Bert wrote:I am not an expert either but I think that your rendering is a transation and his is a paraphrase, a free one at that.
AVRAHAM wrote:Okay. I have more to ask here than just a translation. I do have lexica. Well, I have noticed that there is a common theme with Christians, who translate the New Testament. That the idea is "not to find the best way to put the Greek into English, but the best way to give the meaning of what the original writer meant." Is this not a poor way to translate a text? Yes. A paraphrase. To me, it takes away from the text. Especially one of a spiritual nature....
Lost Cause wrote:
Dyanmic equivalence is part translation, part art, part editorializing.
I was wondering if anyone knew if other ancient texts, Greek or otherwise has this translation dilema? And if so, or if not, why on either?
except the KJV and NKJV, which is based completely off of the Textus Receptus of the Codex Vaticanus. No?
Bert wrote:I think that the ethnic cleansing part has gone well past translation into far fetched.
IreneY wrote:Look, it's one thing to use the equivalent expression and quite another to try to interpret the text by paraphrasing. Obviously when a text says "it rains cats and dogs" I will turn it to "it rains chair legs" or "it rains priests" in Greek and vice versa.