Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Dear Rolf,

I think you have left people confused. Let us leave aside the small, 
or not so small, group of people who would benefit from the literal 
translation you described. What sort of non-literal translation would 
you recommend for the average reader of English or Norwegian, the 
people Nida etc had mainly in mind for dynamic equivalence 
translation? Perhaps you could either name a translation or translate 
a verse or two for us. To start with, how would you render Colossians 
1:15, in a non-literal way, for readers for whom the literal 
"firstborn of all creation" is theological nonsense?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: The call for concordant translations (was Chapter)
Author:  furuli AT online.no at internet
Date:    03/04/1999 03:22

<snip>

I am much more concerned with the theological coloring of modern idiomatic 
Bible translations and the unfortunate influence this has on the readers, 
than with defending literal translations. In fact, I have not defended 
literal translations at all, only shown that they have a right to live, and 
that they serve the needs of a particular target group better than 
idiomatic translations. However, while I accept your word that there are 
great problems with a literal translation in the language you work, there 
are substantially less problems in English.

<snip>