Featured When is revision necessary?

I always see the Dead Sea Scroll mentioned when editors are justifying their new translations/revisions.

In the esteemed opinion of my baptistboard brethern and cisterns p), was that discovery and the publishing/release of its contents a big enough deal to justify a new revision of the current versions?

 

What makes you think monogenes means one of a kind? The two root words that make it up are mono:meaning one and the second one is Ginomai You need to study the second root word of monogenes. Ginomai does not mean kind or
type. Just looking at how Ginomai is translated in the other places of the KJV gives a good sense of the word. You are wrong.

 

If someone wants to promote the particular view (Cepher Bible, Covenant Fulfilled Bible, etc.), they should keep it in the notes of a respected translation (KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV is the short list), and not create a lousy translation to promote that particular view. Likewise, non-literal Politically Correct views, like "brothers and sister" for brothers, should also be kept in the notes.

People like John Darby and Joseph Smith who create their own translations to promote their views, I have serious doubts about the integrity of such people who wold do such a thing. It's no surprise that their doctrines are corrupt (and their translations are otherwise so bad no one uses them, not even their followers).

 

Hi Smyth, did I establish the translation goals of transparency and correspondence? So most translators pay lip service to what could be done rather easily. I have specified mistakes, such as translating the same meaning into several different English words or phrases.

You need to decide what the word means, such as selfish ambition or hostility, selfishness, and when the context indicates that is the intended meaning, use that translation choice consistently.

Did you see where in some of the passages another Greek word was also being translated as "strife." Do you think a translation that listed strife twice would be a mistake?

 

Hi Jordan, I provided the NET footnote to document the basis of "one of a kind." If you disagree with Dr. Dan Wallace, fine. But I suspect he has studied this translation choice.

 

These translations -- all translations -- which translate one Greek word differently in different verse are not making mistakes. A mistake is something you do unintentionally. What they do is intentional, hopefully for the sake of accurately conveying information.

Suppose a word means "to cause strife and hostility through selfish ambition", if you put that whole thing in the text, it becomes too cumbersome. And, because no biblical Greek and English word means the same thing, you'd use many English words for each Greek word, and the result becomes overwhelming and unreadable. It would be better not to make a translation in the first place and just expect people to learn Greek. Seriously.

So, the translator might look at context and see what's more relevant, strife or selfishness, and just use one word here and the other word there.

 

No lexicon supports your supposition. Decide what the word means in each of the seven usages. Explain the basis for rivalry here, hostility there, selfish ambition somewhere else. There is no basis, it is just willy nilly translation that provides little or no correspondence or transparency.
The ESV changed rivalry to self ambition, so the basis of rivalry was a mistake, or it is a mistake now.

 

ἐριθεία in ESV:

James 3:16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.

Romans 2:8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

Galatians 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,

Philemon 1:17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment.

Philippians 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.

James 3:14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.

Two verses don't directly convey the concept of selfish ambition. The ESV could have used "selfish ambition" in these two verses, and maybe they should have. But, the word doesn't exactly mean "selfish ambition". The consensus seems to be that the word derived from the concept of "electioneering or intriguing for office." That means plotting to gain power. Selfish-ambition is only a motive behind ἐριθεία.

Consider:

James 3:16ish, Where people are plotting to gain power, there will be disorder and every vile practice.

Phillipians 2:3ish, Do not plot to gain power, but count others as more significant than yourselves.

Every word loses a something in translation. There's no credit for consistency, if every consistent choice consistently falls short. The only ESV choice I don't like is 2 Corinthians 12:20 because "hostility" is such a generic term.

There's a wonderful thing about inconsistent translation, it alerts the reader to a deeper meaning of the word in question.

 

You are entirely mistaken regarding Darby's New Testament. (By the way, he translated it into a number of languages) One cannot find dispensationalism there or any other unique doctrinal slants. I have my mother's copy of a 1904 edition. I know whereof I speak.

Joseph Smith certainly imposed his particular and peculiar views into the "Inspired Version Of The Holy Scriptures" --it was just odd. A Mormon can't find Mormonism there. Doctrines and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price is where they base their doctrine. At least they used to. Mormonism is changing. They would like to erase their early history.

 

In numerous of verses, Darby made slight changes to promote his doctrines.

2John 7:7

Darby: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, they who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh—this is the deceiver and the antichrist.

KJV: For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

In this one verse there are two examples in one verse of Darby changing the Bible to promote his false doctrine. He changes the definition of antichrist to one who denies Christ is coming. This is part of Darby's pattern of changing verses to put emphases on the return of Christ, with the imminent rapture in mind. This also allows the Jews to escape condemnation as antichrists because their denial that Christ has come in the flesh is no longer the definition of antichrist.

Darby inserts the definite article 'the' in front of antichrist. This promotes the hyper-futurism of Dispensationalism by requiring the Antichrist to be a future individual rather than, say, an office like the papacy. This also lets Jews escape condemnation as antichrists because the Antichrist is now an individual and not the plurality of people who deny Christ has come in the flesh (but, he didn't change the verse enough to hide that antichrist really does mean a plurality of people).

Darby changes this one verse to promote these doctrines of Dispensationalism:
1) The current special standing with God of people who follow neo-Judaism, Jews.
2) The imminent rapture .
3) The future Antichrist individual.
.

 

Thanks, Smyth, for your excellent, thoughtful, post that shows you understand my view, even though you still disagree with it. Try plugging in "self centeredness" in at all seven locations.

There is absolutely no value in a lack of correspondence and transparency.

 

It's easy, I just gave two changes to one verse that promotes several Dispensationalist doctrines. I could point out numerous verses that Darby changed to support his false doctrine. You need to get past your denial.

[Edited] Darby Luke 24:21 But *we* had hoped that *he* was [the one] who is about to redeem Israel. But then, besides all these things, it is now, to-day, the third day since these things took place.

This verse is one of a number of verses where Darby inserts the word "about" to create a Dispensionalist impression of future imminence. They had hoped Jesus was the one to redeem Israel, not that is was about to redeem Israel.

 

Darby's translation is based on the KJV, so any changes from the KJV are meaningful and deliberate. I didn't object to "have gone out", but to changing "[has] come" to "[is] coming" in regard's to Christ. As far as "the Antichrist" goes, the use of "the" can be defended as allowed by Greek (but, JWs also defend the NWT referring to Jesus as "a god" as allowed by Greek), but the context supports the KJV's indefinite article.