OnlineBookClub.org

Is I Will Make of Thee a Great Nation more a "translation" of the Old Testament into "modern English" or a reinterpretation based on the author's personal faith? How much of the author is present in the book? Is it an "opinionated translation" or a more literal one?

No matter how much research is done, the author's interpretation will always be a main factor. At least that's what I believe.

There are a lot of the author's beliefs shown in the book, especially in the creation story. The idea of the 7 days not being literal days is not in the Old Testament. Also the idea that God made the Earth from existing matter is more scientific than biblical.

amjohnson13mommy wrote: ↑06 Aug 2019, 12:15 No matter how much research is done, the author's interpretation will always be a main factor. At least that's what I believe.

I totally agree. It's almost inevitable that the author's ideas and interpretations and influences will shine through in the text.

Thank you! The last time I said something to that effect the person completely misunderstood me as they believed I was saying the author's research was all facts without author's personal interpretation.

I believe it is more of the Author's interpretation rather than translation of Bible stories.

For me it's an 'opiniated translation'. It's more of the author's personal opinion.

Gracedscribe wrote: ↑07 Aug 2019, 01:51

amjohnson13mommy wrote: ↑06 Aug 2019, 12:15 No matter how much research is done, the author's interpretation will always be a main factor. At least that's what I believe.

I totally agree. It's almost inevitable that the author's ideas and interpretations and influences will shine through in the text.

This is quite true, though it is also possible for an author to make a serious effort to hide their actual interpretation and be "truthful" to the text. I think it depends on how the author's opinions fit into the context of the reader's knowledge of the work (and it seems that Greenwood is not trying to make his opinions secondary to the text).

It seems like an opinionated translation. I sort of think of the Bible as the US Constitution. Many people can read the same original material, but everyone has different readings of it. When you choose to expound upon the original text and change the language, personal decisions have to be made. He did reference other materials outside of the Bible as well. That alone shows that it's not a direct translation. Also, like others have mentioned, to make decisions about what we should and shouldn't take literally in the Bible (such as the number of days of Creation), is clearly the author's interpretation. It's by no means the facts. He can't possibly know.

I think its impossible to find a book that is strictly just the translation. At the end of the day writer is writing at his level of understanding which is how he interprets. So yes it included a lot of opinions

Gracedscribe wrote: ↑07 Aug 2019, 01:51

amjohnson13mommy wrote: ↑06 Aug 2019, 12:15 No matter how much research is done, the author's interpretation will always be a main factor. At least that's what I believe.

I totally agree. It's almost inevitable that the author's ideas and interpretations and influences will shine through in the text.

It is impossible for any author to write a book without their interpretation shining through so, yes I agree with this assessment.

ab2020 wrote: ↑05 Aug 2019, 16:45 Is I Will Make of Thee a Great Nation more a "translation" of the Old Testament into "modern English" or a reinterpretation based on the author's personal faith? How much of the author is present in the book? Is it an "opinionated translation" or a more literal one?

The book is both an opinionated translation and a literal one. I don't agree with some part of the author's opinions.

I would have to say 50/50 literal translation and personal interpretation, as there are some things presented as facts that are not actually true coming from the Bible texts themselves.

In some ways, I think it is an opinionated translation, especially the story of creation. The other stories seemed very much like what I have always read in the Bible so I do think it was a bit of a literal translation also. Putting the stories in chronological order really helped make the Old Testament easier to read and understand. I think it would be very difficult to write on any subject without letting your own opinion slip in.

I don’t think the author ever said he was translating the stories at all. He just wanted a coherent story sculpted out of the sometimes repetitive material in the Bible. And he took the liberty to fill in some gaps that he felt were needed to make the story flow easier.