Translations
Danial's post from Romans 12 actually got me thinking about the different translations of the bible that are out there. What caught my eye was Romans 12:1, which sounded different than what I remembered from previous readings. I did a little poking around, and saw that my memory of what I'd read was correct - it reads a bit different in the NAS/NIV/KJV/NKJV/NRS versions, which are what I've historically read more. (Danial quoted from NLT, which I'm starting to read more.)
In any event, w.r.t. Romans 12:1, I see how the meaning is preserved and presented in these various translations, but it got me to wondering about all the different translations. I know some translate word for word, some by sentence, etc., but I'm wondering if someone could summarize the various translation schemes and what translations use which schemes.
|
David, Tuesday, 5-10-05 12:55 PM
|
re: Translations
I would be glad to respond to this question in person. Perhaps on Sunday evening. At this point, suffice it to say that there are 3 basic translation styles: functional equivalence, dynamic equivalence and paraphrase. Also, some translations or versions rely on different manuscript streams. That's all I'm going to say right now.
|
Dan, Friday, 5-13-05 2:14 AM
|
re: Translations
speaking of which, I am reading an interesting book called "How We Got the Bible." It's not what I'd call an in-depth study, but it has been fairly educational. I now know what those footnotes mean that say things like "Septuagent" and "Massoretic," not to mention the difference between a palimpset and a papyrus.
If anyone would like to borrow it once I'm done, let me know.
|
Annette, Friday, 5-13-05 9:08 AM
|
re: Translations
You guys are SO making up words! ;) Just kidding. I'll be interested to hear about this on sunday night.
|
Tauna, Friday, 5-13-05 9:52 AM
|