From: Andrew Kulikovsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 06 1997 - 05:37:56 EDT
Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Andrew Kulikovsky wrote:
> > Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, do you really think that literal = non-interpretive?
> > >
> > > Andrew: Let's say "less interpretive." The NIV and NAS have different
> > > philosophies of translation. The former is more idiomatic, paraphrastic
> > > and interpretive, while the latter is more literal (word for word) and
> > > less interpretive.
> > >
> > I agree they have different philosophies of interpretation but I still
> > don't see how the NIV is more interpretive than the NAS. The NAS assumes
> > the basic unit of thought is the word. The NIV assumes the basic unit of
> > thought is the sentence (to put it simplistically). All translations are
> > interpretive.
> I suppose if we are to make any progress, then we should define our terms.
> Would you like to define what you mean by translation and interpretation?
> I asked you first. :)
Paul I think I may have caused a bit of confusion here due to a typo on
my part. In the above read "philosophies of translation" NOT
"philosophies of interpretation".
Translation is expressing the intended message of a given speaker or
writer in a different language to the one in which the message was
Interpretation is determining what the intended message actually is
along with its meaning and significance.
Obviously there is going to be some overlap between interpretation and
translation since you need to understand the intended message in order
to translate it correctly.
> > > > 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.).
> Again, it depends on what you mean by "conclusive." I would say something
> like this: conclusive means it necessarily follows.
> If we accept this simple definition, then I would say that we can prove
> certain things conclusively. From "If A, then B" it is conclusive that
> "if not B, then not A" follows. Logical analysis can be conclusive.
> If we talk about induction, then we may not be talking about conclusivity,
> but probability.
Yes I agree with you here, but my point is more to do with the truth of
our premises. It is possible to perfectly conclusive logic but untrue
premises. If the premise that leads to A is wrong then the whole
conclusion is wrong.
> > >
> > > Yes, we can prove things "conclusively," using logic. But, when it comes
> > > to grammar and meanings of words "conclusively" is not the best word, to
> > > be sure.
> > >
> > This may sound strange but *prove logic*? How do you know logic is
> > correct? You can't prove logic using logic since that would be begging
> > the question. We accept logic basically by faith and experience and
> > account for it on the basis of being made in the image of God.
> No, no. We are not proving logic. We are proving things using logic.
> For the sake of argument, we can assume logic, then use it to prove or
> deduce things conclusively.
> The question then becomes, how do we know logic is trustworthy? Simply
> because it is biblical. It is used in scripture consistently and
> throughout. It is assumed there and used there. Thus, we can and should
> utilize it.
Absolutely. I agree. This was actually what I was getting at but you put
it much better than I.
> > A logical argument can only be as good as its premises.
> Of course.
> Paul Dixon
| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
| Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia)
| & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College)
| Adelaide, Australia
| ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231
| email: email@example.com
| Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page:
| What's the point of gaining everything this world has
| to offer, if you lose your own life in the end?
| ...Look to Jesus Christ
| hO IHSOUS KURIOS!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:18 EDT