Featured When is revision necessary?

To the woodshed TC. Read the oft-repeated footnote that the ESV supplies:

"Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated 'brothers') refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God's family, the church."

I had said that adelphos is singular --meaning brother or sister.

Go to 1 John 2:9 : "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness."
The NIV footnote says :"The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God's family, also in verse 11; and in 3:15, 17; 4:20; 5:16."

I removed your blasphemy.

Permit me to quote once more from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss.

"Much of the confusion related to gender accurate language arises from a misunderstanding of what gender means. In many languages, including Hebrew and Greek, every noun is categorized according to gender. Hebrew has to genders, masculine and feminine, while Greek has three, masculine, feminine, and neuter. This is grammatical gender, not biological gender (sexual distinction).

"The most common Greek word for 'man' (aner) is masculine, while the word for 'woman' (gyne) is feminine. In other cases, however, grammatical and biological gender are at odds. The Greek word for a child (teknon) is neuter; yet we do not refer to a child as 'it.'

" Since grammatical gender does not necessarily coincide with biological gender, it is necessary to carefully consider words in context to determine their meaning. Thousands of examples could be introduced to show that using inclusive language for masculine generic terms in Hebrew and Greek improves the accuracy of Bible translation." (p.98)

 

Most would agree, revision is needed to correct mistakes. The problem is one person's mistake is another person's truth.

My view is all modern translations and the KJV are full of mistakes and need revision to improve correspondence and transparency.

 

Mat 3:17 And lo ἰδού a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I'm certain, Cassidy, that you like to be contrary just for the sake of killing time. SNIP

 

Minor revisions to correct mistakes or track changing spellings isn't anyone's concern. Even KJVO people aren't bothered by the 100,000+ changes in the KJV since the original printing. Aside from KJVO people, people aren't concerned with major revisions and new translations over long periods of time due to large changes in language.

The issue is the proliferation of new translations and major revisions having little to do with changes in language or correcting mistakes. For, me, my chief concern is politically-inspired new translations, in our post-Christian society, which change the Bible not because of language but because of fools and reprobates following politics, like changing brothers to "brother and sisters".

I have a number of concerns, other than politics, which may sound like KJVO plugs. I think we should have a common coin instead of everyone with a different translation. I think our children should be able to memorize verses without those verse versions being quickly abandoned by future changes. Etc.

 

"Behold, a voice..." For someone who thinks that's a visual thing, you shouldn't be trying to nitpick "out of" vs. "from" (both are the correct translation).

 

Any bible based on the TR needs to be revised according to the MT. Thus the NKJV needs revision.

Monogenes means one of a kind, not begotten. Any bible translating monogenes as begotten needs revision. Thus the NASB needs revision.

We can find mistake after mistake in the NIV and ESV, , thus they both need revision.

Why is it that none of them translate the same source word meaning into one English word or phrase consistently. Examples of proper translation can be found, so the process is not beyond the translators ability in the digital age.

 

Maybe the MT needs to be revised according to the TR?

What does monogenes mean if not begotten?

The NIV is a mistake. It needs to be abandoned. The ESV is good.

For the umpteenth time, every translation translates a given word differently in different places because no one English word has exactly the same meaning

 

For the umpteenth time, every translation translates a given word differently in different places because no one English word has exactly the same meaning. Lets say a Greek word means destroy or render powerless. By looking at the context, we could use one English word or phrase to convey "destroy" when the context indicates that is the meaning intended, and we could use "rendered powerless" when the context indicates that is the intended meaning. So we have one Greek word with two meanings, and we have two English words or phrases to convey those two meanings.

In the case of the Greek word meaning selfish ambition, we have the same translation render it 3or 4 different ways, when the context pointed to the same meaning. Now "selfish ambition" may not be the best rendering, perhaps selfishness better captures the idea of someone pushing their own agenda rather than Christ's agenda. But there is no need to turn one meaning into several meanings such as rivalry or hostility or strife.

 

That may be your view, based on zero knowledge of the Koine Greek language, but there are plenty of people who disagree.

 

So we use the word 'brethren,' which can incorporate both male and female- unless of course you think that there are no women in the Plymouth Brethren.

 

Hi Martin, no need for you to fall on your sword yet again.
Footnote from the NET:
37tn Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

 

I try to avoid it whenever possible. Try this:
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/only-begotten-unique-or-only-son/

 

One important reason (there are several) for resisting 'gender-inclusive' language is that it obscures references to the Lord Jesus Christ. Consider:

Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 1984. ‘But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honour
and put everything under his feet.”
In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’

Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 2011. ‘But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honour
and put everything under their feet.”
In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’

The point here is that the writer to the Hebrews, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, has taken a section of Psalm 8 and made it refer to the Lord Jesus. This is in line with John 5:39: ‘These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me.’ We should always look to find Christ in the Old Testament. But the New NIV cannot make up its mind whether the ‘son of man’ is Christ or not. In one line it speaks of ‘him’ and in the next, of ‘them.’ The original Greek is singular throughout, and the new NIV, by mixing singulars and plurals, obscures the reference to our Lord.

Psalm 24:3-5 presents similar problems in the 2011 NIV:-

'Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
The one who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not trust in an idol
or swear by a false god.
They will receive blessing from the Lord
and vindication from God their Saviour.’

I believe that these verses are about the Lord Jesus Christ. Who among us can say, “Yes, my hands are clean and my heart pure. I can stand before God with absolute confidence”? No, no. It is only Christ who could say that. But by switching from singular to plural in verse 5, not only does the reading jar horribly, but the reference to our Lord is obscured. The Hebrew is singular throughout. What gives these people the right to play fast and loose with the text in this way?

 

Hi Martin, one of a kind does not include the word only. You can continue to reject the obvious, but the NKJV is mistaken to translate monogenes as begotten.

 

Your entries are foolish. They need to be held up as examples of trollish conduct.

 

Quoting from Ben Witherington's article : The Problem With Literalism When It Comes To Translation

[Aside from adelphos], there are other words, which are used in the singular, which are masculine gender words which in fact refer to a woman! For example, take the reference to Phoebe in Romans 16:1 who is called both 'our sister' (adelphen) and a deacon (daikon). Not a female form of the word deacon, but rather the male form. So, apparently Paul does not have a problem with using a masculine noun in the singular of a woman any more than he has a problem with using a plural masculine noun like 'brothers' of both 'brothers and sisters'.