[sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies applied to translation

Michael Rempel sword-devel@crosswire.org
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:36:06 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <chris@bitmead.com>
To: <sword-devel@crosswire.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies applied to translation

> >Fast food Bible style. Have it your way! Interpretation by feel good
> >demographic preferences.
> >
> Why should it be that different styles of interpretation must equate to
> "feel good" ??

> > etc etc. Maybe someone could even choose their own customised
> > translation, choosing verses based on their own personal criteria.
amounts to feel good, follow my trails below.

> >Heck lets vote on interpretation already! This is
> >soooo slipery a slope.
> >
> People already choose their translation. Or do you want everyone to use
> Authorized Version ?
Nope, translations will exist, and lots is good. The problem you present me
with your notion is that I cant get a handle on it with accurate criticism.
I have to tell you what rabbit trail to run down first, and then you just
blame it on my combination of texts and throw your hands in the air like I
am a lunatic because I choose to put a combination together that I dont
like. Then some raddical sorry Osama clone comes along and runs down that
same bunny trail, and we all have a mess to clean up and no way to clean it.

 Single translation line texts dont have that problem. I can say that the
Living Bible is less than scholarly, and show you why, but your notion
leaves no way of saying much of anything. If you cant fix the text when it
is wrong, or badly interpreted it is a bad idea. Now do you see the smoking

> >How do I slide language? Give practical examples.
> >
> Each translation would be rated on literalness (NASB -> KJV -> NIV ->
> Good News -> etc).
> Difficulty of language (KJV -> NASB -> NIV -> Good News). etc.
> >We already have enough of that problem without putting
> >your GUN in the hands of the unsuspecting public.
> >
> Why call it a gun? Why not call it a tool? Take the word "flesh" as used
> by Paul, but
> the NIV translates "Sinful Nature". One could argue that flesh is a bad
> translation,
> because it doesn't have the meaning in this day and age that Paul meant.
> Now if
> all the occurances of flesh in this context were tagged <idiom
> type="flesh">flesh</idiom>
> you could right click in NASB on flesh, and get the option to change all
> to the
> NIV translation. And the reader is instantly enlighted by a translation
> that is more
> appropriate to their understanding.
> >People never take all the
> >roads. Most just take the ones that please them. Dont give them any more
> >detours around difficult texts PLEASE!!!
> >
> Not much point in the texts are so difficult they don't understand them.