Featured When is revision necessary?

A looser translation might be even, "God--the Word is He!"

I think, contextually, the logical progression also supports the orthodox view.

1) The Word was in the beginning. 2) The Word was with God. 3) The Word was God.

"In the beginning" ties to being "with God" by hearkening back to Genesis 1. Being "with God" ties to "was God" not only by being the next logical step of time, presence, existence but also by having θεον και θεος so constructed. God is 2/3 words in that brief snippet. John's tying them together, and the definite article in προς τον θεον clearly indicates that he means THE only God.

 

All modern English translations are in need of revision to improve correspondence and transparency.

One computer sort could identify all the English words or phrases used to translate more than one Greek word. Hell would pop because it translates both Hades and Gehenna. Or strife would pop because it is used to translate both "ereis (G2054) and "entherai" (G2052).

 

My understanding of Greek, which just happens to coincide with the KJV, is that ὁ isn't required to be taken as a definite article. Darby just does it makes the Bible look less incompatible with his doctrine. And, I still see no basis whatsoever in Greek for Darby to change "[has] come" to "coming" in the verse I provided.

I believe it is the style of the biblical Greek to use present forms where English would use past forms. In any case, context proves that in Luke 24, that the subject was the past coming, not a future coming as Darby changes it to. Further, Darby's insertion of the word "about" brings an immanency to the verse that is absolutely lacking in the original Greek. So, Darby is guilty of pseudo-literalness. The KJV is accurate. Darby is not.

 

That's what verse notes are for.

Here's the problem, most English readers have no idea what Gehenna is and only understanding Hades as a pagan concept. So, what should a translator do? The KJV chose to translate both to Hell (while that word has a pagan origin, Christians only understand it has a biblical word). (I don't think the KJV made the best choice.)

Translation necessarily involves compromise.

 

Are you referring to the literary present? If so, that's definitely in English. I can't speak of the Greek as to whether it is also present.

 

The inspired text draws a distinction between Hades, and Gehenna which should not be obliterated by using Hell for both. The inspired text draws a distinction between G1254 and G1252, which should not be obliterated by using strife for both.

Hades seems to be the temporary holding cell and punishment chamber for the lost until the Great White Throne Judgment, when the lost are consigned to the Lake of Fire forever and ever. And the Lake of Fire seems to be located in the spiritual Gehenna.

I think self centered or self centeredness would improve the seven translations where that word appears.
The LEB translators thought selfish ambition was better. My issue is the translators should have a basis for choosing to use different English words or phrases when it appears to other translators the very same meaning was intended in all seven cases.

 

Talk about being picayune! There is no significant change in meaning with the two translations of that verse.

Coming in flesh --not just coming.

The above is utter absurdity.

This is Darby's translation of 1 john 4:2:
"Hereby ye know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God."

 

You are mistaken ...again.

The following is taken from the revised preface to his second edition of the New Testament in 1871:

"In the next place the reader has not a revision of the Authorized Version, but a translation from the best Greek text I could attain to any certain knowledge of."

 

"is come" vs "coming" is a huge difference. They are opposites.

I know you want to squint your eyes and pretend "coming" doesn't mean the future, but me and the dictionary disagree with you:

com·ing
ˈkəmiNG
adjective
1.
due to happen or just beginning.
"work is due to start in the coming year"
synonyms: forthcoming, imminent, impending, approaching; More
2.
likely to be important or successful in the future.
"he was the coming man of French racing"

That's typical of the twisting of scripture Darby does. He changed the KJV's words, and defied the intent of the Greek, to stop 1 John 4:2 from clearly pointing to Christ's first coming. The best I can say is in this kludged verse, at least Darby avoided the word "coming" which forces a future meaning. You can argue it's literal, but that argument ignores Greek style of using present forms for past events. And, you can't make the augment that Darby was blindly following literalism when he uses the word "coming" in 2 John 1:7

 

Come on Rippon, you just like being contrary? Anyone with eyeballs can see that Darby's translation is mostly a tweaked KJV.

 

You are being dense. The KJV is not the standard. It is silly to constantly say things to the effect that the KJVs words have been changed. He was not using it as his base text --but the original Greek. He was aided by the works of Tregelles and Tishendorf for instance.

You don't even believe Darby's very own words.

Do you also think that the ERV of 1881 was also based on the KJV? By the way, the translators of the latter consulted Darby's version for their project.

 

Returning to topic, the need to revise all the modern English translations to improve correspondence and transparency. If you look at an Exhaustive concordance of say the NIV, you will be struck by how many different words are used to translate one Greek word family. 4 or 5 different words or phrases might be required to cover the range of meanings of the word, but when you see 10, or even 20 different words and phrases for one Greek word, something bogus is in view.

Once a software writer confided in me that one secret of the trade was always leave something to fix for the next revision. That way you do not work yourself out of a job. Well it seems to me the modern bible translators have ensured the need for far more revisions.

 

The translators do that with the intent (I hope) of nothing other than the goal of producing a readable and accurate product. You'll always need to check notes, and other references, for a better understanding of what the text means. The most we can ask for are translations that aren't created by people who have an agenda to skew the Bible.

 

You're right. I stand corrected.

 

I wonder which is closer to the KJV --the English Revised Version of 1881, or the NKJV of 1982? And shouldn't the NKJV at this late date, be revised?

 

I do not know why the translators say they want transparency and correspondence, yet needlessly translate the same word meaning using a great many differing English words or phrases. And why did they use the same English word or phrase to translate several different Greek words? For example "strife" is used to translate 2 different Greek words. That behavior would score zip on the transparency scale.

 

You never learn. I have made my case time and time again, but the light isn't on in your belfry.

Logos has to be translated in a variety of ways or it would not make any sense in English.

In the NASU the following words are used for Logos:
Matt.
5:32 : reason
5:37 : statement
12:32 : word
18:23 : accounts
21:24 : thing
28:15 : story

Mark
1:45 : news
8:32 : matter
11:29 : question

Luke
4:32 : message
7:17 : report
16:2 : accounting

John
21:23 : saying

Acts
1:1 : account
14:12 : speaker
19:38 : complaint
20:12 : exhortation
_________________________________________________________________
Remember the idea of semantic range? That's why your notions are completely unworkable.
Each occurrence must be taken individually and the meaning must be determined according to
its context.

And I'm not picking on the NASU. The NIV and every other English translation has a wide variety
of words for Logos in these passages. One, two, three, even seven or eight would not be enough
to fit the bill of proper translation.