On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:07:49 -0500 Jim West <jwest AT highland.net> writes:
> 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
> Bible.
>
> 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.
>
> Jim
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> Jim West, ThD
> Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies
> Quartz Hill School of Theology
_____________
Jim,
That's not the technical sense of "paraphrase" to which Peter refers. In
the technical sense a translation begins with the text in the original
language while a paraphrase begins from an existing translation of the
text.