Mistakes or Attacks

[stilllearning]

On another thread, John of Japan responded to a question about a change, one of the modern English versions made to the Bible........
Matthew 8:20
“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.”

Matthew 8:20 Common English Bible
“Jesus replied, Foxes have dens, and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Human One has no place to lay his head.”
--------------------------------------------------
The point of this post, comes from John’s response to this change........

“Since there is always a definite article in front of the Greek phrase, then it is a mistake to simply translate it as "Human One," which could apply to anyone. "Son of man" is uniquely meant to apply to Christ. It is a title which contrasts with "Son of God," not simply a descriptive phrase.”

Now John called this “a mistake”, when it is CLEARLY an attack upon the Deity of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------
I suggest we start calling things, what they are.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Now John called this “a mistake”, when it is CLEARLY an attack upon the Deity of Christ.

Just curious how you came to know the hearts and motives of the translators. Do you have the committee notes available so that you can share them with us?


If anyone on this entire board could understand the heart of a translator it is John of Japan. I am not aware on anyone else on the board who is doing that kind of translation work.

 

[dwmoeller1]

How do you conclude that it is an attack on the Deity of Christ? Both Son of man and Human One are recognitions of Christ's human nature. Its not like they changed out "Son of God" for "Human One". I can totally see why one might prefer "Son of man" over "Human One", but I can't see how one reaches the conclusion that its brings into question Christ's deity. Please explain.

 

[annsni]

I agree with Roger. You cannot know the heart of the translator. Maybe the translation is technically the correct one, it is not what the meaning is. It's kind of like this:

mon petit chou means "my little cabbage" literally in English. However, it's a term of endearment to the French and is used in the same way we mean "my little sweetheart" or something similar. So while translating it as "my little cabbage" would be correct, it's not quite translating it so we would understand it well.

It sounds like "the Human One" is the correct translation but it's not a good translation to English.

 

[stilllearning]

Exactly!

John of all people, should have recognized this as an attack, because of his knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------
What is even stranger, is on that thread John was criticized, for even calling it a mistake.
(Praise the Lord, he stood his ground!)

 

[stilllearning]

How do you conclude that it is an attack on the Deity of Christ? Both Son of man and Human One are recognitions of Christ's human nature. Its not like they changed out "Son of God" for "Human One". I can totally see why one might prefer "Son of man" over "Human One", but I can't see how one reaches the conclusion that its brings into question Christ's deity. Please explain.

I will let John explain it........

“My objection still remains that rendering it "The Human One" takes away the semantic parallel of "the son of man" with "the Son of God."

Thank you very much John.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi annsni & C4K

You stated.......

“I agree with Roger. You cannot know the heart of the translator.”

Jesus said.....
Matthew 15:18
“But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.”

 

[dwmoeller1]

I will let John explain it........

Thank you very much John.

John doesn't make the connection you do. A lack of a semantic parallel is not logically equivalent to an attack on a doctrine (as I am sure John will tell you). This is esp. true when the lack isn't clearly directional in nature. Such a lack is just as much an "attack" on Christ's humanity as it is His deity.

So, John's statement doesn't lead to the logical conclusion of an attack on Christ's deity. How do you reach such a conclusion? If its so clear, please take the time to explain your reasoning.

 

[gb93433]

On another thread, John of Japan responded to a question about a change, one of the modern English versions made to the Bible........
Matthew 8:20
“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.”

Matthew 8:20 Common English Bible
“Jesus replied, Foxes have dens, and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Human One has no place to lay his head.”

Neither of those translation are 100% correct in being tied to the source language.

Instead of "birds of the air" it should have "birds of heaven." In addition a present active subjunctive (of lay) is translated as an infinitive. They are not quite the same.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Hi annsni & C4K

You stated.......

Jesus said.....
Matthew 15:18
“But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.”

Oooooh a chance for dueling verses
1 Samuel 16:7
"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart."

Seriously though, lets examine your implied logic.
Premise 1: What a man says comes from his heart.
Premise 2: I hear what a man says.
Conclusion: Thus I can conclude accurately what is in his heart.

The premises we agree on. The problem is that the conclusion does not follow the premises. Why? Because you must assume that you can accurately deduce what is in the heart based on what is said. The verse however does not say this. It says merely that what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart - not that a man has the ability to conclusively deduce what is in the heart from what is said (in fact, I Sam 16:7 would imply otherwise). Such is not the point of Christ's statement nor a logical conclusion that could be derived from it.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Neither of those translation are 100% correct in being tied to the source language.

Instead of "birds of the air" it should have "birds of heaven." In addition a present active subjunctive (of lay) is translated as an infinitive. They are not quite the same.

Why is birds of the air inaccurate?

 

[Tom Bryant]

Exactly!

John of all people, should have recognized this as an attack, because of his knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------
What is even stranger, is on that thread John was criticized, for even calling it a mistake.
(Praise the Lord, he stood his ground!)

Sarcasm ALERT!!!!! That must mean that John of Japan is soft on the deity of Christ...

End ALERT

 

[gb93433]

Why is birds of the air inaccurate?

That is much saying, "Why does gravity exist?" That is what the text says. There is no way to get around that.

 

[sag38]

It may be a weak rendering of the verse but it is not an attack. For it to be an attack on the deity of Christ then every verse referring to the deity of Christ would have to be tampered with. Now, I have not read this particular version but some how I doubt there is a systematic attack on the deity of Christ in this version. Goodness Stillearning will you never give up seeing a conspiracy behind every non KJV Bible?

 

[dwmoeller1]

That is much saying, "Why does gravity exist?" That is what the text says. There is no way to get around that.

Not to be sarcastic, but the original text does not say "heaven". It was in Greek, not English. Unless the Greek and English words are exact equivalents, your response above is non-sensiscal. Yet I am fairly certain that the Greek word (as well as the Hebrew conception which it embodies) is considerably different than what we mean today by "heaven".

Today "heaven" takes on several meanings:

1: the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome : firmament —usually used in plural
2 a often capitalized : the dwelling place of the Deity and the blessed dead
b : a spiritual state of everlasting communion with God
3 capitalized : god 1
4: a place or condition of utmost happiness
5 Christian Science : a state of thought in which sin is absent and the harmony of divine Mind is manifest

Clearly sense 2-5 make little or no sense when speaking of birds:
- birds of the dwelling place of God? (sense 2a)
- birds of a spiritual state of communion with God? (sense 2b)
- birds of God? (sense 3)
- birds of a condition of utmost happiness? (sense 4)
- birds of a state in which sin is absent? (sense 5)

So that leaves sense 1. As I understand it, in Ancient thought heaven was seen in terms like sense 1 - the expanse of space which seems to be over the earth like a dome. We still retain this basic meaning today, HOWEVER! we make distinctions differently than the Ancients did. To them, what we call the atmosphere was just as much a part of "heaven" as what we call outer space. But today we make a distinction between the two, and a pretty firm one at that. Thus, today "heavens" will almost never refer to atmosphere but only to outer space. We may say that the stars are in the heaven, but it would be archaic to refer to the birds being in the heaven. In modern usage, the words heaven refers to something other than the sky, air or atmosphere.

Since there is no direct equivalent between the Greek/Hebrew conception of the essential unity of sky/air/heaven/space and the modern distinctions between them, the insistence that "That is what the text says." seems problematic at best. Certainly "air" is not the best translation as it doesn't convey the true concept, but the insistence that "heaven" is the correct doesn't make sense either since it doesn't make sense give modern usage and distinctions.

Thats not to say you are wrong in your estimation, merely that it would seem to be a much more involved line of reasoning than you make it appear above.

 

[gb93433]

Not to be sarcastic, but the original text does not say "heaven".

The Greek text does say ouranou which comes from ouranos which means heaven. It is the same word Jesus used in Mt. 5:3.

Heaven is the best translation of the word if you stay close to the original language. If you want to get close to the receptor language then air might work. A lot of that depends on the focus of your translation.

 

[dwmoeller1]

The Greek text does say ouranou which comes from ouranos which means heaven. It is the same word Jesus used in Mt. 5:3.

What do you mean when you say this? That ouranou means heaven in sense 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, some of these senses, none of them, or all them?

 

[gb93433]

What do you mean when you say this? That ouranou means heaven in sense 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, some of these senses, none of them, or all them?

That word translates "heaven." Again it depends on if you are going to stay close to the source language of the receptor language as to how you would translate that word. That what makes translation so difficult. To translate well you would have to know the source language well and the receptor language well. Then you would need to know the target reader of the translation.

 

[dwmoeller1]

That word translates "heaven." Again it depends on if you are going to stay close to the source language of the receptor language as to how you would translate that word. That what makes translation so difficult. To translate well you would have to know the source language well and the receptor language well. Then you would need to know the target reader of the translation.

Thats not making sense to me. If the word doesn't have the same meaning (or as close as one can get) in the receptor language as it does in the original language, then its a bad translation. So my question is what is the meaning (forget the particular word for now) meant in the verse in question? It doesn't work to say that it means "heaven" because "heaven" can mean many things in English, some of which
a. would be absurd if applied to the Greek concept
b. or would be absurd if used in the verse

IOW, if these are birds of heaven, does that mean they are birds of outer space, birds of God's abode, neither, both or something else altogether?

Or to put it another way:
Why does it translate best as "heaven"? Just because it does? Such a position would have to presume some absolute authority on the matter to which we could refer. "Oh, X says it translates as heaven? Well there you go." Surely thats not the sort of position you are taking. If not, then there must be some reason other than "It just does." What is that reason?

 

[dwmoeller1]

That word translates "heaven." Again it depends on if you are going to stay close to the source language of the receptor language as to how you would translate that word. That what makes translation so difficult. To translate well you would have to know the source language well and the receptor language well. Then you would need to know the target reader of the translation.

Also, you originally said that translating it as "birds of the air" as being inaccurate. Now you seem to be saying that it might be acceptable if you are trying to stay closer to the receptor language. Am I reading this right? If not, why this distinction between staying close to receptor or original language? Is one method correct while the other incorrect?