Originally posted by Suzianne
You talk about the 'defilement' of Christians out of one side of your mouth and then praise your alteration of the Bible out of the other side. The NWT and the (pagan?) doctrine it is founded on, is the true 'dilution' of Christianity here. Luke warm, indeed.

hardly, in fact, according to one independent analyst who just happened to analyse and evaluate nine of the most popular English translations available the New world translation is the most accurate English translation at hand, to which you remarked that he was bribed and/or an idiot after which I concluded that you are incapable of seeing reason or even interested in it primarily because of your prejudices, therefore Dee Dee all I have to say to you is, uuuuuuunicorns, weeeeee.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hardly, in fact, according to one independent analyst who just happened to analyse and evaluate nine of the most popular English translations available the New world translation is the most accurate English translation at hand, to which you remarked that he was bribed and/or an idiot after which I concluded that you are incapable of seeing reason or ...[text shortened]... ause of your prejudices, therefore Dee Dee all I have to say to you is, uuuuuuunicorns, weeeeee.

Accuracy at the most particular level is surely subjective. For instance are
you going to favour formal equivalence (which I think you do) or functional
equivalence (which I believe Suzianne favors)?

Ask yourself this; what is the "best" translation of
avoir le cul bordé de nouilles into English?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hardly, in fact, according to one independent analyst who just happened to analyse and evaluate nine of the most popular English translations available the New world translation is the most accurate English translation at hand, to which you remarked that he was bribed and/or an idiot after which I concluded that you are incapable of seeing reason or ...[text shortened]... ause of your prejudices, therefore Dee Dee all I have to say to you is, uuuuuuunicorns, weeeeee.

and you obviously think that if you repeat something ad nauseum, no matter how ridiculous it is, then it takes on some semblance to actual fact.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Accuracy at the most particular level is surely subjective. For instance are
you going to favour formal equivalence (which I think you do) or functional
equivalence (which I believe Suzianne favors)?

Ask yourself this; what is the "best" translation of
avoir le cul bordé de nouilles into English?

Its subjective to a point but it cannot introduce elements not explicit in the original text and must conform to the idioms of both languages. It should accurately convey the thoughts and intent of the original, thus it matters not whether its formal equivalence or not, but whether it accurately conveys the thoughts and intentions of the original writers. Jason BeDuhn writes in his wonderful book, 'accuracy and bias in English translations of the New testament',

'People are quick to charge inaccuracy and bias in someone else's Bible. On what basis do they make such charges? Charges of inaccuracy and bias are based upon the fact that a translation has deviated from some norm. So what is the norm? It seems for many that the norm is the King James version of the Bible. If a new translation varies far from that norm it is criticised as inaccurate and erroneous, its translators are suspected of ulterior motives in producing a different translation; a hidden bias that perverts the truth of the KJV. You hear it all the time, someone has 'changed', the Bible by offering a new translation. The 'change', is from the standard of the King James version which was after all presented as the 'standard', translation. If a translation differs from this standard then clearly it must be wrong'.

Jason BeDuhn - accuracy and bias page xiii

into this camp falls people like suzzianne, who not having the least inkling of what differentiates a sound translation from an inaccurate one utter forth the most stupid and prejudiced remarks reflecting not only their own bias but their ignorance as well and my friend, what excuse shall we offer up for ignorance?

Originally posted by Suzianne
and you obviously think that if you repeat something ad nauseum, no matter how ridiculous it is, then it takes on some semblance to actual fact.

look! unicorns!