literal not = interpretive

From: Andrew Kulikovsky (
Date: Thu Jun 05 1997 - 00:49:30 EDT

Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:


>Good question. It does seem here the NAS violates its own principles
>translation and takes own the philosophical approach of the NIV where
>translate more from Greek idiom to English idiom, rather than word for
>word translation.


>Jim, I prefer the more literal, non-interpretive translations of
>the NAS or the KJV. The NIV is by nature more interpretive and
>paraphrastic. So, until it can be demonstrated conclusively that
>OU+verb+PAS implies a universal negation, then it is best to leave the
>ambiguity in the translation.

Paul, do you really think that literal = non-interpretive?

If you consider the vast sematic range of various lexical and
grammatical elements then when a translator chooses one of several
possible meanings, haven't they made an interpretation? It may be an
obvious interpretation and it may be the right interpretation but it is
still an interpretation...

The NIV is more idiomatic and the NAS is more literal - both are

Can you ever prove anything *conclusively*? I think it is best for an
informed translator to examine the context (historical and literary) and
make an informed interpretation rather than leave it ambiguous.
Otherwise the layman and uninformed pastor will simply interpret it
whichever way it pleases him (or whichever way preaches better or
whichever way doesn't go against his own doctrinal stance etc.).

Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
Software Engineer
CelsiusTech Australia
Module 6 Endeavor House
Technology Park
Adelaide Australia 5095
Ph: +618 8343 3837
Fax: +618 8343 3777

Some people are so narrow-minded,
    they can see through a key hole with both eyes
Others are so open-minded
    their brain has fallen out.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:18 EDT