Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:53:57 -0500 Jim West <jwest AT highland.net> writes:
> At 01:45 PM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
> 
> >Yes, this is precisely as I said.
> >
> >george
> >gfsomsel
> >___________
> 
> Now make up your mind.  Are you using paraphrase as Peter is or as 
> the 
> dictionary is- because you seem to be changing your mind.  A 
> paraphrase is 
> taking words and simplifying them for a wider audience- which is 
> what the 
> NWT does.  It is not a translation- as I have already said.  It is a 
> 
> paraphrase.  A translation renders, as closely as possible, words 
> from one 
> language into another.  The American Standard Version is a 
> translation; the 
> NIV is a paraphrase, as are most modern renderings.  Why?  because 
> their 
> interest is not in translating words- but "ideas" and hence they 
> paraphrase. The KJV is a paraphrase as well, seeing as how it simply 
> 
> paraphrased Wycliffe and other english versions (while of course 
> pretending 
> to consult the originals).  If you want to translate hebrew into 
> english 
> that's one thing.  Something totally separate is taking what you 
> think the 
> words mean and rendering them in another way in order to simplify 
> for the 
> unwashed masses.
> 
> There is, in sum, a great difference between translating, 
> translations;  paraphrasing, and paraphrases.
> 
> Jim
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> Jim West, ThD
> Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies
> Quartz Hill School of Theology
__________________

Apparently you fail to appreciate the significance of the definition to 
which you pointed.  It said that a paraphrase was a restatement in other
words.  This implies that the restatement is in the same language.  A
translation involves two different languages.

george
gfsomsel
___________