Timeline for What is the justification for the New international Version and New Living Translation's translation of Philippians 2:6?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 20, 2021 at 0:44 | comment | added | Jesse♦ | @OldeEnglish I didn't intend to be flippant at all. Could be a misunderstanding. Trying to be brief, respectful, and on-point. Theology banter is always fun, but yes, we must curb our love for chasing foxes in the comments. | |
| Oct 20, 2021 at 0:35 | comment | added | Olde English | You are an enigma, a bit of a mystery for sure. If it wasn't for your first comment to Martin, which was a little too flippant for my liking, I might have been inclined to vote you up, particularly after your edit. Liked your acknowledgement to the importance of text. Did not like the fact that you are a proponent of the incarnation of Christ. I, myself, am a proponent of the incarnation and manifestation of the Word, who didn't become the Christ/Messiah until at least his earthly baptism, although I have questioned even that on this site, but that's another story. | |
| Oct 20, 2021 at 0:21 | comment | added | Jesse♦ | The answer has been updated to reflect the comments above. I'd like to consider that discussion closed for now, a meta discussion would be welcome if we need more. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 23:51 | comment | added | Jesse♦ | @MartinHemsley Higher standards—I try in all things. I admit that, while I would not omit the word, I'm inwardly glad Dr. Taylor did so we can have important discussions like this. I think he would want that also because he knew his own translation couldn't be perfect; that's why he translated the Bible twice. GK Chesterton: Books are never finished, only abandoned. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 23:45 | comment | added | Martin Hemsley | Thanks for the clarification, Jesse. I realize you have reasons for the stance you take but when we translate scripture, we are held to a much higher standard. You must know that from having translated Revelation. "God" and "form of God" express two very different concepts. Regardless of our theological or experiential biases, I don't think we have any defensible justification for imposing a change like that in scripture. Btw, I love the "5% unfinished" remark. I appreciate your humility. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 23:35 | history | edited | Jesse♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Per comments
|
| Oct 19, 2021 at 23:18 | comment | added | Jesse♦ | @OldeEnglish Rather than meta, I'll take this discussion to suffice. And, you are fair in all you say. I am 95% Trinitarian (5% unfinished) but I didn't initially address that because both publishers in question are also. I will update my answer to note that because our theology really does affect translation, even without knowing. Thank you for this, also on healthy discussion practices! | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 23:09 | comment | added | Olde English | I sense that you are obfuscating. You seemingly have no real objection to the Trinitarian approach, which is probably why you don't really feel an edit is warranted. I would have liked to have seen you go beyond the objective tone myself, but then again, I'm an unapologetic non-Trinitarian, but nevertheless a seeker of truly responsible translation of the ancient languages. I feel no further need for discourse here, as I see it devolving into possible argument. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 22:16 | comment | added | Jesse♦ | @MartinHemsley Largely agree with your comment, except I wouldn’t say that anyone “made a mistake” on a judgement call in regards to something so discretionary as translation of any content. I would regard a “translation mistake” as translating something like “barking” into “fish bowl”; anything much less than that diff and I would only go so far to say I didn’t agree. My view also comes from living in Taiwan and dealing with Mandarin-English differences on the street. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 22:08 | comment | added | Jesse♦ | @OldeEnglish The problem with an edit like this would be scope creep. It’s about hermeneutics and that would venture into Christianity.SE. I have seen a mod state somewhere previously in SE that comments are the perfect place for this. I’d be open to a meta about it, though, and a new Question on the influence theology has in translation. I greatly respect Dr Taylor’s work, but I often scratch my head at NIV. I tried to use an objective tone, tho. Seems I succeeded there. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 18:45 | comment | added | Martin Hemsley | That's an informative answer, Jesse. The NLT is not just for children, though. It is also for adults who prefer an easy-to-understand version. They made a mistake on this verse, however, because "form of God" is easy to understand and to leave out μορφῇ distorts the meaning of the text. Nice to see you would avoid that. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 17:47 | comment | added | Olde English | Glad to hear that from you but that didn't come across in your answer. You seemed to be at peace with the exegesis of the NLT and NIV translators to my mind. I suggest that an edit may be in order. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 16:37 | comment | added | Jesse♦ | @OldeEnglish that is an inescapable reality, yes. “Simple” and “understandable” according to their SysTheo. I would translate it to avoid that, even for children. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 10:59 | comment | added | Olde English | The answer to why the translators of the NLT and NIV translated the way they did may actually be more to do with bias than simplicity in the understanding thereof, and the Trinitarian bias is unmistakable here. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 8:52 | comment | added | Steve | You make a good point regarding why translators choose a certain path. Unfortunately, most seem oblivious to this reasoning and the NIV (for eg.) is widely used as a truth bible, when it is not, sometimes, even close. | |
| Oct 19, 2021 at 6:31 | history | answered | Jesse♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |