Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] NIV v' NWT translation policy

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
  • To: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NIV v' NWT translation policy
  • Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:51:42 -0000

>This is not fair criticism - although I don't want to claim here that
>NIV is better than any other translation. There is nothing random about
>how NIV was translated, but its wording was carefully chosen by a large
>and varied team of scholars, who also know the English language and how
>phrases are used in it just as well as your computer is likely to be
>able to learn it. These scholars did of course have their biases, and
>the resulting translation is not entirely free of them. But I don't
>believe that it is possible even in principle for translation to be free
>from such biases.

Agreed! My use of the term 'random' was unwarranted and I should have chosen
my words better. But I think you get what I really meant.

>It certainly is not true of NWT, which, as an example,
>biases the understanding of nephesh and `olam by its choice of the
>particular consistent renderings "soul" and "to time indefinite".

Agreed! While I agree with the ideaology behind NWT translators decisions
here I am adamantly against their conclusions and choice of words with
which to translate them consistently. While it is true that their consistent
use of these words has empowered me to read these words and contextually and
see for myself what their biblical meaning was I do not believe that these
rather plastic translations reflect the everyday simplicity with which the
original authors communicated their ideas, thoughts and feelings. NWT has its
merits but in this regard falls down.

If we are to truly reflect the style with which the original authors penned
these words we also need to adopt the same style of natural speech that they
also used but not at the price of consistency.

NWT has arrived at these 'plastic' translations not their use of consistency
but throught their failure to understand that the basic unit of translation
was not the individual word itself but the unique and repeating combinations
of words which convey the same underlying concepts which we find in every
single
language either living or dead.

I am fully confident that had the NWT translation team taken this into
account
they would have produced a far more warming translation which fulfilled the
goals of both consistency and of faithful natural speech. The term 'time
indefinite' is the perfect case in point. As you have noted the more natural
term is 'indefinitely' (if they are indeed correct about its meaning) but as
this translation wouldn't have worked for them with past reference they opted
for the plastic 'time indefinite' which kind of works both ways (in the funny
language that JW's have invented for themselves). If they had taken context
into
account they could easily have maintained a policy of consistency by using
'indefinitely' with future reference and another term e.g 'ages ago' for past
reference. This would have made for an easy to read natural translation
which would have stood up to the test of consistent renderings.

Also as the word soul in English means 'immortal immaterial part of a person
which survives the death of the body' this was a very poor choice in a
translation
whose aim is to demonstrate that such was not the biblical meaning. Althoug,
I
have to admit that I struggle to find a single English word which captures
the
concept which the combination of all its uses conveys.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peter AT qaya.org]
Sent: Thu 11/17/2005 2:23 AM
To: Read, James C
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: NIV v' NWT translation policy

On 16/11/2005 23:28, Read, James C wrote:

> Putting all our pre-indoctrinated ideas aside and having considered
> the merits of both the NIV and the NWT translations, could it be
> that a 'good' translation would be a balance of the two?
>

I must say I doubt it. I think it would be a curate's egg, good in
parts! But then I don't consider consistency to be a merit, in cases
where words are used in various senses. Well, you seem aware of the
danger when you criticise "exagerated faithfulness to any one particular
word".

James and some others, you might be interested in the Better Bibles
Blog, http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/, to which I am an occasional
contributor.

> ...
> My programme will soon be sweeping the internet in a manner similar to
> Google's algorithm (crawling from link to link) and will parse and store
> the frequency of every word and combination of words (mistakes included)
> in every modern language that the visible web has to offer.
> This database of word/phrase frequencies will be the basis of a new
> database
> of numbers. Each unique number will represent one 'concept', which I
> believe
> to be common denominator of all languages. And through intelligent self
> correction mechanisms the programme will decide when a particular phrase
> can map to a particular concept. As the entire algorithm is guided by
> concepts
> (with meanings) and phrases alone it will not be able to produce unnatural
> language yet will remain faithful and consistent in its mappings.
>

Sounds fascinating! Please keep us posted about your progress.

>
> ...
> Nor will it fall into the trap that the NIV has of denying the right
> to interpret
> the text of the reader by forcing any particular random idiom which
> supports
> any particular doctrine as idiomatic translations will only be
> performed as a
> result of careful meaning establishing mechanisms which map contexts
> to idiomatic
> expressions.
>

This is not fair criticism - although I don't want to claim here that
NIV is better than any other translation. There is nothing random about
how NIV was translated, but its wording was carefully chosen by a large
and varied team of scholars, who also know the English language and how
phrases are used in it just as well as your computer is likely to be
able to learn it. These scholars did of course have their biases, and
the resulting translation is not entirely free of them. But I don't
believe that it is possible even in principle for translation to be free
from such biases. It certainly is not true of NWT, which, as an example,
biases the understanding of nephesh and `olam by its choice of the
particular consistent renderings "soul" and "to time indefinite". (NWT
has been accused of other kinds of bias, of course, but I don't want to
get into such matters which chiefly concern the NT.)

>
> When my project is complete the entire source code will made available
> under open
> source license so that the code can be subjected to rigourous
> international
> peer review. This will be to ensure that I am not allowed to inject my
> own personal
> beliefs into the mechanism (something which we are all guilty of from
> time to time).
>
Good!

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk Wed Nov 16 22:06:32 2005
Return-Path: <k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail70.messagelabs.com (mail70.messagelabs.com
[193.109.255.115])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 050A34C008
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:06:31 -0500
(EST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-70.messagelabs.com!1132196789!30358823!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.9.1; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.18]
Received: (qmail 30511 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2005 03:06:29 -0000
Received: from kuexim2.king.ac.uk (HELO kuexim2.king.ac.uk) (141.241.2.18)
by server-10.tower-70.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
17 Nov 2005 03:06:29 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
by kuexim2.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1Eca6X-0002eS-GW; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:06:29 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:58:08 -0000
Message-ID:
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F874EF34 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
Thread-Index: AcXrD6zT4YhuqMF5RgS3O+r0ReOTfgAEk7oN
From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "Robert Newman" <rob AT designceramics.co.uk>,
<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:06:32 -0000


As someone who has studied the bible with JW's and has spent a number of
years
frequenting their meetings but had not grown up in the religion I have to say
that when I first read the NWT I really did not understand the use of the
term
'time indefinite' as I had never ever heard this combination of words before
in
my 21 years of life as a native English speaker previous. It took me quite
some
time to get used to this funny sounding phrase and only finally accepted its
usage (against my instincts) because the reason for its use was explained to
me.

Considering all the evidence we would really be fighting a losing battle to
convince
the world at large that this is good English because the well accepted fact
for
the rest of the English speaking world is that it isn't, plain and simple.

I think that we would only bring discredit on ourselves to insist that it was
good English.

However, good work at demonstrating that it does not always mean forever.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Robert Newman
Sent: Thu 11/17/2005 12:38 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II

Dear Peter and Kelton,
Firstly, on the ability of olam to describe time that is less than endless.
Peter you requested evidence that it does not just mean forever,
Ge 6:4; De 32:7 and Job 22:15 (pos. Time of ones elders) Jos 24:2; 1 Sam
27:8; Isa 51:9,11; 63:9; Ez 36:2; Pr 22:28; 32:10; Jer 6:16; 18:15; 28:8 Isa
58:12; 61:4; Mic 7:5; Mal 3:4; Ezr 4:15,19.
I think these adequately demonstrate that olam does not always refer to time
that is endless.
Seondly on the potential meaning of "time indefinite".
Kelton you nicely describe the thrust of meaning this phrase has when taken
alone without context. I would say that the potential meaning is a little
wider, my dictionary defines the word "indefinite" as "without exact limits"
and one synonym listed is "unlimited" - that is not the thrust but it is part
of the potental. Just a little caution on the technique of defining a word by
means of its componants, whilst your analysis was just fine for the word
"indefinite" the same would not be true of the word "indefinitely" which has
a distincly different meaning(but you probably knew that ;-).
In view of what kelton described as to the meaning of "time indifinite" and
what Peter has said about the expression not being common English, it is
expected that idiomatic translator's would reject it. In many contexts the
reader might ask as did Kelton 'what does that mean?' In other contexts the
meaning is readily apparent e.g. Ps104:5 "It will not be made to totter to
time indefinite, or forever"
If translator's are going to invent some new word or phrase, they surely
should have a good reason to! Like, there not already being a word or phrase
in the target language that conveys the original thought with the desired
accuracy.
A techinque of study that I greatly value is a standard method used by
lexicographers, whereby they carefully compare synonyms in an attempt to
discern any small differences between the way the words are used (are there
any works that make a project of this other than Girdlestone's, which I
have?). In my opinion while the thrust of olam is "forever" it has the
potential to describe a period of time that will end. Now the original writer
may have just picked the word indiscriminately from a pool of words meaning
'forever', or he may have chosen it specifically for its unique potential to
convey a specific thought. Who should decide, the translator?, or the reader?
With respect to the source language it was the reader, if that is to be the
case with the target language the translator must distinguish the words as
far as practically possible. In my opinion "time indefinite" serves this
purpose and is properly understood by the English student (I say 'student'
instead of 'reader'
because the reader needs to learn through their reading what the expression
properly conveys.). This is the approach of NWT, they also often distinguish
for example between the Hebrew words for man, and if I remember rightly to
some degree even the words for lion. This is all with the objective of
conveying as far as possible the full force of the Hebrew. This is at the
sacrafice of literary style and even in some cases smooth communication, the
reader is made to work, but gets out more than they put in. You may dislike
this approach and that is up to you, but please understand it, and see its
advantages as well as disadvantages.
Robert Newman

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From tladatsi AT charter.net Wed Nov 16 22:57:21 2005
Return-Path: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mxsf39.cluster1.charter.net (mxsf39.cluster1.charter.net
[209.225.28.166])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE08E4C008
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:57:21 -0500
(EST)
Received: from mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net (mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net
[209.225.28.140])
by mxsf39.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
jAH3vKHt016147
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:57:20 -0500
Received: from fep02.charter.net (HELO 209.225.8.224) ([209.225.8.82])
by mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 16 Nov 2005 22:57:21 -0500
Message-Id: <4e8oko$1m7mo52 AT mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net>
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,339,1125892800";
d="scan'208"; a="1820024994:sNHT45710870"
X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.18 (webedge20-101-1108-20050216)
From: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
To: <kwrandolph AT email.com>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:57:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [b-hebrew] Joseph: Israel - Hyksos - Egypt
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:57:21 -0000

Whoever wrote Exodus and whenever it was written, it was
written with future generations in mind. It was written
for you and I. It was writen with a concern for our
knowledge of God, not Egyptian history.

Jack Tladatsi




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page