Re: translations

Gregory Jordan writes:

If they *tried*, with a literal translation, to do theological/word
studies, they would probably make huge mistakes, since they wouldn't be
trained to know what they were looking for, or what stood behind the
text.  At most the advantage of a literal translation for a
non-specialist would be the ability to draw a few more connections
between related passages than would be possible in a dynamic equivalent

	I disagree. I believe there is immense value in reading material in
	the original language whenever time and language skills
	permit. In the case of Greek literature - such as the Iliad - the
	beauty and meter of the original Greek simply cannot be duplicated in
	translation. Period.

	In the case of scripture, I believe the benefits are twofold; first,
	the difficulty in translation 'stretches your mental muscles.' Second,
	one develops an appreciation for the relative strictness or
	interpretive nature of the various translations (NIV, KJ, etc.) that
	one uses in the course of most Bible reading. I have an inherently
	suspicious mind; I want to know if the translation is more literal or 
	interpretative. I cannot know this without referring to the original

	I freely admit that I do not have the academic background in language
	that many who use this forum have; however, why should 'novices' be
	restricted to only reading in the Bible in translation? Every
	specialist in New Testament studies started out as a beginner, once.
	I presume most of you want to know for yourselves what the text says
	rather than rely on others' say-so; hence the 'pilpul-ish' nature of
	these discussions.

	The major concern I have as a journeyman translator is the use of
	dictionaries; are the provided translations truly what the word means,
	or has it come to mean that because of a contextual use in a particular
	passage? Here, I agree that a more extensive linguistic background
	would be helpful.

Mary Ann Davidson