[b-hebrew] Genesis 3:15 "bruise"
peterkirk at qaya.org
Wed Dec 22 14:22:27 EST 2004
On 22/12/2004 17:07, Jim West wrote:
> At 11:09 AM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
>> This is NOT a paraphrase, in the technical sense. The New Living
>> Translation is explicitly a translation from the original languages,
>> and as such differs from the Living Bible which was a paraphrase,
>> i.e. an adaptation within the same language, of the American Standard
> It is indeed a paraphrase in the correct meaning of the word- here is
> their own description:
> The challenge for the translators was to create a text that would make
> the same *impact* in the life of modern readers that the original text
> had for the original readers. In the New Living Translation, this is
> accomplished by translating *entire thoughts* (rather than just words)
> into natural, everyday English.
> Note- the bold prinit is their own emphasis- they don't render words
> but "entire thoughts" - i.e., they paraphrase.
Words do not have "correct" meanings. But they do have conventional
meanings, which are those found in dictionaries, and sometimes they have
technical meanings which are found only in technical glossaries.
Sometimes also they have idiosyncratic meanings used by individual
authors. In this case the conventional meaning from a dictionary is:
> NOUN: 1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or
> other words, often to clarify meaning. 2. The restatement of texts in
> other words as a studying or teaching device.
> TRANSITIVE VERB: To restate in a paraphrase.
> INTRANSITIVE VERB: To compose a paraphrase.
That's from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000, http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/P0064000.html.
There is no mention there of rendering entire thoughts. There is no
mention of conversion from one language to another.
Conclusion: your definition of "paraphrase" is an idiosyncratic one.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew