Why translators have failed

Folks, take a look at the last few posts. All attacks on my qualifications and character, rather than address my views. This is a red flag that they cannot support their opposition to my view (modern translations need to be revised by scholars to improve concordance and bring God's Word into better focus).

They said I had no basis for translating "anothen" as anew, and then I pointed out 6 translations, including the American Standard Version, which do translate it as anew.

They said someone who does not understand the Greek is not qualified to comment on translation. Then I pointed out that end user feedback is an accepted practice for improving the product. Strike two.

I said the problem was the modern translations, such as the NASB and NKJV follow the discordant translations of the past, such as the KJV. I backed that up with citing the inconsistent translation of the Hebrew dabar into both logos and rhema in the Septuagint.

If a person observes that an expert is wrong, it only means the expert seems wrong on that one point; it does not follow that the person who made the observation thinks he or she is more of an expert than the expert. I watch base ball and think, that player made an error. This does not mean I think I can play baseball on the level of that player. Such argumentation is simply absurd.

Next I am hit with the innuendo that I am supporting cultist behavior. But the fact is I am opposing cultist behavior, bring in outside information, such as the various ways the experts translation Greek words with differing meanings into the same English word, obliterating the difference in the underlying text.

Now of course if we start with one word (Hebrew dabar) and translate it into two different Greek words (logos and rhema) and then translate those two back into a single word that closely matches "dabar" it would seem to be warranted. But that would be an exception and not the rule. Something best left to the experts.

But the underlying premise, the hermeneutic of seeking concordance, of translating the same Greek word meaning into the same English word, and avoiding translating two differing Greek word meanings into the same English word, is valid.

 

Yes, Mexdeaf, pride is a wicked sin, and I am as guilty of it as the next man.

As Ben said, he never made much progress toward adding humility to his character, but that was just as well, because if he had, he was sure he would have been proud of it.

Returning once again to the actual topic, lets consider "Lord."

You will note that most modern translations, but certainly not all, translate Yahweh as LORD all in caps in the OT. This follows the Septuagint which translated Yahweh as "kurios" in Greek. Now another Greek word "despota" has a seemingly very similar meaning. Back in the day, the head of the house was the "despota" to those he owned, but "kurios" to those in his family. Thus Father God is both Lord and Master when considering mankind. Everyone is a child of God in the sense God created us, but only those "born anew" are child of God in the sense we may call Him "Abba" or Daddy.

Could this truth be made more clear by improving the translations of "kurios and despota?"
If a believer is referring to God from the perspective of being born anew, then the preferred word would be kurios. But if from the perspective of one who may not be born again, then despota better fits the bill. This in no way diminishes the sovereignty of God, but simply allows for a relationship where all things work together for good.


Lets consider a few verses:

Luke 2:29: “Now Lord [despota], You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace, according to Your word;

Here we have a devoted servant of God, a member of the family so to speak, referring to God has despota, and so Master with a capital M, would both preserve the separation from kurios, but is a synonym of kurios. So the HCSB translation seems best. Ditto for Acts 4:24, the HCSB rendering of Master is best.

In Jude 1:4 we find the construction of using both words to refer to God, hence Master and Lord works again.

In 2 Timothy 2:21, Master again works best and nearly all the translations translate despota as master in this verse. Note that verse refers to Jesus and not the Father. So how does Jesus qualify for the term desposta? He is the creator in conjunction with the Father, see John 1:2, but I do not think that is the idea. I think the idea is that Jesus bought mankind out of slavery to sin under the Law, and bestowed the New Covenant upon mankind. So He too is our Master, the owner. if you will, of all mankind.

Now in 2 Peter 2:1 we see Jesus again referred to as Master, with the idea He is the one who "bought" them, even though those bought are not of the family.

Finally lets consider Revelation 6:10. The word translated "Lord" in all the modern versions (NASB, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, and NIV) is despota and should be translated as Master. Note the idea is the right of the Master to deal harshly with those not of His family. No need to blur the meaning with Lord, when the NT writer did not!

Thus, it appears that the best way to translate despota is with master or masters, sometime with a capital M. So this is yet another example of how easy it would be to improve concordance and reduce overlap where different word meanings in Greek are translated into the same English word.

 

Hi jbh26, if you are saying there is no difference between their meanings, then I disagree.
As I posted above kurios and despota are synonyms but with different shades of meaning, i.e head of house hold including non-family members, despota, head of family, kurios.

If we translate kurios as Lord, then by translating despota as Master, we present the distinction drawn by the original author. This works well where both words appear, i.e Lord (kurios) and Master (despota).

 

I take it no one can defend using Lord over Master for despota, where the entity title refers to God.

If we look at Luke 5:5 we find yet another Greek word translated as Master. The root meaning here is one who stands over, so "headmaster" would work, in every usage, and preserve the difference from despota. See Luke 5:5; 8:24; 8:45; 9:33; 9:49 and 17:13.

Now yet another word translated Master is the Greek word meaning teacher, and so when referring to Jesus, it should be Teacher with a capital t, rather than Master with a capital M to preserve the distinction in the underlying Greek. For example, see Matthew 8:19.

 

And we disagree that differing Greek words should be translated into the same English word, obliterating whatever distinction the HS may have intended. Why not use Master for despota, rather than translate willy nilly?

 

Rather, Jbh28, you are reading the need for sloppy translation into the job. If the Greek uses different words, then a literal translation would use different words.

"Unless the context points to a specific definition, [i.e. Greek word meaning,] then either term can be used." The issue is should either be used. We have a whole bible where willy nilly translation, whatever came to mind, has been put in the text.

We must ask the question, why this word and not that one. Sure, we may not be able to answer the question in every verse, but by studying every usage we can usually see a common thread where some shade of meaning was intended. Now the original translators did not have the ability using computer search and sort software, to look at the whole bible and see the inconsistencies in the existing translation. But we can build on their effort and bring it to a new level of clarity and revelation. And by using different English words, the translators would allow the end users to ask those same questions and read up on the various views, such as anew rather than again, or Teacher, rather than Master.