is the person who is “knowing” doing so “according to the flesh,”
which would mean “from a worldly point of view”? In this case the Greek is clear, and the NIV correctly translates: “So from now on
[since we have been raised to a new life, v. 15] we regard no one from a worldly point of view.”
This post has been edited by ngaisteve1: Oct 16 2014, 03:44 PM 
Oct 14 2014, 12:39 AM
Quote
... It looks like only you have passion to drive for cell group in this forum. 
.... did you know that 
0.1064sec
0.50
7 queries
GZIP Disabled