What Makes a Bible Version a Paraphrase?

[tdidymas]

I ask, because there are new versions coming out these days that define themselves as translations when they are in fact paraphrases in my opinion. But the term is defined differently by different sources. Some claim it refers simply to a version that doesn't correspond word-for-word with the original text, whereas others define it as a version reworded from an already existing English translation. This later definition is what is giving license to redefining the word "translation" in very loose terms for me.

So what is correct? Wiki defines the word Paraphrase as “a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.” It then defines the word Rewording as “changing a particular word or phrase to state or express it again in different words.”

Under these definitions, should not a version which takes great liberties with an original text be considered a paraphrase? Yes or no?

I invite anyone's opinions.

A few quotes from sources that tend to agree with the above conclusion that a paraphrase is simply a loose version based off scripture itself, since nothing is mentioned about a preexisting English version in their definitions of the term.

Paraphrased translations use modern language and idioms to try to capture the thought and essence behind the original text.
Paraphrased Bible Translations - Olive Tree Bible Software

A biblical paraphrase is a literary work which has as its goal, not the translation of the Bible, but rather, the rendering of the Bible into a work that retells all or part of the Bible in a manner that accords with a particular set of theological or political doctrines.
Biblical paraphrase - Wikipedia

A paraphrase is a retelling of something in your own words… A paraphrase takes the meaning of a verse or passage of Scripture and attempts to express the meaning in “plain language.”
Should I use a paraphrase of the Bible?

“A paraphrase bible is one that allows the greatest level of liberty in translation. In fact, ‘translation’ is probably too strong a word for many of the paraphrase bibles out there… more and more modern versions are truly paraphrases. The dynamic equivalency doctrine of many modern versions is just a fancy way of saying paraphrase.”
Paraphrase Bibles | Learn The Bible

A paraphrase is a less literal rendering of the Bible – restating the text to give the original sense but not attempting to literally translate each term in the original language.
7. Translations
Tyndale | Stories: The Difference between Literal and Dynamic Translations of the Bible

Paraphrased Bibles, such as The Living Bible or The Message… exercise considerable “poetic license” in interpreting biblical terms and passages according to their own personal religious ideas.
What's the Difference Between Various Bible Versions?

Paraphrased Bibles aren't necessarily inaccurate just because they are paraphrased. One example is the NLT - New Living Translation. It is a paraphrase by the list of definitions here, except the one where it is based on a single English version (IOW, "The Living Bible"). The NLT is called a translation because the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are used to confirm the meanings (and/or adjusted accordingly).

It is called a translation because it is a thought-for-thought translation, as opposed to a word-for-word translation. Word-for-word translations like NKJV and NASB are even not really word-for-word, because the language structure isn't the same, idioms are adjusted according to culture (ex. "God forbid"), and other aspects. You can notice that even interlinears must add words or eliminate words from the original text in order to make sense of it. So to some extent, even word-for-word translations have thought-for-thought translation in it. Thought-for-thought translation is much like someone speaking Spanish, and then a translator speaks the same meaning in English. Naturally, you must have checks and balances, and the who of the translation as well as who is reviewing it (and how many) is important.

As far as the NLT, I have gone through it several times, and every time I saw a difference in the reading of the NLT (in regard to meaning of the text) and the KJV, I did some research with interlinears and commentaries, and found that the NLT was actually the more accurate translation than the KJV. I am fairly certain that this statement will be offensive to the KJV-onlyists. I'm simply saying what I found in my research.

There are other "translations" such as The New World Translation that have cultic agendas. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible would be another one of these.
TD

 

[Hidden In Him]

I did some research with interlinears and commentaries, and found that the NLT was actually the more accurate translation than the KJV.

Ikes! I actually got saved on a Living Bible, and I'm certainly no KJV-only adherent. But I think you'd have to do some convincing before I'd be willing to believe it exhibits greater equivalency (under any definition) than an actual translation.

But I invite your examples. If you'd like to show me some parallel texts for comparison, I'd certainly give it a once over, and maybe compare some verses and passages with you myself.

Blessings in Christ!

 

[tdidymas]

Ikes! I actually got saved on a Living Bible, and I'm certainly no KJV-only adherent. But I think you'd have to do some convincing before I'd be willing to believe it exhibits greater equivalency (under any definition) than an actual translation.

But I invite your examples. If you'd like to show me some parallel texts for comparison, I'd certainly give it a once over, and maybe compare some verses and passages with you myself.

Blessings in Christ!

Sorry to disappoint you, but at the time my research was for myself, and I didn't think I was going to need to make note of it in order to prove it to someone else. I'm sure eventually I'll come across them and then I can write those verses into a journal for posterity.

But I can tell you this, that you getting saved by reading the Living Bible is proof positive that any differences in translations and paraphrases are minor, and doesn't affect the teaching needed to be saved. In all cases of differences in meaning between the NLT and the KJV there was no impact on the doctrines of the Christian faith.

I could go so far in saying that a paraphrase could even be better than a word-for-word translation, because it might convey the meaning of the text better in the target cultural audience. With a translation such as the KJV, you have both time (historical) and cultural obstacles to overcome in the language. This is why modern paraphrases are so much easier to understand.

I am a strong advocate for studying the Hebrew and Greek, if only for confirming that what you believe the text means is its real meaning. This way I'm not relying on a single translator or a single group of reviewers, but getting more into the original text, and this because I teach others. But that even is not adequate, and even translators have biases.

For this reason, I boldly declare that the words of the Bible are not necessarily God's word, since those are merely words on a page. It is the arrangement of the words, that is, the meaning of the words, that is the word of God. Let's take an example: "having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" might not be as good in conveying this truth as this paraphrase: "We were completely accepted by God when we trusted in Jesus Christ as our authority." The test is, which one requires more explanation?

The more I study the scripture, the more that contextual meaning becomes top priority. What I see in the scripture, and specifically the NT, is the many different ways in which one single truth is conveyed. IOW, not lots of different truths, but lots of different explanations for one single truth.

Therefore, comparing versions becomes important for overcoming the bias obstacle. BTW, I was talking about the NLT, not the LB, as there is a big difference.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

i

 

[Hidden In Him]

Sorry to disappoint you, but at the time my research was for myself, and I didn't think I was going to need to make note of it in order to prove it to someone else. I'm sure eventually I'll come across them and then I can write those verses into a journal for posterity.

Not a problem. I just thought if you wanted to.

But I can tell you this, that you getting saved by reading the Living Bible is proof positive that any differences in translations and paraphrases are minor, and doesn't affect the teaching needed to be saved. In all cases of differences in meaning between the NLT and the KJV there was no impact on the doctrines of the Christian faith.

I could go so far in saying that a paraphrase could even be better than a word-for-word translation, because it might convey the meaning of the text better in the target cultural audience. With a translation such as the KJV, you have both time (historical) and cultural obstacles to overcome in the language. This is why modern paraphrases are so much easier to understand.

Umm... well, if you read my previous posts in this thread, here is where I would probably differ from you some. But it's ok. We just have a different perspective.

I am a strong advocate for studying the Hebrew and Greek, if only for confirming that what you believe the text means is its real meaning. This way I'm not relying on a single translator or a single group of reviewers, but getting more into the original text, and this because I teach others. But that even is not adequate, and even translators have biases.

Absolutely.

For this reason, I boldly declare that the words of the Bible are not necessarily God's word, since those are merely words on a page. It is the arrangement of the words, that is, the meaning of the words, that is the word of God. Let's take an example: "having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" might not be as good in conveying this truth as this paraphrase: "We were completely accepted by God when we trusted in Jesus Christ as our authority." The test is, which one requires more explanation?

An interesting perspective. And I do at least agree that when the meaning of a verse or passage is accurately conveyed there is no internet problem with whatever words are used, equivalent or not. I'm simply arguing for the need to rightly distinguish what I consider to be genuine translations from paraphrased interpretations on the text.

Therefore, comparing versions becomes important for overcoming the bias obstacle. BTW, I was talking about the NLT, not the LB, as there is a big difference.
TD

Oh! My apologies. Sometimes I'm reading too fast. NLT starts to look like BLT if I'm getting hungry, LoL.

 

[Radagast]

Paraphrased Bibles aren't necessarily inaccurate just because they are paraphrased. One example is the NLT - New Living Translation. It is a paraphrase by the list of definitions here

The NLT is not a paraphrase. Look at Consider Romans 1:1-8 again. Here is the ESV:

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, 7 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.

The NLT says:

This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach his Good News. 2 God promised this Good News long ago through his prophets in the holy Scriptures. 3 The Good News is about his Son. In his earthly life he was born into King David’s family line, 4 and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority as apostles to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name.

6 And you are included among those Gentiles who have been called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 I am writing to all of you in Rome who are loved by God and are called to be his own holy people. May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.

8 Let me say first that I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith in him is being talked about all over the world.

That's a translation all right, and quite a good one. It's looser than the ESV, and does a tiny bit more interpretation, but it's much easier to read, and it still corresponds to what the Greek says. The main changes are chopping up the long Greek sentences to make shorter English ones, and adding a few words implied by the fact that this is a letter (like, "This letter is from...").

Word-for-word translations like NKJV and NASB are even not really word-for-word, because the language structure isn't the same, idioms are adjusted according to culture (ex. "God forbid"), and other aspects.

This is true. They're a little closer to the original, but they are not the original.

Naturally, you must have checks and balances, and the who of the translation as well as who is reviewing it (and how many) is important.

Exactly!

As far as the NLT, I have gone through it several times, and every time I saw a difference in the reading of the NLT (in regard to meaning of the text) and the KJV, I did some research with interlinears and commentaries, and found that the NLT was actually the more accurate translation than the KJV.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Radagast]

Ikes! I actually got saved on a Living Bible

The Living Bible and the NLT are different.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The Living Bible and the NLT are different.

Yeah. I picked up on that boo boo, LoL.