ENGLISH
The Lord's Prayer
Our Father, who art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy name
Thy Kingdom come
Thy will be done
On earth as it is in Heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into temptation
But deliver us from evil
For Thine is the Kingdom,
the power and the glory, forever and ever
Amen.
EBONICS
Big Daddy's Rap
Yo, Big Daddy Upstairs,
You be chillin'
So be yo hood
You be sayin' it; I be doin' it
In dis hood and in Yo's
Gimme some eats
And cut me some slack
So's I be doin' it to dem dat diss me
Don't be pushin' me into no jive
And keep dem Crips away
Cuz you always be da Man
AAAAAAmen.
I have heard of "The Message" but never read it. I have read about enough now I think.vir litterarum wrote:It's not far off from that:
The Message Lord's Prayer:
Our Father in Heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best--
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes.Yes.Yes
I particularly found the "Yes. Yes. Yes." ending moving.
Arvid wrote:I'm not qualified to have an opinion about the accuracy of the translation in the King James Version; the consensus seems to be that for 1611 it was pretty good. As a devout atheist, I still consider it one of the greatest, most majestic pieces of writing in the English language. It's funny that while Shakespeare tried to keep his language modern and up to the minute, we need half a page of footnotes on every page to understand him, whereas the KJV is purposely archaic in its language, and we have no trouble understanding it. I wasn't aware of the NIV (New International Version?) before this, but this is just pathetic!
vir litterarum wrote:The astounding aspect to me of translations such as this one is that the person translating believes he can change idioms and colloquialize Scripture without introducing any individual interpretation. If one reads the "translator's" introduction to the Message, he says that he merely wishes to recreate the street language in which the New Testament was originally written in English. I am at a loss as to how one wishing to accomplish such a feat does not realize that he is interpreting the Scripture while concurrently "translating" it.
klewlis wrote:vir litterarum wrote:The astounding aspect to me of translations such as this one is that the person translating believes he can change idioms and colloquialize Scripture without introducing any individual interpretation. If one reads the "translator's" introduction to the Message, he says that he merely wishes to recreate the street language in which the New Testament was originally written in English. I am at a loss as to how one wishing to accomplish such a feat does not realize that he is interpreting the Scripture while concurrently "translating" it.
aren't all translations an interpretation?
Yes. I think it is best to preserve any ambiguity the original readers might have sensed in translation if possible. I have never liked the Message personally. Something about its voice just bothers me. ;-)vir litterarum wrote:To a degree they are, but you cannot assert that the degree of interpretation present within the New American Standard and that within the Message are at all comparable. It is my belief that every Christian should endeavor to learn how to read the Scriptures as they were written, but of course in reality this will never happen. Furthermore, the Message is a "translation" by one man as opposed to a translation composed by a group of people. Individual interpretation in the Message, then, is not nearly as restrained as most other major translations.
vir litterarum wrote:To a degree they are, but you cannot assert that the degree of interpretation present within the New American Standard and that within the Message are at all comparable. It is my belief that every Christian should endeavor to learn how to read the Scriptures as they were written, but of course in reality this will never happen. Furthermore, the Message is a "translation" by one man as opposed to a translation composed by a group of people. Individual interpretation in the Message, then, is not nearly as restrained as most other major translations.
I agree. Doing some interpreting is unavoidable if you are translating. The little quote from The Message makes me think that it is more a poor interpretation than a translation.klewlis wrote:I wasn't assigning any evaluation to the term. You had said that the message "introduces" interpretation... my point was simply that all translations do.
I believe that interpretation is primarily a way to put theological beliefs into scripture, that are either not normally there, or are not definite. When translating Holy writing, one should(IMHO), translate it as literal as possible, where grammar allows. Allowing even passages of abiguity or obscurity. Interpretation should be left to the individual. It's like how many translations put weights and measurements into modern equivalents. I admit, knowing that the darkness during the crucifixion was from the sixth hour to the ninth, is really noon to 3 PM can slow you down in your reading. However, numbers are very important in the Bible, and ofthen have symbolic meanings. Especially in prophecy.Bert wrote:I agree. Doing some interpreting is unavoidable if you are translating. The little quote from The Message makes me think that it is more a poor interpretation than a translation.klewlis wrote:I wasn't assigning any evaluation to the term. You had said that the message "introduces" interpretation... my point was simply that all translations do.
I believe that interpretation is primarily a way to put theological beliefs into scripture
This cause more confusion than clarity. Italics generally are viewed as a symbol to mark emphasis. Even if you don't view it that way, knowing that a word is not in the original text is of no help at all. Instead it makes people wonder why someone "added" that word.vir litterarum wrote:I believe that interpretation is primarily a way to put theological beliefs into scripture
This is precisely what Eugene Peterson, whether conscientiously or not, does in the Message. Of course there inevitably is going to be some degree of interpretation in any translation, but, in the NASB for example, words not in the original text are italicized.....
vir litterarum wrote:It's not far off from that:
The Message Lord's Prayer:
Our Father in Heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best--
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes.Yes.Yes
I particularly found the "Yes. Yes. Yes." ending moving.
pocketscholar wrote:Here's my favorite
Isaiah 28:9
"Is that so? And who do you think you are to teach us? Who are you to lord it over us? We're not babies in diapers to be talked down to by such as you— 'Da, da, da, da, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's a good little girl, that's a good little boy.'"
vir litterarum wrote:But people who use the Message do not understand just how eclectic of a work almost every other translation is and necessarily must be in order to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction. for instruction in righteousness."
vir litterarum wrote: There are such a plethora of common language translations available such as the Living and New Living translations, which have been translated by a large gathering of experts in New Testament translation, that there is no reason to resort to the Message. The NIV, for example, was composed by 112 different translators! How presumptuous must Eugene Peterson be to assume that he could possibly produce a reliable translation by himself?!
vir litterarum wrote:I understand that translations such as the King James and NASB do not reflect the colloquial nature of the original text as well some dynamic equivalence translations, but interpretation always arises when someone asserts that 'this idiom=this idiom'; therefore, in order for such a translation or whatever you would call a thing such as the Message, to be at all reliable, it needs to have the backing of scores of experts who have spent their lives studying Scripture asserting 'this idiom=this idiom.'
I agree. Tyndale, Luther and Erasmus come to mind.Kopio wrote:... but to say that without a committee a proper translation is impossible is, in my opinion, absurd.
vir litterarum wrote:
So you are saying that you do not believe a translation by one man is any more "personalized" than a translation by fifty?
Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 25 guests