tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post111945307883237315..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Most accurate versionWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1119471663022780622005-06-22T13:21:00.000-07:002005-06-22T13:21:00.000-07:00I have a problem with the notion of "accuracy"; it...I have a problem with the notion of "accuracy"; it isn't accurate to use it of Bible translations. For accuracy to be well-defined there has to be some stanadrd or measure involved. There must be objectivity otherwise to ask "what is the most accurate" is meaningless.<BR/> <BR/>If people have asked me whether a particular translation is accurate or not I ask them in return what they mean by accuracy. They can't answer the question. Occasionally someone will try but their answer can always be paraphrased as "how far from the KJV rendering is it?" Even that can't be assessed in any accurate sense. These questions are subjective with a pretense of objectivity. Even Robert Martin in his critique of the NIV "Accuracy of Translation" succumbs to this fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Now it is proper to ask questions about the quality of a translation. Perhaps the question we should ask of each translation in isolation from all others is does a reader of the translation obtain the same understanding of the text as those who first read/heard the text would have done.<BR/><BR/>We should stop using the word "accuracy" unless we are very clear about what we are using as our measure. Iff we can be objective about the translation would accuracy be appropriateTrevor Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09222563293731988414noreply@blogger.com