[sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies applied to translation

[Michael Rempel]

> >
> >
> >Nope, translations will exist, and lots is good. The problem you present
me
> >with your notion is that I cant get a handle on it with accurate
criticism.
> >I have to tell you what rabbit trail to run down first, and then you just
> >blame it on my combination of texts and throw your hands in the air like
I
> >am a lunatic because I choose to put a combination together that I dont
> >like. Then some raddical sorry Osama clone comes along and runs down that
> >same bunny trail, and we all have a mess to clean up and no way to clean
it.
> >
> Well, one could argue the Jehovah's Witnesses have done that already.
> And one could further
> argue that one reason they are successful is they only have access to
> one translation. If you

Ok, the authoritative text is the Greek and the Hebrew original language
texts. Translation is no longer valid. Start learning. No other sources will
do for universal consensus.

> had access to multiple translations, including the widely recognised
> ones, one can hardly
> walk blindly down a "bunny trail". You would have to very deliberately
> squeeze yourself
> down with full access to the facts.

Islam is successful too, but I dont emulate it. Bunny trails are seldom
blind. Isogesis is common, that is starting with a premise, and looking at
scripture to prove it. There is enough of that already. Dont add to it.

If people did research, and always acted in good faith lots of things would
be different.
>
> >Single translation line texts dont have that problem. I can say that the
> >Living Bible is less than scholarly, and show you why, but your notion
> >leaves no way of saying much of anything. If you cant fix the text when
it
> >is wrong, or badly interpreted it is a bad idea.
> >
> I don't know where you get the idea it couldn't be fixed. Those groups
> working
> on full translations would issue fixes. Even NIV issues fixes from time
> to time.
>
You cant fix a problem that is intrinsic to the design method you suggest. A
'path' might go from say interpretive to literal and back to poetic texts to
suit some fool's idea of a good thing. It is easy to do anyway, but dont
make it any easier please. To put texts together like that and call it a
version, is to make crossing interpretive traditions on a whim credible. It
is not credible. If you are going to be literalist, then stick to
literalist, poetic, stick to poetry, and so on. Each style has problems as
you should know, so it is enough to limit the problems to one choosen style.
Your suggestion invites isogetic mayhem.
>
>