New Bible Translation based on strict grammatical precision.

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
loudcry	New Bible Translation based on strict grammatical precision.	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1 (05/18/2009 18:32:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : bible, textus receptus, literal, strict, grammatical, precision, formal equivalence, new, translations, versions, syntax Hello, I'm writing to let you know that I am currently working on a new Bible translation based on strict grammatical precision. It's one of the few translations out there that still uses the Textus Receptus as the basis for the NT. If you prefer the Textus Receptus and formal equivalence translations, check it out. If not, check it out in any case. My website is: http//www.spvbible.org/ Thanks, Jeffrey Ho Last Edited By: loudcry 05/19/2009 18:43:28. Edited 2 times.
amarillo		#1	[-]
Posts: 3166 (05/18/2009 18:58:59) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	some random observations: 1. the Second Person of the Godhead seems consistently relegated to no. 3 position in the Trinity, rather curiously, in the dedicatory: "This work of translation is DEDICATED TO 1) God, the Eternal Father, the Creator and Sustainer of all existence 2) The Holy Spirit, the seven Spirits of God who are before his throne, who continually convict us of sin, righteousness, and the coming Judgment 3) Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God, the Lord and Savior of all existence" 2. nice fonts and layout--eminently readable, including the note column 3. strange philosophy of "translation": the stricter the correspondence grammatically, the less accurate the meaning; so why be strict? fortunately, at least the word order (a part of grammar) is not strictly copied, so most of it seems readable. i was also glad that the Granville Sharp rule was respected in Titus 2:13. although, for the OT, the substitution of the LORD for Yahweh seems more traditional than "strict." wayehi followed the KJB closely in translating the waw imperfect as "And." Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
Euthymius		#2	[-]
Posts: 1810 (05/18/2009 19:23:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	From a first look: Overall not bad as a generally formal equivalence translation (although I would not prefer the TR as a text base, but the majority text). Some passages don't read literarily the best, but if this is not the purpose, no great matter. In layout, I really see no need to place the KJV beside it for comparison purposes -- it either can stand on its own or cannot, and the presence of the KJV will only give direct reason for the KJVOs to complain. I do question the supposed underlying premises, since I hardly would claim that the translators of most conservative/evangelical translations current (e.g. NKJV, NASV, NIV, God's Word, NLT, etc.) would consider the Daniel prophecies to point to Antiochus Epiphanes any more than they would think the Exodus materials point to a late date for such. Translation should be neutral to such theological concerns, and any translator who allows his theological bias to first determine the text has already missed the proper boat.
mko		#3	[-]
Posts: 521 (05/18/2009 19:29:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Which is the purpose of my translation - I haven't found a translation free of bias from one side or the other. :/ I'm not sure it's possible but I'll derned well try. "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
BrianT		#4	[-]
Posts: 1745 (05/18/2009 19:38:27) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Welcome Jeffrey. From what I looked at, it looks like a solid, readable translation. Like Joseph, I too checked out Titus 2:13, and was glad to see it read as it does. One thing I am not clear on though about Daniel: shouldn't the basis of any translation to simply translate first and interpret second, rather than to translate for the purpose of fitting into an existing interpretation? I don't understand the issues you are trying to deal with here (Daniel has never been a focus of mine), so maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but shouldn't interpretation be derived from translation and not the other way around? Brian
loudcry		#5	[-]
Posts: 3 (05/19/2009 18:52:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	@ Joseph 1) Re: dedicatory. I simply modeled it after Revelation 1. If John moved Christ to the third position, then I'm sure there's no harm if people after him choose to do so. Why John moved the Holy Spirit to the second position probably has to do with the fact that the immediate antecedent of "before his throne" is the Father. Putting the Holy Spirit in the third position would not have conveyed this. Therefore, the word order I used was not meant to be superior or inferior to the more common order of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 2) The word "strict" is probably overkill, since "grammatical precision" is sufficient. This is essentially about syntax and semantics, but I used the more general word "grammar" for people who may not know linguistic terminology. 3) I did not use the word "Yahweh" because at best it's a linguistic reconstruction. So I simply followed the Masoretic pointing of Lord (Adonai) and God (Elohim) with the tetragrammaton. The Masoretes were willing to vocalize the diminuitives "Yah" and "Yahu" but never with YHWH. Also in the NT, neither Jesus nor Gabriel nor any other heavenly being pronounced the tetragrammaton. The closest in the NT is using the diminuitive Yah in the fixed phrase "Hallelujah" which was only recorded as being said in heaven in the book of Revelation. Therefore my reluctance in pronouncing or translating the tetragrammaton that way. @ Euthymius 1) Do you prefer the majority text over the critical text? I still prefer the Textus Receptus, among other things, over the majority text because of the necessity in retaining 1 John 5:7. The critical and majority texts read: 7) For the ones who bear witness are three: 8) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And the three agree with/to the one. Whereas the Textus Receptus reads: 7) For the ones who bear witness in heaven are three: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one; 8) And the ones who bear witness in the earth are three: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three agree with/to the one. Verse 7 should not be deleted because it says the three are "one." This "one" is picked up again in verse 8 where it says the Spirit, water, and blood agree with THE (aforementioned - notice the anaphoric article here) "one." So if we put the two together we have, "The Spirit, water, and blood agree with the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." So if we delete verse 7, then "the one" in verse 8 is pointing to nothing before it, because the "one" in verse 7 has been deleted. Therefore there is no logic to this then, unless someone can adequately explain the anaphoric article in verse 8, which is omitted in Bible versions using the critical text, which also contains this article in verse 8. 2) My principle is "literal as possible, idiomatic as necessary." Therefore it is not 100% literal. I don't think any Bible version can be 100% (hyper) literal. Not even versions that have the "literal" word in their name (such as Young's literal translation; Jay P. Green's literal translation of the Bible; Gary Zeolla's analytical-literal translation) are 100% literal, but rather are literal as possible. 3) In the end, it is possible for me to remove the KJV entirely. Or simply have one edition with the SPV, and another with both the SPV and KJV (as I currently have it). This work is not for me only, but also for God's people around the world. For people who use the KJV Bible, KJVO-people wouldn't want something like this anyways, so they're not my target audience. My target audience are those who are currently using the KJV, but are willing to consider alternative translations whenever the KJV does not correspond syntactically or semantically to the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek; or those who find the archaic language difficult to understand. Some of these people may not want to totally give up the KJV, but may find a lot of benefits from the SPV. There are lots of different people. Therefore I have included both versions at the moment. 4) Re: Antiochus. Any Bible translation that has a rendering anywhere close to "continual [sacrifices]" or "continual [burnt offerings] for Daniel 8:11,12,13; 11:31 and 12:11 has Antiochus in mind because he took away the daily burnt offerings for about 3.5 years in the 2^nd century BC. The [sacrifices] and [burnt offerings] are supplied words which are not in the Hebrew, but change the meaning of the entire book of Daniel. Therefore these supplied words speak of the theological bias that is incorporated into the translation of these Bible versions. What I have done is this: let's not add foreign substantives to the text or change the syntax around, but translate the text syntactically precise, and then see who/what is the fulfillment of these prophecies. I have attempted to do the latter, so I hope this answers the question of the underlying premises. Jeffrey Ho
Euthymius		#6	[-]
Posts: 1819 (05/20/2009 10:09:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	loud: @ Euthymius 1) Do you prefer the majority text over the critical text? Absolutely. And also absolutely over the TR (any edition). >I still prefer the Textus Receptus, among other things, over the majority text because of the necessity in retaining 1 John 5:7. Which "necessity" as you describe it is but a grammatical phantom invented by those already committed to defense of the TR and/or KJV. Already answered many times in many places by those who don't have the TR/KJV axe to grind. Greek manuscript data overrides conjectures claimed on the basis of weak internal arguments, and in the case of that passage, 500 manuscripts do not contain it, and only 9 do, half of these only in the margin in a hand of the 16th century or later. That the passage is an intrusion from the Vulgate in these MSS is also quite obvious, given that the earliest Greek manuscript to contain the passage is late (14th century) and Greek-Latin, wherein the Latin clearly has influenced the Greek. Obviously throughout history, Greek-speaking scribes themselves saw no grammatical or internal problem in the text that did not contain the interpolation, and there is no reason for anyone to claim such at the late dates beginning only by TR-only defenders in the 19th century. I'm not going to bother with any further discussion of this passage, since I have discussed it previously on various occasions (check the archives), so no need for further reply.
amarillo		#7	[-]
Posts: 3169 (05/20/2009 11:46:03) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	cool, thanks! Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
loudcry		#8	[-]
Posts: 5 (05/20/2009 13:12:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Euthymius wrote: 1) Do you prefer the majority text over the critical text? Absolutely. And also absolutely over the TR (any edition). Greek manuscript data overrides conjectures claimed on the basis of weak internal arguments, I'm not going to bother with any further discussion of this passage, since I have discussed it previously on various occasions (check the archives), so no need for further reply. 1) Why do you prefer the majority text over the critical text? Do you have a problem with the textual work of the UBS committee? And do you prefer the last edition of the majority text that came out just few years ago, or the one that came out several decades ago? And why? 2) I'm fully aware of the external argument regarding 1 John 5:7. If you treat the NT (and the OT for that matter) as a 100% historical human document, then you do have a strong case to present. But I'm more interested in the internal argument, and so I'll try to find your internal arguments in the archives. Thanks for that. Jeffrey Ho http://www.spvbible.org/ (My Bible translation website)
Euthymius		#9	[-]
Posts: 1825 (05/20/2009 20:52:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Thankful to leave off discussion of the Johannine Comma, the other questions I can answer to some degree. Loud: Why do you prefer the majority text over the critical text? I came to this position after carefully reading and evaluating all the theories and claims made by all sides. I think that if the majority text is not the product of a 4th century revision (as Hort claimed and Burgon and others opposed), it then would be more likely to represent the original text; even Hort admitted that from the 4th century onward the basic "majority" principles were dominant and a natural result of manuscript copying. Loud: Do you have a problem with the textual work of the UBS committee? I obviously differ with their theories and conclusions; if that is a problem, then yes. On the other hand, I recognize that if one is willing to grant their presuppositions and principles, then their work does show the logical outcome of such. Same with Westcott and Hort and their theory. Loud: And do you prefer the last edition of the majority text that came out just few years ago, or the one that came out several decades ago? And why? I have both the HF editions and both the RP editions. Either one would be acceptable, particularly since where they differ, the alternate reading is still in the footnotes and noted (in HF) as Mpt, showing that the majority group of manuscripts is divided at such points. But I will also add that it is painfully clear that the majority text does not equal the TR, and in those places where the TR follows a non-Greek or minority Greek reading, I absolutely cannot reconcile that with any claims of "providential preservation" (see Logos1550's quotations from Glenn Conjurske in another thread where that point is so clearly made as to leave no doubt). <http://bibleversiondiscus...om/topic/4369?page=1> Last Edited By: Euthymius 05/20/2009 21:22:11. Edited 1 times.
loudcry		#10	[-]
Posts: 6 (05/21/2009 00:54:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Euthymius wrote: I have both the HF editions and both the RP editions. Either one would be acceptable, particularly since where they differ, the alternate reading is still in the footnotes and noted (in HF) as Mpt, showing that the majority group of manuscripts is divided at such points. You mentioned you only use the ESV, NASB, and NKJV as your Bible versions. Since you favor the majority text, why do you not use the two majority text versions out there by Gary Zeolla and Paul Esposito? Jeffrey Ho http://www.spvbible.org/ (My Bible translation website)
loudcry		#11	[-]
Posts: 7 (05/21/2009 02:06:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	@ Joseph and Brian I'm very glad to hear that, based on what you've looked at so far, the translation English that I am using is readable. That is my biggest concern at the moment. When it starts getting unreadable (to me), I have to footnote it and render the main text smoother/idiomatically. So thanks for your opinions. Jeffrey Ho http://www.spvbible.org/ (My Bible translation website)
Euthymius		#12	[-]
Posts: 1830 (05/21/2009 11:56:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	loud: why do you not use the two majority text versions out there by Gary Zeolla and Paul Esposito? Primarily because they are not in print, and no one is using them in churches for preaching or teaching. Zeolla's I don't like as much due to style considerations. Esposito's is ok, but basically what he has is already present in the English of the HF interlinear. Wilbur Pickering also has his online majority text translation available for download, but I haven't really read much in that one, since again like the others it simply isn't being used in churches. There is also Paul (?) Johnson's WEB Bible that follows the majority text, but I tend to rank that one close to Zeolla's because I don't care for its style.
Scott McClare		#13	[-]
Posts: 3057 (05/21/2009 12:38:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	There is also Paul (?) Johnson's WEB Bible that follows the majority text, but I tend to rank that one close to Zeolla's because I don't care for its style. Yes, the WEB's English, in my experience, is rather poor. I don't know what, if anything, that says about its accuracy, but I do find it hard to read. Take care, Scott Gutless and Spineless Person #3 Whiny Crybaby Moderator, Bible Versions Discussion Board -- Scott A. McClare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada mcclare@ncf.ca * ICQ #24034503 * AIM RansomOttawa Stepping Right Up to the KJV-only Sideshow since 2001
mko		#14	[-]
Posts: 528 (05/21/2009 13:31:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	It's fine to me but it's...too casual. Too many contractions. Clarification: I mean the World English Bible. "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."
gconan		#15	[-]
Posts: 944 (05/21/2009 16:32:50) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Euthymius wrote: loud: why do you not use the two majority text versions out there by Gary Zeolla and Paul Esposito? Primarily because they are not in print, and no one is using them in churches for preaching or teaching. Zeolla's I don't like as much due to style considerations. Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament is in print available from Amazon, Barnes&Noble and Lulu.com [edit to reduce font size] Last Edited By: BrianT 05/21/2009 17:31:48. Edited 1 times.
77		#16	[-]
Posts: 459 (05/21/2009 19:21:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	gconan wrote: Euthymius wrote: loud: why do you not use the two majority text versions out there by Gary Zeolla and Paul Esposito? Primarily because they are not in print, and no one is using them in churches for preaching or teaching. Zeolla's I don't like as much due to style considerations. Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament is in print available from Amazon, Barnes&Noble and Lulu.com [edit to reduce font size] 77: Who needs the ALT? I have an ASV. It's just as literal as an interlinear, and twice as hard to read!!! "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
SAWBONES		#17	[-]
Posts: 166 (05/21/2009 19:51:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	77 said: "Who needs the ALT? I have an ASV. It's just as literal as an interlinear, and twice as hard to read!!!" Hey, I happen to particularly like the ASV 1901, except for their rather lame translation of 2 Tim. 3:16 (same as the RV 1881), which requires the obvious interrogative response, "which ones are those"?
Euthymius		#18	[-]
Posts: 1836 (05/21/2009 21:50:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	gconan: is in print available from Amazon, Barnes&Noble and Lulu.com Lulu is the source, and Amazon and B&N only are willing to special order it through them for a profit. But publication by Lulu, along with a number of other self-publishing outlets who will publish anything and everything for a price, is not exactly "in print" as most people would understand it in terms of "normal" mass-market publishers and sales, so I don't count that at all. (I could have Lulu print a hardbound 3-page book with title page, acknowledgements, and my grandmother's recipe for Key Lime Pie as total content, and still could get Amazon and B&N to sell it by special order).
loudcry		#19	[-]
Posts: 8 (05/21/2009 22:45:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	In general I find Zeolla's translation style unreadable. Moreover, for some reason to this day he is still clinging to the old-school interpretation of imperatives where present imperatives ALWAYS mean to continue an action, and aorist imperatives ALWAYS mean to start an action. That rule has been proven incorrect since 1985. I find the following sample of his work illogical but at the same time hilarious (look at the imperatives): Eph 4:26 "*Continue being enraged, and stop sinning;" stop letting the sun go down on your angry mood*, [Psalm 4:4]* Eph 4:27 and stop giving place [fig., an opportunity] to the Devil. Eph 4:28 The one stealing let him no longer be stealing, but rather let him be laboring, working the good [thing] with his hands, so that he shall be having [something] to be sharing with the one having need. Eph 4:29 Stop letting any rotten [fig., harmful] word come out of your* mouth, _but_ if anything [fig., what] [is] useful for building up [fig., edifying] of the need [fig., as needed], so that it shall give grace to the ones hearing. Eph 4:30 And stop grieving the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you* were sealed [or, secured] for [the] day of redemption. Eph 4:32 But continue becoming kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as also God in Christ forgave us. Eph 5:1 Therefore, continue becoming imitators of God, as beloved children, Eph 5:2 and be walking about [fig., conducting yourselves] in love, as also Christ loved us and gave Himself [or, handed Himself over] on our behalf, [as] an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell [or, a sweet-smelling aroma]. Eph 5:3 But sexual sin and all impurity [or, immorality] or covetous desire [or, greed], stop letting it even be named among you, as is fitting for holy ones, Eph 5:4 also [neither]* indecent behavior [or, obscene speech] and foolish [or, idle] talk nor coarse joking [or, vulgar talk]-the [things] not fitting-_but_ rather thanksgiving. Eph 5:6 Let no one be deceiving [or, misleading] you* with empty [fig., foolish] words, for because of these [things] the wrath of God is coming upon the sons [and daughters] of disobedience. Eph 5:7 Therefore, stop becoming joint-partakers with them. Eph 5:11 And stop participating in the unfruitful works of the darkness, but instead, even be exposing [them]. Eph 5:15 Therefore, be watching how carefully you* are walking about [fig., conducting yourselves], not as unwise _but_ as wise, Eph 5:17 For this reason, stop becoming foolish, _but_ be understanding what [is] the will of the Lord. Eph 5:18 And stop getting drunk with wine, in which is reckless behavior, _but_ continue being filled with [the] Spirit, Why stop doing these evils when simultaneously they do not prevent us from being imitators of God and from being filled with the Spirit? Jeffrey Ho http://www.spvbible.org/ (My Bible translation website)
Euthymius		#20	[-]
Posts: 1837 (05/22/2009 05:30:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I don't think any "rule" should be taken as "always" the case. Seems there are "always" exceptions.... But my problem with Zeolla is not so much how he takes the imperatives, but how complex and convoluted his translation of such becomes, making the product well-nigh unreadable. Keeping matters accurate, but clear and simple, should be the essence of formal equivalence translation.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

New Bible Translation based on strict grammatical precision.

New Bible Translation based on strict grammatical precision.

Quick Reply