-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why translators have failed
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
- Status
Don't have it. (1) Costs too much money right now, and (2) I've not been convinced that it has much more data from the papyrii to update meanings. Plus, (3) yes, I'm bothered by the reported inclusive language.
Now if you'd like to buy it for me.... "Alms, alms for a poor missionary."
Yes indeed. I believe in verbal plenary inspiration.
Reply to PreachinJesus
Why do you continue to misrepresent my position. Why not address the topic of the thread.
1) Did I say translation was simple? No. So why try to put that foolishness in my mouth. What is easy is to pick and choose from among the words the experts used to translate the word which best match the context.
2) As far as Hebrews 6:4, I think "having tasted" is a parenthetical thought repeating the idea of "being enlightened." So those who have been enlightened by hearing the gospel, were enlightened by tasting, as opposed to swallowing with understanding and commitment. Hence a rejection of the gospel.
Why do you continue to misrepresent my position. Why not address the topic of the thread.
1) Did I say translation was simple? No. So why try to put that foolishness in my mouth. What is easy is to pick and choose from among the words the experts used to translate the word which best match the context.
2) As far as Hebrews 6:4, I think "having tasted" is a parenthetical thought repeating the idea of "being enlightened." So those who have been enlightened by hearing the gospel, were enlightened by tasting, as opposed to swallowing with understanding and commitment. Hence a rejection of the gospel.
Hi John of Japan
I know what I said. I posted an explanation of that statement. Did you read it? Or do you not know what I said. Lets not try to belittle one another, that is unchristian.
Second, I also addressed the reasoning behind going with anew as opposed to from above. Did you read that or do you not read my posts.
Let me repeat myself: From post #12: As Thayer points out since Nick did not ask how a person could be born from heaven, born anew wins the debate.
What is wrong with "born again." Were we not spiritually conceived in sin, born in a separated from God, sinful, dead in our trespasses state. Are we to repeat that again? Nope. When we are "originated again" (regenerated) we are made "alive" so we are spiritually born alive for the first time. Thus "born anew" actually best represents the idea, and does not conflict with being a "new creation" rather than a recycled one.
Here is what you wrote: Where in the world do you get that the Greek word anothen does not mean "again"? All of my lexicons give "again" as a possible meaning. Even Thayer's does, so look back at the Blue Letter Bible, look at Thayer's, and learn.
Anothen means again with a nuance. The nuance is that the repeat is not exactly the same, but has a different outcome. Hence anew. First spiritual birth, born dead, palin repeat, born dead, anothen repeat, born alive. Not the same, hence anew.
I know what I said. I posted an explanation of that statement. Did you read it? Or do you not know what I said. Lets not try to belittle one another, that is unchristian.
Second, I also addressed the reasoning behind going with anew as opposed to from above. Did you read that or do you not read my posts.
Let me repeat myself: From post #12: As Thayer points out since Nick did not ask how a person could be born from heaven, born anew wins the debate.
What is wrong with "born again." Were we not spiritually conceived in sin, born in a separated from God, sinful, dead in our trespasses state. Are we to repeat that again? Nope. When we are "originated again" (regenerated) we are made "alive" so we are spiritually born alive for the first time. Thus "born anew" actually best represents the idea, and does not conflict with being a "new creation" rather than a recycled one.
Here is what you wrote: Where in the world do you get that the Greek word anothen does not mean "again"? All of my lexicons give "again" as a possible meaning. Even Thayer's does, so look back at the Blue Letter Bible, look at Thayer's, and learn.
Anothen means again with a nuance. The nuance is that the repeat is not exactly the same, but has a different outcome. Hence anew. First spiritual birth, born dead, palin repeat, born dead, anothen repeat, born alive. Not the same, hence anew.
Hi John of Japan, I too do not use the NIV as a study bible, but I read it to get the general idea, or at least what some scholars think the general idea is.
The only Exhaustive Concordance I own is the NIV, so I came to the conclusion of too many words used with too much overlap based on the NIV. But I confirmed that looking at the NASB, which is my study bible. Notice the OP addresses "modern translations" such as the NASB, NKJV, ESV and HCSB. They all obliterate the underlying Greek words so an English only reader has no idea that when Jesus says to Peter, do you love me and Peter responds, they are using two different words with very different meaings. Such a shame and totally needless.
The only Exhaustive Concordance I own is the NIV, so I came to the conclusion of too many words used with too much overlap based on the NIV. But I confirmed that looking at the NASB, which is my study bible. Notice the OP addresses "modern translations" such as the NASB, NKJV, ESV and HCSB. They all obliterate the underlying Greek words so an English only reader has no idea that when Jesus says to Peter, do you love me and Peter responds, they are using two different words with very different meaings. Such a shame and totally needless.
English is such a poor language to judge the Bible by. That's why we need to study the Greek and Hebrew, and why we have multiple sources from which to study those languages. Just looking at your previous attempts at interpreting rhema shows that your "version" would be no clearer. That's just the facts.
As some of you know, many scholars disagree as to how best to translate anothen in John 3:3. Elsewhere in John, 3:31; 19:11, 23, it refers to "from above" or "top." But to use this meaning in John 3:3 and 3:7, we could not explain why Nick understood the term to mean again. But, if John's method of presentation is "the misunderstood question" then "anew" fits best. Nick might think anew as meaning to be physical born again, but Jesus could explain the new birth. All things considered, (1) anothen and not palin, (2) from above could not be misunderstood as again, and (3) anew fitting best, I would choose "anew."
Last edited by a moderator:
Does logos really mean word? Not really. Another Greek word means word.
But when you group words together to form a thought, then you have logos. My thoughts, and I am sure many will agree, might be irrational nonsense, and so would fall short of logos. On the other end of the spectrum, God's thoughts are certainly logos. In Genesis we see where God spoke the Universe into existence. So divine logos cannot be considered empty words, but the power of God embodied in expression, whether internally (thoughts) or externally (revelation.)
The NAS uses about 28 words to translate logos, many of them falling short of conveying the power embodied in the concept of logos. Because translators chose to use word (s) to convey the power of God embodied in expression, we must change our understanding of word to include both an organized expression by mere mortals, and God's Word, whether thoughts, external expression, or in the flesh.
When we consider logos and rhema we could follow the Septuagint and use the words interchangeable, but that obliterates whatever distinction might been intended. If we think of rhema as the box, the remarks or expressions, the surface shape of the statement or message, but we think of logos as the content of the box, the organized power of expression to bring about change, then I think we have at least a starting point.
But when you group words together to form a thought, then you have logos. My thoughts, and I am sure many will agree, might be irrational nonsense, and so would fall short of logos. On the other end of the spectrum, God's thoughts are certainly logos. In Genesis we see where God spoke the Universe into existence. So divine logos cannot be considered empty words, but the power of God embodied in expression, whether internally (thoughts) or externally (revelation.)
The NAS uses about 28 words to translate logos, many of them falling short of conveying the power embodied in the concept of logos. Because translators chose to use word (s) to convey the power of God embodied in expression, we must change our understanding of word to include both an organized expression by mere mortals, and God's Word, whether thoughts, external expression, or in the flesh.
When we consider logos and rhema we could follow the Septuagint and use the words interchangeable, but that obliterates whatever distinction might been intended. If we think of rhema as the box, the remarks or expressions, the surface shape of the statement or message, but we think of logos as the content of the box, the organized power of expression to bring about change, then I think we have at least a starting point.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't bellittle you. I quoted exactly what you said, which you had denied saying. Guess you're not willing to admit when you make a mistake.
Read them all.
I don't admit Thayer as an authority. Anothen can mean "from above" or it can mean "again" or it can mean "anew." Any of these three would be a valid translation in the context of John 3.
You see, you have absolutely no training or skills to make this judgement. Would that you would admit this, and humbly ask for help in understanding the Greek words. But you'd rather set yourself up above the scholars. The nuance you claim for anothen has no basis in fact, and you can't prove it.
The actual nuance of anothen is "from the top." Look in v. 31 of John 3, the very same chapter as the "born again" usage, where anothen is used in a different way, and this becomes clear. John 19:11 has the same nuance, as do various other verses among the 13 times it occurs in the NT.
Last edited by a moderator:
Never have done that.
What I have done is suggested that you are silly to assume that you can judge the results of men who have years of training in linguistics and the original languages by your own paucity of research using a lexicon. JOJ could whip us both in this area with half his brain tied behind his back since he has spent many years studying and working in Bible translation and he has been telling you the same thing albeit in a much nicer way.
Have a great day. I'm done with this topic.
Hi John of Japan, yes I do not deny saying anothen does not mean again with the same outcome, but I explained anothen did mean again with a different outcome. My mistake was is not fully explaining myself in the first post. My bad.
My statement concerning the choice of anew over again did not rest of accepting Thayer as an authority, but on the logic of the reasoning presented in Thayer. You can find the same argument in the Morris commentary.
I do not need your certification to make choices as to what word from among the choices made by scholars seems to fit best. For example in one sentence you say anothen can mean again or anew, and then in another you say I have no basis for choosing anew rather than again. You are aware, I assume that several translations translate John 3:3 as "anew." (ASV, Darby, English Revised Version, Weymouth, and World English Translation.)
You wrote, :"The actual nuance of anothen is "from the top." Look in v. 31 of John 3, the very same chapter as the "born again" usage, where anothen is used in a different way, and this becomes clear. John 19:11 has the same nuance, as do various other verses among the 13 times it occurs in the NT."
From this I must conclude you did not read my post #49, where I referred to v. 31 of John 3, and John 19:11 and John 19:23 where anothen is translated top.
Bottom line, you have demonstrated an inablity to comprehend that "anew" represents "again with a nuance."
My statement concerning the choice of anew over again did not rest of accepting Thayer as an authority, but on the logic of the reasoning presented in Thayer. You can find the same argument in the Morris commentary.
I do not need your certification to make choices as to what word from among the choices made by scholars seems to fit best. For example in one sentence you say anothen can mean again or anew, and then in another you say I have no basis for choosing anew rather than again. You are aware, I assume that several translations translate John 3:3 as "anew." (ASV, Darby, English Revised Version, Weymouth, and World English Translation.)
You wrote, :"The actual nuance of anothen is "from the top." Look in v. 31 of John 3, the very same chapter as the "born again" usage, where anothen is used in a different way, and this becomes clear. John 19:11 has the same nuance, as do various other verses among the 13 times it occurs in the NT."
From this I must conclude you did not read my post #49, where I referred to v. 31 of John 3, and John 19:11 and John 19:23 where anothen is translated top.
Bottom line, you have demonstrated an inablity to comprehend that "anew" represents "again with a nuance."
Last edited by a moderator:
This is flat out mistaken. You are apparently saying that there is no such thing as synonyms, an extremely shaky position. Logos certainly does mean word. For you to say it doesn't is to fly in the face of every single Greek-English and Greek-Japanese lexicon and dictionary I have (something like 12 to 14), not to mention commentaries on the original languages (Alford, A. T. Robertson and others).
If you defend this statement that logos does not mean "word," it will show once and for all that, in spite of your admitted lack of training and knowledge in Greek, you are setting yourself above all Greek teachers (including me) and scholars, men who are much more knowledgeable than I am. Do you really want to do that? Do you really think you are that good at what we are talking about?
Here is some of the background information used to develop my view of logos.
"The Greek of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, is inconsistent. It uses the phrase, rhema kurios, 63 times for word of the LORD (dabar Jehovah). Many times, however, the phrase logos kurios is used to translate dabar Jehovah, the word of the LORD.
In the Greek New Testament there are two primary Greek nouns related to God's Word. The first, the logos of God, because it relates to the meaning of the words spoken rather than the speech itself, emphasizes the entirety of the spoken, written, and incarnate word. The second Greek noun, rhema, is connected more to the actual thing that was said. The rhema of God refers to the specific sayings from God or from people. Neither the Latin nor the Aramaic of the New Testament makes much of a distinction between these two. Each uses a single word to translate either rhema or logos.
The meaning of rhema of God (Greek) is directly connected to dabar Elohim (Hebrew) by way of the gnome in I Peter 1: 24-25:"
To repeat myself anew, modern translations lack concordance because they followed the pre-computer translations (i.e. Septuagint circa 70 BC) which were lacking in concordance.
"The Greek of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, is inconsistent. It uses the phrase, rhema kurios, 63 times for word of the LORD (dabar Jehovah). Many times, however, the phrase logos kurios is used to translate dabar Jehovah, the word of the LORD.
In the Greek New Testament there are two primary Greek nouns related to God's Word. The first, the logos of God, because it relates to the meaning of the words spoken rather than the speech itself, emphasizes the entirety of the spoken, written, and incarnate word. The second Greek noun, rhema, is connected more to the actual thing that was said. The rhema of God refers to the specific sayings from God or from people. Neither the Latin nor the Aramaic of the New Testament makes much of a distinction between these two. Each uses a single word to translate either rhema or logos.
The meaning of rhema of God (Greek) is directly connected to dabar Elohim (Hebrew) by way of the gnome in I Peter 1: 24-25:"
To repeat myself anew, modern translations lack concordance because they followed the pre-computer translations (i.e. Septuagint circa 70 BC) which were lacking in concordance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Think that since Van is having trouble seeing how modern versions are done, perhaps best for him to learn Greek well enough to go back to original source material! Pick up and use either TR/MT/CT which ever seems best to him!
Yup, Jesusfan, I have received your message. Thanks for your repeated attempts to disparage me rather than discuss the topic. Could it be you cannot see how modern versions are filled with loose and inaccurate translations, even thought I have provided nearly a dozen examples.
- Status