Featured Does Scripture Need "Fixing?"

I agree with you Van, I am trying to be fair to the other debators.

In one of my hermeneutics classes it was necessary to choose a doctrinal debate topic. Then I was told to choose my debate partner and debate the side that was in error. It was then that I decided the importance of being honest and fair in a debate.

BTW, I had to prove through debate that water baptism washes away original sin.
I thought that was cruel of the professor because I was a former Catholic and he knew it. However in my later years it has proved beneficial.

HankD

 

RE: precision:
Also Van, in many theological professions (e.g.original language translator) precision is required. For instance for NT translation not just the references I used but many others such as Attic Greek word usage, The Septuagint word usage, koine Greek usage, Early Church Fathers usage, ancient church lectern manuscripts, other ancient translations (Vulgate, Peshitta) and many other sources.

Thanks
HankD

 

Right - three stars in the sky - rather crude but at least a consistent standard.

Hmm, but what if its overcast?

Good discussion.

HankD

 

Hi Van,

I'm a little confused, I'll only take one verse as an example : Mark 1:41 of your post.
Mark 1:41 Jesus was indignant should read, "moved with anger.

Where are you getting your verses?

Here is the verse from the KJV and the NIV

KJV Mark 1:41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

NIV Mark 1:41 Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"

I can't seem to correlate these two verses compared with your number 2 statement above.

Am I missing something?

Thanks
HankD

 

Indeed.

 

Oh, OK I see.
I follow the TR (Scrivener) Van so I would actually choose "compassion".
The underlying Greek word is used 12 times in the NT and has a wide scope of meaning
but "anger" or "indignant" just don't seem to fit the context.

Also there is no Greek variant between the TR and the W&H revision of the TR for this word.

HankD

 

Related to translation work:

The basic problem Van is often the fact that people who don't know another language don't understand that just because a word in English has only one meaning that there is therefore a corresponding one word meaning with all the English nuances and flavors in the receptor language . This is not true. I'm sure John of Japan is well aware of this linguistic phenomena. And there are far more difficulties than this as well in the field of translation work.

So, when different Bible translations are published with "unacceptable" English word variations we should be very tolerant unless of course it's a variation to deceive.

Personally it doesn't bother me when I know that any given English bible word variation compared to the corresponding word in another version that I prefer is different - as long as it is a legitimate choice within the scope of the receptor language even if it is being used to support an agenda.

Good discussion Van.

HankD

 

No, you are wrong. (what's new about that.) Both the NASU and NIV use the word indignant eight times in the Gospels. Both use the very same references.

No, wrong again. If you simply read the Preface of the KJV written by Miles Smith you would understand that the KJV translators did not use concordance all that much. They didn't want to be a slave to that artificial contruct. There is a semantic range that needs to be taken into consideration as well as the context itself.

 

You have acknowledged that you are not proficient in English. If only you were familiar with the meaning of words. I will help you Van.

According to Merriam-Webster, indignant means ":feeling or showing anger because of something unjust or unworthy: filled with or marked by indignation."

M-W uses, as an example :"Melville was so struck by the dram of the Essex (deliberately battered by an indignant and maddened whale, which at last brained itself by sinking the ship) that he used it as the end of Moby-Dick." --Paul Theroux, New York Times Book Review, 11 June 2000.

In a synonym discussion:"Anger :the most general term, names the reaction but by itself does not convey cause or intensity." On the other hand, "Indignation stresses righteous anger at what one considers unfair, mean, or shameful."

In a snippet regarding Mark 1:41, Doug Moo, the head of the NIV translation team has said :"As we saw what the man with leprosy had suffered, Jesus responded initially with 'anger' or 'indignation' at the terrible plight of people in the sin-ravaged world."

 

The problem of relying on intellect in translation is the absence of relying on the wisdom from the Lord. It doesn't always happen, but the trapping is to rely solely on the intellect, and that is a normal thing to do.

Nobody would want to be healed by Jesus if He is seen as approaching His healing with anger or righteous indignation. Jesus is fully aware of the terrible plight of the people in a sin ravaged world, but that was hardly His motivation for any of His healing.

He forgave a lame man so He can get up and walk. His anger was towards those that refused to believe in Him, and He let it showed.

So no. He is not going to confuse people with His anger.

To do something good, Jesus was moved with compassion.

One can lose sight of the forest by all the trees. Words has to be translated by what is happening in the verse.

Like pneuma. There are so many different definitions for pneuma that they cannot all mean the same thing without blaspheming the Holy Spirit. So it does matter by what is happening in the verse as for the meaning of the text that is being used.

The Voice Bible version has translated the word Christ to mean "anointed", but all believers are anointed with the Holy Spirit, and since we are not the Christ or a Christ, It cannot be translated as the anointed.

So I am disagreeing with you on your explanation that anger is the right translation to be used in that verse.

 

Not "they" but "he" --Doug Moo. And it was stated that Moo believes that Jesus responded with anger initially "at the terrible plight of people in the sin-ravaged world."

Dr. Moo is an accomplished New Testament Bible scholar. He has commentaries on several books of the New Testament (Romans in particular is regarded by many as the best in the field). But you, in all your proven wisdom, as evidenced with your posts on the BB, know better. I see.

Well, I suppose you think he was personally angry with the leper then.

You don't want to exercise any reasoning about why? That's uncharacteristic of you Van. If a preacher would expound this text he should have to explain why. A bare reading is not expounding.