<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 65. Which Bible Version is Superior? 2. Weaknesses of translation styles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://impact.nbseminary.com/archives/130/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://impact.nbseminary.com/archives/130</link>
	<description>Mark Naylor's articles on cross-cultural issues, Bible translation etc.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:57:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark Naylor</title>
		<link>http://impact.nbseminary.com/archives/130/comment-page-1#comment-3621</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Naylor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:23:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impact.nbseminary.com/?p=130#comment-3621</guid>
		<description>Hi Rodney,

Thanks for your comment.  But does not the phrase, “who ever converts the thoughts to english will have a predetermined interpreatation of their meaning based on their own beliefs” not also refer to you?  Do you not also run the danger of guarding your own presuppositions against the meaning of Scripture by not accessing the clarity of a meaning-based version?  I do not think you can escape the dilemma that understanding of Scripture only comes through interpretation, whether yours or another’s.  It is the rare person who is more equipped to understand the meaning of Scripture than the translators who have the specific training, expertise and tools that aid in such a task.  This does not mean that thought-for-thought translations are infallible, only that they provide clarity.  My point is that clarity of communication serves the church much more than the awkward phrasing and obscure references often found in literal translations.  Literal translations often serve to convince the reader that the meaning cannot be accessed without an expert pastor or teacher to explain the meaning which thus undermines the value of Scripture for the average person since they will come to doubt their ability to comprehend the Bible.  The danger of misinterpretation is with us no matter the version, the difference is who is doing the interpreting.  I suspect that more incorrect thinking arises from the misinterpretation of literal translations than through the correct understanding of wrongly translated meaning-based versions.

Blessings,
Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Rodney,</p>
<p>Thanks for your comment.  But does not the phrase, “who ever converts the thoughts to english will have a predetermined interpreatation of their meaning based on their own beliefs” not also refer to you?  Do you not also run the danger of guarding your own presuppositions against the meaning of Scripture by not accessing the clarity of a meaning-based version?  I do not think you can escape the dilemma that understanding of Scripture only comes through interpretation, whether yours or another’s.  It is the rare person who is more equipped to understand the meaning of Scripture than the translators who have the specific training, expertise and tools that aid in such a task.  This does not mean that thought-for-thought translations are infallible, only that they provide clarity.  My point is that clarity of communication serves the church much more than the awkward phrasing and obscure references often found in literal translations.  Literal translations often serve to convince the reader that the meaning cannot be accessed without an expert pastor or teacher to explain the meaning which thus undermines the value of Scripture for the average person since they will come to doubt their ability to comprehend the Bible.  The danger of misinterpretation is with us no matter the version, the difference is who is doing the interpreting.  I suspect that more incorrect thinking arises from the misinterpretation of literal translations than through the correct understanding of wrongly translated meaning-based versions.</p>
<p>Blessings,<br />
Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rodney Waterman</title>
		<link>http://impact.nbseminary.com/archives/130/comment-page-1#comment-3548</link>
		<dc:creator>Rodney Waterman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:24:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impact.nbseminary.com/?p=130#comment-3548</guid>
		<description>If one decides it better to use a thought-for-thought translation, then which one should he choose?  Obviously, who ever converts the thoughts to english will have a predetermined interpreatation of their meaning based on their own beliefs.  For instance, those believing in a &quot;once saved, always saved&quot; doctrine, would not place emphasis on thoughts that seem to promote baptism as a requirement for salvation and might minimize it, even by accident.  There are other examples, but I am sure you get the point.

Based on this problem, I prefer to use something like the NAS or ESV and then pray alot for wisdom and understanding.

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If one decides it better to use a thought-for-thought translation, then which one should he choose?  Obviously, who ever converts the thoughts to english will have a predetermined interpreatation of their meaning based on their own beliefs.  For instance, those believing in a &#8220;once saved, always saved&#8221; doctrine, would not place emphasis on thoughts that seem to promote baptism as a requirement for salvation and might minimize it, even by accident.  There are other examples, but I am sure you get the point.</p>
<p>Based on this problem, I prefer to use something like the NAS or ESV and then pray alot for wisdom and understanding.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trierr</title>
		<link>http://impact.nbseminary.com/archives/130/comment-page-1#comment-965</link>
		<dc:creator>Trierr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impact.nbseminary.com/?p=130#comment-965</guid>
		<description>Awesome summary of the issues.  Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Awesome summary of the issues.  Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Which Bible Version is Superior? &#124; Kouya Chronicle</title>
		<link>http://impact.nbseminary.com/archives/130/comment-page-1#comment-420</link>
		<dc:creator>Which Bible Version is Superior? &#124; Kouya Chronicle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://impact.nbseminary.com/?p=130#comment-420</guid>
		<description>[...] the standard for the meaning, while meaning-based translations provide clarity and comprehension. Read More   Bookmark and Share:  sociallist_a5baf517_url = &#039;http://www.kouya.net/?p=1011&#039;; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the standard for the meaning, while meaning-based translations provide clarity and comprehension. Read More   Bookmark and Share:  sociallist_a5baf517_url = &#8216;http://www.kouya.net/?p=1011&#8242;; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->