How Should We Translate Scripture? | Dave Brunn on ONE BIBLE, MANY VERSIONS 

I've read Dave's book and watched the shortened RU-vid video by the same title. If you are interested in this subject you will find them to be both very interesting and enlightening. I can't recommend them enough. In this age of bloggers and 'online experts' I think it's very valuable to hear from someone who has actually served and engaged in this challenging work. Thank you Dave for your service in God's mission field and thank you Tim for having Dave on your channel. Tim, your videos on Bible versions started my interest in this subject. I'm praying your channel keeps growing. Your humble attitude and humor are refreshing.

Great interview. I am glad God uses people like Dave Brunn in the world.

I’ve had Dave’s book for several years and have used it in Sunday School to help some folks become “cold hearted” 🤗. Thank you gentlemen for a great interview. And thank you for gently reminding us that not every hill is worth dying on.

Dave Brunn's book is one of my favorite resources for those interested in Bible translation and related issues!😊 I also really like Mark Strauss's very recent 40 Questions about Bible Translation. Thanks so much for this interview! I hope dave Brunn gets to do more interviews like this on other channels (e.g. Mark Ward's channel).

Tim, thanks for posting this. I stumbled upon his video last year about translating, and it was an eye opener. This is gold for those who are still struggling about Bible translations. His arguments are very reasonable. ✌️

I have Dave's book and have read it a couple times as well as seen the video. His perspective has helped me have a better view towards benefiting from different translations. Thanks for having him. I was inspired.

Thanks for this great interview.

If God does not demand verbatim identicality in the mss, then we all need to be more charitable concerning varying translations which none the less convey the same meaning! Thanks for expanding our vision! 🎯🙏📖

Thank you both for sharing your knowledge, the time flew by. Love the idea that differences in text are learning opportunities . Best wishes from 🇬🇧

Hey Tim, I've read through the NLT on multiple occasions and love it enough to invest in the Cornerstone Commentary, Dictionary, and Concordance from Tyndale as resources. But often when I have a question that isn't covered in those reources I run out of options to explore why the translators of the NLT rendered text a certain way. During your interview with the NLT translator, can you ask if there is a way to contact the committee with textual rendering questions?

This vid is VERY informative, and I do plan to read the book. However, my concern is saying, "Any translation is a good translation," stems from a few things - - Retranslating gendered terms referring to people, in neutral lanuage, so as to accomodate "inclusivity," effectively mistranslating Scripture. - Writing an entire purported translation as a paraphrase, which tends to interject human interpretation, and warp the meaning of the text. And ... -Creating a new translation so as to avoid the issue of paying royalties for using someone else's translation, inspiring passage changes that may or may not be the best rendering of the source texts. We just can not have an 'it's all good" approach, especially in today's postmodern atmosphere

Okay, so I just read through Brunn's article in the latest issue of Themelios (49.1). While I generally do agree with his point, I find that his strong belief in the complete perspicuity of the Bible in all tongues may be leading him to overstate the case. At the end of Section 6, he says the following: *If this proposed standard is God’s universal standard, then the Lamogai language is automatically disqualified from ever having a faithful, accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures. That would mean God created Lamogai, along with many other non-Indo-European languages, to be inherently deficient. But I am convinced that when God confounded the languages at Babel, he made sure every language on earth has everything it needs to communicate every truth of his word faithfully and accurately-even though some of those truths will need to be communicated very differently in some languages, especially those that are totally unrelated to Hebrew and Greek.* (24) I fundamentally disagree with his assumption here. Even other Indo-European languages cannot necessarily "communicate every truth" of the Hebrew and Greek texts "faithfully and accurately." At best, they can be said to communicate the most essential truths--those upon which our salvation depends--with _sufficient_ fidelity and accuracy. And it may be fair for him to assume that these same essential truths will translate into non-Indo-European languages to an adequate degree for the sake of proclaiming the gospel message to all nations without serious compromise. However, we already know that certain words and concepts are difficult to translate into English, let alone other languages, and something is always lost in translation. In the case of gender, it is true that grammatical gender can be mistaken for biological categories of male and female by those who aren't conversant in languages that employ grammatical gender. At the same time, some gendered references do indeed reflect the ancient patriarchal culture to which the holy Scriptures were imparted, a culture that treated women as secondary. Brunn uses the example of "sons of the Most High' and attempts to refute it with a reductio ad absurdum: "That would imply that females will be turned into males" (24). However, if the context is implicitly suggesting that those who love their enemies will be "heirs of the Most High," or future recipients of an inheritance from God, then the English word "sons" probably does better reflect the cultural norms of the time and place in which Jesus delivered these words than "children" does. Such careful contextual considerations should offer an answer to Brunn's question, "Who gets to decide which gender-neutral renderings are appropriate and which ones 'suppress' or 'erase' meaning from the source texts?" (29). One response to Brunn's question of when to retain masculine pronouns can be found in the preface to the 1989 NRSV: "[I]n several legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In such instances of formal, legal language, the options of either putting the passage in the plural or of introducing additional nouns to avoid masculine pronouns in English seemed to the Committee to obscure the historic structure and literary character of the original." Note that this is a translation that is otherwise dedicated to gender-neutral language where possible! This point was expounded upon in slightly more detail by Walter Harrison in _The Making of the New Revised Standard Version_ (Eerdmans, 1991): "[L]egal language, it was pointed out, is conventional, stereotyped language, well understood by the community to apply to all, but necessarily put in fixed, conventional terms. It would be bad precedent indeed to begin to modify the Bible’s legal language in the manner proposed. What we needed was greater precision in the use of this stereotypical language, a precision that was being helped along by the many specialist studies of ancient Near Eastern and biblical law. We risked introducing only confusion when what was urgently needed was greater clarity" (75). Indeed, some of the case laws in the Torah assume a male audience. Consider, for instance, the ban on sexual relations with close kin in Leviticus 18. While the legal code isn't exactly letting women off the hook if they "uncover the nakedness" of their mothers, sisters, or aunts, it's obviously intending to warn men against these behaviors, and the most natural application of this taboo list for women would be that they should not lie with their fathers, brothers, or uncles (though such rules are not explicitly given to women in this passage). To treat the Law of Moses as inherently gender neutral is to make a mess of passages such as these.

How about CSB?

I am a budding translator. I want to have epub or pdf of A Guide to bible Translation. Someone upload it on the Anna's archive or libgen

you shouldn't.