word for word, thought for thought, or paraphrase

[cloudyday2]

What do you think of the different categorizations of translations (word for word, thought for thought, or paraphrase). Many seem to think that word for word is the most precise, but I wonder if it is actually the least precise because it does not give the reader the benefits of the translator's understanding of the text. The translator is much more capable than me of knowing what the author might have truly meant.

 

[crossnote]

Hopefully the goal is not the translator's take on a passage but the original 'Author's'.
I'd go for a balance of dynamic equivalent and word for word, maybe erring towards literal.

 

[faroukfarouk]

What do you think of the different categorizations of translations (word for word, thought for thought, or paraphrase). Many seem to think that word for word is the most precise, but I wonder if it is actually the least precise because it does not give the reader the benefits of the translator's understanding of the text. The translator is much more capable than me of knowing what the author might have truly meant.

Even the terminology here can be misleading.

'Word for word' can be taken to imply that grammatical equivalence exists at an identical verbal level.

'Thought for thought' can be taken to imply that a reader can understand a writer's thoughts more accurately than his or her words.

'Paraphrase' leans towards a translator's sense of priority of emphasis over the situation of the reader rather than faithfulness to the original.

I believe it needs to be acknowledged that there is not absolute equivalence to be achieved always.

But the form of the original is very important and the aim should be - especially in formal documents - for formal equivalence.

There is also a theological aspect.

Bible believing Christians have historically believed in Scripture being inspired in its words by the Spirit of God.

Since some people just don't believe this, it follows that collaborating in Scripture translation with those who don't even accept what Scripture is, in the view of those who hold it is inspired of God, is likely to bring avoidable misunderstandings.

 

[Ken Rank]

What do you think of the different categorizations of translations (word for word, thought for thought, or paraphrase). Many seem to think that word for word is the most precise, but I wonder if it is actually the least precise because it does not give the reader the benefits of the translator's understanding of the text. The translator is much more capable than me of knowing what the author might have truly meant.

I tend to lean word for word and allow the reader to read through their own lens. A paraphrase is always done through the bias of the one doing the paraphrase and that means his perspective becomes the influencing factor when we read. That leaves us open to being deceived.

 

[tansy]

I'm definitely not at all keen on paraphrase. I tend to read two or three different types of translations mainly, so that they are rendered slightly differently. Interesting thing is though, that one can sometimes (through the Holy Spirit and perhaps also from context and the overall thrust of Scripture), percieve the intent of the word or sentence.
I remember a particular way of thinking in some churches about one passage of Scripture which didn't seem right to me at all. Although the words seemed to imply what they thought, I just didn't think that their interpretation was right. Then, lo and behold, a few years later, I was reading a commentary which gave alternative meanings or renditions of the original Greek, and they matched exactly what I had thought the sense of the particular sentence meant. I was really pleased about that, as I certainly don't understand Greek or Hebrew to go back to the original.
It's handy to have a concordance as well and be able to look up various meanings of words.

 

[cloudyday2]

What about when the sequence of the Greek words is unnatural for English? Would somebody say it is not word for word if the translator rearranged the words for English grammar. I took Latin in high school, and I remember that the word order in Latin sentences does not change the meaning. I don't know how Greek works.

 

[cloudyday2]

Another question: what about expressions like "beating around the bush" that might mean something to the author but do not mean anything to the reader?

 

[thispoorman]

cloudyday2, you've hit the nail on the head, right there. I've taught English for 31 years, and intensively studied it for even longer, and I can say without hesitation that words, as such, are not language. Words are only the most basic tools and/or ingredients of language. It is the arrangement of the meanings that underlie the words that is important. The skill of language is realizing what a word, phrase, clause, sentence, or paragraph will communicate when you craft it in a particular way in a particular context. All human language is full of complicating factors, such as idiom (your "beating around the bush" is an example of that; translate that "word for word" into another language, and you might wind up with some vague idea of somebody hunting quail, for example, instead of what every English speaker recognizes as meaning "not getting directly to the point of the argument").

And not only do we face idiomatic language, but all other manner of figurative language: metaphor, simile, irony (saying the exact opposite of what you really mean in such a way that what you really do mean is obvious - try that in a "word for word" translation!), hyperbole (exaggeration for effect), personification, synechdoche (use of a part to represent the whole), and on and on and on.

In a "word," the idea that you can simply determine the "meaning" of a "word" - apart from any context and/or literary technique in the original language - and then just find the "word" in the receptor language that "means the same thing" and use it to translate is, in my opinion, hopelessly naive. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that translation is an art, not a science - and a "translator/artist" has to have the creative freedom to look into their own human heart, and understand what the original language is communicating in its own weird, wonderful, human way. Words deceive, all the time - you have to go deeper and wider for the truth hidden creatively - often poetically - under the words.

 

[redleghunter]

What do you think of the different categorizations of translations (word for word, thought for thought, or paraphrase). Many seem to think that word for word is the most precise, but I wonder if it is actually the least precise because it does not give the reader the benefits of the translator's understanding of the text. The translator is much more capable than me of knowing what the author might have truly meant.

If you are delving into studying the meaning of words then a word for word literal translation with lexicon is recommended.

If you are reading for basic comprehension of passages then a dynamic equivalent may be the way to go.

 

[food4thought]

I lean towards word for word because these are the least dependent upon a human translator's interpretation of the text. Although they are often difficult to understand, a little bit of study using a concordance and perhaps a couple good commentaries will shed light on the passage.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

What do you think of the different categorizations of translations (word for word, thought for thought, or paraphrase). Many seem to think that word for word is the most precise, but I wonder if it is actually the least precise because it does not give the reader the benefits of the translator's understanding of the text. The translator is much more capable than me of knowing what the author might have truly meant.

No, it does give the translators understanding, this is taken from the Interlinear Bible take a look:

Genesis1:1

בְּ רֵ אשִׁ ית :
b·rashith
in·beginning

בָּ רָ א
bra
he-created

אֱהִ ים
aleim
Elohim

אֵ ת
ath
»

הַ שָּׁ מַ יִ ם
e·shmim
the·heavens

וְ אֵ ת
u·ath
and·»

הָ אָ רֶ ץ
e·artz
the·earth : : .

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It gives the translators understanding of it both as word for word and as in a sentence.


Source:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf

Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

 

[Greg J.]

A "word for word" translation is closest to the original, however, it is erroneous to think removing as much of the translator as possible makes it more accurate. The very purpose of the translator is to make the passage easier to correctly understand.

If you find a verse in a literal translation to seem to have a different meaning than in a dynamic translation, it is probably because the multiple translators studied the passage a lot more broadly and deeply than you did.

When I don't understand a verse, I go to a very dynamic translation and get most of the meaning from that, then I try to figure out what the literal translation must mean. Doing so almost always adds detail and precision to my understanding, and sometimes corrects my misunderstanding, but the fundamental meaning of the verse remains the same.

 

[Unix]

Depends on which exact version You are going to use.

On my Facebook I recently listed the most unnecessary English Bible versions.
I actually try to keep Bibles to a minimum. But I read a lot, and I'm a language-nerd, so I still need several.

Personally I've been using different versions for different parts of the Bible, for a while. I'm fine-tuning this reading-list of which is the preferred version for which part.
Then I may sometimes read different versions for devotional reading, for memorizing, and use a few more versions for close study.
What Greg J. said about seeing a passage in a dynamic equivalent version first and then in a formal equivalent one, should usually work, although I don't use that method all the time.
The formal equivalent version I've used the most, so far, is the 1959/1971 RSV 2nd Edition, or the 1st 1060 Edition of it (I've used a copy of the 1960 Edition to the extent that the spine is worn out outwardly), I've since added also the NASB77 i.e. the old Edition.
Two dynamic equivalent versions that are surprisingly accurate and easy to get hold of, are the 1985 NJB and the 1989 REB. For the NT I also use NAB70.
There are several more versions I continuously use, and some I completely avoid such as ESV and 2017 CSB. I might use the HCSB - I'm considering ordering a 1st Edition NT in leather cover, as I looked at its translation of Ephesians and it didn't seem worse than the 2009 Edition.
I use the 1989 NRSV much less than most who study the Bible a lot in detail, I'll use it for Philemon, Revelation, and am since before using it for Sirach.
I use Knox for 2 Maccabees, and REB for 1 Maccabees.

RSV71 NT, NAB70 NT, 1985 NJB, NASB77, Moffatt NT are probably my most used versions, the latter because I find it easy to focus on in noisy environments. I will probably keep using the 1952 RSV OT for the English vocabulary. I would use the 1952 Rieu's translation of the Four Gospels more if weren't for that the copy I bought was somewhat expensive and that I'm afraid I'll wear it out too soon if I use it as much as I would desire to.

I've also been trying to use NIV78 for Romans, I read straight through Ro recently.
I'm a little undecided which version to use for Acts, I'm considering the 1989 NRSV and have recently committed to buy a used extra leather cover from Lithuania for my glued hardback 1995 Anglicised NRSV NT. The NRSV NT is btw the version where I see to that I always use the Anglicised Edition as it's easily available at least in print. (Another version which is fairly easily available as an Anglicised Edition that I could recommend, is the NIV84, I'll let a girlfriend/wife, as well as a co-author, use it.)

I used to use the 2010 NABRE a lot for the 39-book OT for five Years until last Year. I've decided that it's more dynamic equivalent than most will admit, so I'm looking at going to some more formal equivalent version for close study, but I would probably only accept one which was either done by Catholics or at least comes with Apocrypha, I think I'd require that even if I wouldn't read the Deuterocanonicals from it, as I think some Bibles that come without are pretty weird. It's difficult to find a pleasing OT version, so I'm finding certain versions the best for certain parts, such as the translation of Genesis included in The Torah: A Modern Commentary, which I have under Accordance Bible Study software. I also recently ordered a commentary in leather cover, which comments on the Aramaic translation of Numbers, for $15 used, and if I get hold of a used copy of Exodus from the same series I will buy. Another commentary I use for Exodus is the 1974 volume by Brevard Childs in the Old Testament Library -series.
I will probably still use the 2010 NABRE for the Psalms.

I've used a copy of the 2004 Good News Translation 3rd Edition UK-English 66-book Bible to the extent that it's somewhat worn. I won't hurry to replace it, maybe just read a little less from it.

I'm not ordering a lot more Bibles, I have a few more and especially in Bible Study softwares I have good access, but one definitely will order in two days, is the NAB70 NT.

For the OT, I might even have to resort to using the 1952 RSV for parts of it, and the 1989 NRSV for some parts as well as the 1989 REB, the NASB77 for some chapters, the NJB and the 2010 NABRE for still some parts. It will just take a while to decide on which one to use for which parts, and a little heavy to carry five tomes, two of them very bulky, just to read the 39-book OT in addition to needing a device that runs Accordance for Genesis, and to sometimes carry the NIV78 library copy as well for comparison. But by this I also will give weight to the OT and make a statement that the OT is not easy to translate, meanwhile I'm taking Hebrew long-distance class. The NRSV and REB are included in a Parallel Bible, so if I carry the NRSV OT I also have the REB OT. I don't have a copy of just the NRSV OT (even with the NT), and won't buy one, but I do have the REB Bible 66-book Bible, two copies. I haven't bought a copy of the NASB77 in print for myself, I guess I'll keep using Bible Study software copies.

I'm also interested in Bibles with older English, for the NT, I have two eight-translation Parallel NT:s, they duplicate the KJV NT and one has RSV46 (1960) NT and the other one has RSV71 NT. The 1901 ASV is included. I'm going to print a copy of the late 19th century RV 1 Jn, since F. F. Bruce chose it as the version for a commentary on 1 Jn he wrote. Btw, I recently might have had a chance to buy a couple of volumes of F. F. Bruce's commentaries, but I didn't, for example Acts, cheap, I thought I was short of money (but this morning Thursday Apr. 20. I found a banknote at home, my children had given it to me as a gift) and made different priorities and thought that I didn't want to support that particular Bible Study software platform further by such a purchase (Logos/Verbum). Also there would be so much to read in that Acts commentary, that I might just settle with borrowing the paper copy from the library, instead, to read sometimes, instead of owning a copy that I would be forced to read from the monitor. It also would have been interesting if F. F. Bruce would have lived long enough to comment on the NRSV version of Acts, but the last revision of an Edition of this commentary which has come out under Bible Study software, was in 1988 (the 3rd Edition came out in 1990). I actually have a different commentary as favourite on Acts, in the Hermeneia -series, it's much more recent so it's more interesting regarding the English it comes up with for Acts, I have that particular volume under Verbum.

Lastly, I hesitate using the NKJV, because the reading-level is not as high as I had thought. I haven't used this version, but I've recently bought a NT very cheap that consists of the NKJV NT and the 1981 Swedish translation NT in parallel. Also I know of a Parallel Bible that is being sold that includes it, but I probably won't buy it as one of the versions inlcuded in it, the NLT 2nd Edition, is not that compelling and has even much easier language, I actually hate that latter version, I even rather use the 1971 LB for occasional devotional reading. Probably I should not buy every Parallel Bible that I would use!! I guess I'm still a little chocked by having got rid of my fast laptop and not being able to replace it with a good one for Years, even though I get great monetary compensation from my home insurance, that's probably why I've even been considering print parallel Bibles. You may notice that I'm good at finding reasons for not buying a Bible, wanted to show some of that thought-process!

/EDIT Apr. 20. at 6:45 AM local time. originally posted Sunday Apr. 16. 2017 at 2:36 AM local time

 

[redleghunter]

Depends on which exact version You are going to use.

On my Facebook I recently listed the most unnecessary English Bible versions.
I actually try to keep Bibles to a minimum. But I read a lot, and I'm a language-nerd, so I still need several.

Personally I've been using different versions for different parts of the Bible, for a while. I'm fine-tuning this reading-list of which is the preferred version for which part.
Then I may sometimes read different versions for devotional reading, for memorizing, and use a few more versions for close study.
What Greg J. said about seeing a passage in a dynamic equivalent version first and then in a formal equivalent one, should usually work, although I don't use that method all the time.
The formal equivalent version I've used the most, so far, is the 1959/1971 RSV 2nd Edition, or the 1st 1060 Edition of it (I've used a copy of the 1960 Edition to the extent that the spine is worn out outwardly), I've since added also the NASB77 i.e. the old Edition.
Two dynamic equivalent versions that are surprisingly accurate and easy to get hold of, are the 1985 NJB and the 1989 REB. For the NT I also use NAB70.
There are several more versions I continuously use, and some I completely avoid such as ESV and 2017 CSB. I might use the HCSB - I'm considering ordering a 1st Edition NT in leather cover, as I looked at its translation of Ephesians and it didn't seem worse than the 2009 Edition.
I use the 1989 NRSV much less than most who study the Bible a lot in detail, I'll use it for Philemon, Revelation, and am since before using it for Sirach.
I use Knox for 2 Maccabees, and REB for 1 Maccabees.

RSV71 NT, NAB70 NT, 1985 NJB, NASB77, Moffatt NT are probably my most used versions, the latter because I find it easy to focus on in noisy environments. I will probably keep using the 1952 RSV OT for the English vocabulary. I would use the 1952 Rieu's translation of the Four Gospels more if weren't for that the copy I bought was somewhat expensive and that I'm afraid I'll wear it out too soon if I use it as much as I would desire to.

I've also been trying to use NIV78 for Romans, I read straight through Ro recently.
I'm a little undecided which version to use for Acts, I'm considering the 1989 NRSV and have recently committed to buy a used extra leather cover from Lithuania for my glued hardback 1995 Anglicised NRSV NT. The NRSV NT is btw the version where I see to that I always use the Anglicised Edition as it's easily available at least in print. (Another version which is fairly easily available as an Anglicised Edition that I could recommend, is the NIV84, I'll let a girlfriend/wife, as well as a co-author, use it.)

I used to use the 2010 NABRE a lot for the 39-book OT for five Years until last Year. I've decided that it's more dynamic equivalent than most will admit, so I'm looking at going to some more formal equivalent version for close study, but I would probably only accept one which was either done by Catholics or at least comes with Apocrypha, I think I'd require that even if I wouldn't read the Deuterocanonicals from it, as I think some Bibles that come without are pretty weird. It's difficult to find a pleasing OT version, so I'm finding certain versions the best for certain parts, such as the translation of Genesis included in The Torah: A Modern Commentary, which I have under Accordance Bible Study software. I also recently ordered a commentary in leather cover, which comments on the Aramaic translation of Numbers, for $15 used, and if I get hold of a used copy of Exodus from the same series I will buy. Another commentary I use for Exodus is the 1974 volume by Brevard Childs in the Old Testament Library -series.
I will probably still use the 2010 NABRE for the Psalms.

I've used a copy of the 2004 Good News Translation 3rd Edition UK-English 66-book Bible to the extent that it's somewhat worn. I won't hurry to replace it, maybe just read a little less from it.

I'm not ordering a lot more Bibles, I have a few more and especially in Bible Study softwares I have good access, but one definitely will order in two days, is the NAB70 NT.

For the OT, I might even have to resort to using the 1952 RSV for parts of it, and the 1989 NRSV for some parts as well as the 1989 REB, the NASB77 for some chapters, the NJB and the 2010 NABRE for still some parts. It will just take a while to decide on which one to use for which parts, and a little heavy to carry five tomes, two of them very bulky, just to read the 39-book OT in addition to needing a device that runs Accordance for Genesis, and to sometimes carry the NIV78 library copy as well for comparison. But by this I also will give weight to the OT and make a statement that the OT is not easy to translate, meanwhile I'm taking Hebrew long-distance class. The NRSV and REB are included in a Parallel Bible, so if I carry the NRSV OT I also have the REB OT. I don't have a copy of just the NRSV OT (even with the NT), and won't buy one, but I do have the REB Bible 66-book Bible, two copies. I haven't bought a copy of the NASB77 in print for myself, I guess I'll keep using Bible Study software copies.

I'm also interested in Bibles with older English, for the NT, I have two eight-translation Parallel NT:s, they duplicate the KJV NT and one has RSV46 (1960) NT and the other one has RSV71 NT. The 1901 ASV is included. I'm going to print a copy of the late 19th century RV 1 Jn, since F. F. Bruce chose it as the version for a commentary on 1 Jn he wrote. Btw, I recently might have had a chance to buy a couple of volumes of F. F. Bruce's commentaries, but I didn't, for example Acts, cheap, I was short of money and made different priorities and thought that I didn't want to support that particular Bible Study software platform further by such a purchase (Logos/Verbum). Also there would be so much to read in that Acts commentary, that I might just settle with borrowing the paper copy from the library, instead, to read sometimes, instead of owning a copy that I would be forced to read from the monitor. It also would have been interesting if F. F. Bruce would have lived long enough to comment on the NRSV version of Acts, but the last revision of this commentary was in 1988. I actually have a different commentary as favourite on Acts, in the Hermeneia -series, it's much more recent so it's more interesting regarding the English it comes up with for Acts, I have that particular volume under Verbum.

Lastly, I hesitate using the NKJV, because the reading-level is not as high as I had thought. I haven't used this version, but I've recently bought a NT very cheap that consists of the NKJV NT and the 1981 Swedish translation NT in parallel. Also I know of a Parallel Bible that is being sold that includes it, but I probably won't buy it as one of the versions inlcuded in it, the NLT 2nd Edition, is not that compelling and has even much easier language, I actually hate that latter version, I even rather use the 1971 LB for occasional devotional reading. Probably I should not buy every Parallel Bible that I would use!! I guess I'm still a little chocked by having got rid of my fast laptop and not being able to replace it with a good one for Years, even though I get great monetary compensation from my home insurance, that's probably why I've even been considering print parallel Bibles. You may notice that I'm good at finding reasons for not buying a Bible, wanted to show some of that thought-process!

Have you tried the LEB from LOGOS?

 

[Unix]

A little and found it biased, and I usually don't go with Bibles that have not been sold as printed matter for a while:

Have you tried the LEB from LOGOS?

 

[dysert]

I think "word for word" is the way to go. After all, it's the *words* that are inspired. For example, Gal. 3:16 is the perfect support for that. (The inspired writer used the word "seed" and not "seeds" -- it makes a huge difference.) And there are other examples.

If you read a dynamic equivalence passage, you're not sure you're reading God's words or man's interpretations of those words. However, if you're reading a more formal equivalence passage, you know what the words are, and it's up to you (with Bible helps) to figure out the context, the occasion, possible idioms, etc., to derive the correct meaning.

 

[Blackmarch]

What do you think of the different categorizations of translations (word for word, thought for thought, or paraphrase). Many seem to think that word for word is the most precise, but I wonder if it is actually the least precise because it does not give the reader the benefits of the translator's understanding of the text. The translator is much more capable than me of knowing what the author might have truly meant.

the purpose of language is to get Idea A from person 1 to person 2 as Idea A. now if there is a language barrier between person 1 and 2 then whatever methods that allow the transmission of Idea A to remain as Idea A then that is the correct one to use......

And if you're really lucky, having a word for word crossover while keeping the idea the same is probably the best ideal. but that is not always the case.

 

[ChetSinger]

What do you think of the different categorizations of translations (word for word, thought for thought, or paraphrase). Many seem to think that word for word is the most precise, but I wonder if it is actually the least precise because it does not give the reader the benefits of the translator's understanding of the text. The translator is much more capable than me of knowing what the author might have truly meant.

I use two Bibles for this very reason.

I use the ESV for reading. It's a modern translation that takes advantage of recent scholarship. And it's rather literal, leaving many original idioms intact such as "Abraham lifted up his eyes...", whereas some Bibles replace it with things like "Abraham looked up...". I enjoy the reading the original idioms because I think both Hebrew and Greek are rich and elegant languages.

I supplement the ESV with the online NET because of its voluminous footnotes. The NET's text doesn't preserve the original words as well as the ESV does, and I think that's a loss, but its footnotes are a goldmine. They're often longer than the text itself and bring to light a wealth of background information that helps to illuminate its original context.