just curious, for van, wonder IF God Himself has ONLY one term used for Hos own name in the Bible?
-
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
just curious, for van, wonder IF God Himself has ONLY one term used for Hos own name in the Bible?
The Greek word "agape" means unconditional love, as shown by Jesus laying down His life for mankind. Another Greek word mean brotherly love, which is strong but might not rise to the level of "agape." Now if you read John 21 you will see where Jesus asks Peter, "do you love me." But I have sat through perhaps a half dozen sermons where various Pastor's with some knowledge of Greek, explain to me that the passage does not really read like what is in the English translation in my lap. And like Oliver Twist, I ask for more, why does my English translation miss the whole illustration!
Here is the actual exchange. Jesus, do you love me unconditionally? Peter, you know I love you like a brother. Jesus do you love me unconditionally? Lord, you know I love you like a brother. Jesus. Peter, do you love me like a brother? You know I love you like a brother. Jesus, FEED MY SHEEP!
As I said from the OP, the modern translations fail to provide with clarity the Word of God.
Here is the actual exchange. Jesus, do you love me unconditionally? Peter, you know I love you like a brother. Jesus do you love me unconditionally? Lord, you know I love you like a brother. Jesus. Peter, do you love me like a brother? You know I love you like a brother. Jesus, FEED MY SHEEP!
As I said from the OP, the modern translations fail to provide with clarity the Word of God.
I am not making up any rules. I am asking why the lack of concordance with the Greek word meanings. The goal I have expressed can be found in numerous articles, and I actually posted one of them.
Anyone who advocates for sloppy translation has some hidden motive. Words have meanings and translators should do their best to convey those meanings and shades of meanings, rather than hide the message and leave it to others to dig out and explain.
That is like the software guy who always leaves a bug in his work, so he will have job security.
Anyone who advocates for sloppy translation has some hidden motive. Words have meanings and translators should do their best to convey those meanings and shades of meanings, rather than hide the message and leave it to others to dig out and explain.
That is like the software guy who always leaves a bug in his work, so he will have job security.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesusfan, why do you and others keep dragging the KJV into this thread. I have addressed that the KJV is also lacking in concordance about 4 times in this thread.
And I am no fan of the amplified Bible, our yes should be yes and our no should be no, we should present our best understanding of the text, not some, "it could mean this, or that, or something completely different and I have no clue." Fiddlesticks.
And I am no fan of the amplified Bible, our yes should be yes and our no should be no, we should present our best understanding of the text, not some, "it could mean this, or that, or something completely different and I have no clue." Fiddlesticks.
Are you saying that the commitees involved in transalting versions like Niv/Nasv/esv were doing "sloppy work?"
Weren't they the very best of modern scholarship trying to get as close as possible to the originals the exact meanings intended by god to communicate to us in english?
That is like the software guy who always leaves a bug in his work, so he will have job security.[/QUOTE]
Weren't they the very best of modern scholarship trying to get as close as possible to the originals the exact meanings intended by god to communicate to us in english?
That is like the software guy who always leaves a bug in his work, so he will have job security.[/QUOTE]
Jesusfan, if the Bible was more concordant you might not be as confused concerning the names and titles of God. Recall, the Septuagint translated the tetragram YHWH as "LORD" rather than Yahweh, over 6000 times. And then it translated other words, i.e Adonay, as Lord as well. Then when both appeared together, they changed one or the other, willy nilly.
Give me a break!
Give me a break!
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Jesusfan, yes, the NIV/NASB/ESV/HCSB and NKJV all butcher John 21. And it is no mystery that philo and agapa have different shades of meaning. So we are dealing with sloppy work, due to a lack of sound translation rules, or so it appears to me.
Let me ask you a question, how many sermons have you sat through where the Pastor said that the translation does not do justice to the original Greek, and then he goes on to explain some nuance.
Lets take the great commission. Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples...." Is that the idea, we are to go for the purpose of making disciples? Is that your understanding. How does this read in the concordant version? "Going then, disciple all...." Some believe "As you are going along, make disciples...." What do you think the real command of Jesus was?
Let me ask you a question, how many sermons have you sat through where the Pastor said that the translation does not do justice to the original Greek, and then he goes on to explain some nuance.
Lets take the great commission. Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples...." Is that the idea, we are to go for the purpose of making disciples? Is that your understanding. How does this read in the concordant version? "Going then, disciple all...." Some believe "As you are going along, make disciples...." What do you think the real command of Jesus was?
Problem is a misunderstanding of the Greek terms. While they can mean that, philo can be the general everyday spoken word for "love" and the distinction wasn't the definition but Christ using the term Peter would use.
Sure you are. Nobody that has any education in Greek agrees with you. It's not sloppy to use more than one word to translate any more than it was for the Holy Spirit to use more than one word.
no one has done that. It's your lack of understanding the Greek language. Now please, don't say I'm attacking your character. I'm not. But you have no real knowledge of the Greek language or how to translate from Greek to English.
is it possible that the Holy Spirit actually decided to have written into the sacred texts the vocabulury JUST as He intended, even If He decided to use a variety of words and terms to describe same things?
IF the variations on same theme is found in the originals, and He placed them there by His inspiration, was He wrong in doing such?
Hi Jbh28, your lack of understand does not question my character but my qualifications.
Please address my position.
You continue to post absurd and ludicrous positions. I say I have quoted sources saying concordance should be included in the effort of translation and you say I am making it up. fiddlesticks.
Yes, the problem was in not translating that Jesus and Peter were using different words!! Jesus switched words and used Peter's word, indicating Peter's love was enough for Jesus. Praise God. To bad that tidbit was lost in translation.
I have demonstrated and you agreed that John 21 misses that Jesus and Peter are using different Greek words, and if you can't see that is sloppy, then there is nothing more I can say.
Please address my position.
You continue to post absurd and ludicrous positions. I say I have quoted sources saying concordance should be included in the effort of translation and you say I am making it up. fiddlesticks.
Yes, the problem was in not translating that Jesus and Peter were using different words!! Jesus switched words and used Peter's word, indicating Peter's love was enough for Jesus. Praise God. To bad that tidbit was lost in translation.
I have demonstrated and you agreed that John 21 misses that Jesus and Peter are using different Greek words, and if you can't see that is sloppy, then there is nothing more I can say.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesusfan, please stop misrepresenting my view. We already have more than a dozen translations, providing many "expert" choices such as "anew" vice "again" and we have lexicons that provide the core meaning of the original language words.
Next, please answer the questions I have asked of you. I have answered dozens of your questions, and even repeatedly answered some, yet when I ask you a question, you evade them. Whats up with that? How do you understand Matthew 28:19 based on the English translation of your choice?
Did you not read my response to your question concerning the Amplified Bible? See post # 85.
Next, please answer the questions I have asked of you. I have answered dozens of your questions, and even repeatedly answered some, yet when I ask you a question, you evade them. Whats up with that? How do you understand Matthew 28:19 based on the English translation of your choice?
Did you not read my response to your question concerning the Amplified Bible? See post # 85.
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought I would provide several more quotes where the goal of concordance is considered important to translation. Just saying I am not making this stuff up.
“The NASB also makes concordance a priority, but does not go overboard in
doing so.”
“As such, the HCSB gives more attention to verbs, conjunctions, and sentence structure than free translations, and also translates words the same way as often as possible.”
“While it [IRV] has a delightfully free and original style, it is concordant enough and stays close enough to the text to be classified as a literal translation.”
“its [ASV] closeness to the KJV limits its ability to maintain concordance.
“The NASB also makes concordance a priority, but does not go overboard in
doing so.”
“As such, the HCSB gives more attention to verbs, conjunctions, and sentence structure than free translations, and also translates words the same way as often as possible.”
“While it [IRV] has a delightfully free and original style, it is concordant enough and stays close enough to the text to be classified as a literal translation.”
“its [ASV] closeness to the KJV limits its ability to maintain concordance.
Folks, did you notice that I was charged with whining when I asked for posters to address my position. Now when Skandelon or C4K asks the same thing, I do not see many complaining that they are whiners. Go figure.
And note the vapid misrepresentation that I act like all translators are wrong? Did you see where I said that? You didn't. Slanders and false witnesses are a bane to the board. Every position I have taken is supported by multiple scholars. ASV translates anothen as anew in John 3:3. HCSB translates despota as master(s) instead of Lord. And on and on. You have to wonder why they cannot grasp the fundamental issue.
I have listened to perhaps a 1000 sermons over my christian life, born anew at age 15 and now I am past 65, so more than 50 years. And I often listen to sermons on the radio, mostly Calvary Chapel speakers. At least 1/3 of them make some point based on the original language, which is stark testimony about the abundance of opportunity to improve our current product. God Bless
And note the vapid misrepresentation that I act like all translators are wrong? Did you see where I said that? You didn't. Slanders and false witnesses are a bane to the board. Every position I have taken is supported by multiple scholars. ASV translates anothen as anew in John 3:3. HCSB translates despota as master(s) instead of Lord. And on and on. You have to wonder why they cannot grasp the fundamental issue.
I have listened to perhaps a 1000 sermons over my christian life, born anew at age 15 and now I am past 65, so more than 50 years. And I often listen to sermons on the radio, mostly Calvary Chapel speakers. At least 1/3 of them make some point based on the original language, which is stark testimony about the abundance of opportunity to improve our current product. God Bless
Last edited by a moderator:
I know, I know, folks. I said I was done with this thread. But I had to come back on and answer this silliness.I thought I would provide several more quotes where the goal of concordance is considered important to translation. Just saying I am not making this stuff up.
“The NASB also makes concordance a priority, but does not go overboard in
doing so.”
“As such, the HCSB gives more attention to verbs, conjunctions, and sentence structure than free translations, and also translates words the same way as often as possible.”
“While it [IRV] has a delightfully free and original style, it is concordant enough and stays close enough to the text to be classified as a literal translation.”
“its [ASV] closeness to the KJV limits its ability to maintain concordance.
In the first place, Van doesn't source these quotes, though that is common practice and the ethical way. But that's easy enough to do. They all come from one source: http://lwelliott.com. Who is the author? The website and files don't say. What are his qualifications? The website doesn't say. Does he actually know Greek or Hebrew or translation theory? Don't know. Is Van the website owner? Hmm. Don't know.
All these silly questions aimed at avoiding the fact that the goal of concordance is an important part of the translation effort. Not word for word, but word meaning for word meaning.
Lets take "porneia" as appears in Matthew 5:32. Now the word might appear to have a wide range of meanings, but actually appears to refer to sexual activity outside of marriage. So incest, homosexual activity, too much fun with animals, it all comes down to sexual sin.
But do the modern translations go with sexual sin? Nope. The KJV at least is consistent, translating it as fornification every time. Misses the meaning but misses it always in the same spot. The NASB misses the mark high, low and in between, using four different words where one or two would suffice.
Lets take "porneia" as appears in Matthew 5:32. Now the word might appear to have a wide range of meanings, but actually appears to refer to sexual activity outside of marriage. So incest, homosexual activity, too much fun with animals, it all comes down to sexual sin.
But do the modern translations go with sexual sin? Nope. The KJV at least is consistent, translating it as fornification every time. Misses the meaning but misses it always in the same spot. The NASB misses the mark high, low and in between, using four different words where one or two would suffice.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status