Featured When is revision necessary?

Yes, I agree, you can insult me with impunity, because rules do not matter.
I have addressed using one English word or phrase for each Greek word meaning.
Your post makes my case, none of the modern translations provide transparency and correspondence.

Lets consider how easy it would be to cut back on the number of different English words or phrases to translate Logos in Matthew.

Matthew 5:32 logos rendered "reason."
Matthew 5:37 word could be used, as word, words, and Word for Christ are the most common translations.
Matthew 12:36 logos could be rendered "reason"
Matthew 15:12 logos could be rendered word
Matthew 18:23 logos is rendered account (s)
Matthew 19:11 logos could be rendered word
Matthew 19:22 logos could be rendered word
Matthew 21:24 logos could be rendered "question."
Matthew 22:15 logos could be rendered word
Matthew 25:19 logos rendered accounts
Matthew 26:44 logos could be rendered words
Matthew 28:15 logos could be rendered account

Thus in Matthew logos could be translated into just word(s), reason, account(s) and question. Four meanings, not seven.

 

You've provided no explanation for how Darby came up with words like "coming" and "about" in the verses I've already refereed to. And, you continue to defend changes (changes relative to the KJV) as "permissible" even though the changes are misleading to English readers (e.g. Darby creating the impression of future events for events that have passed). Sorry, complaining about my Greek and what is permissible doesn't work. As I noted JW saying Jesus was "a god" in their NWT is technically permissible if we disregard context.

For a second opinion, I checked Luke 24:21, in about three dozen English translation at Bible Gateway, where I have pointed that Darby changed the verse (relative to the KJV) to create the appearance of future immanency, Jesus the one "who is about to redeem Israel" (in reality, the verse is talking about the past). Only a very few translations use the word "about" in that verse, and none of them I would recommend to anyone. A couple of them I have soundly thrashed (MSG for extreme paraphrasing, HCSB for shameless Dispensational bias), but even these two don't say "is about", but rather "was about". Out of about three dozen English translations only one of them (YLT) agrees with Darby. (The YLT follows the style of present tense to a fault, but it's still a better translation than Darby's.)

 

There's a difference between a Greek scholar thinking something is correct or in correct, given the context vs. thinking something is permissible given the mechanics of the language. Mechanically, it permissible for an English translation to say Jesus was "a god" instead of "God." But, it's wrong to do that just as it's wrong for Darby to say Jesus "is about to redeem Israel." What's mechanically permissible isn't contextually permissible and so English translations overwhelmingly disagree with Darby.

You're not arguing just against me but also against the KJV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, NIV, HCSB, ESV, MSG, AMP, NRSV, etc.

 

You challenged me "I dare you to come up with a single Greek scholar who says the JW rendering is okay." If appeal to authority is a compelling argument, by your own standards, then it's fair for me to argue that practically every English translation on the planet (except YLT) disagrees with Darby's translation of Luke 24:21.

I know what the word means. My argument is that while it might be mechanically permissible to say "is about...", not not contextually permissible, as nearly every English translation testifies. Then there's just basic reasoning that a reference to a possible past event is not, in English, correctly referred to with "is about [to happen]..."

 

When is a revision unnecessary? When the translation is perfect for its time and place.

 

No translation is perfect in any time or place.

 

Spot on Mr. Rippon, every English translation needs revision.

 

Hmm...well, William Tyndale put our a few editions before he was strangled. But let's start with his 1526 edition. Fthe next one next year.ollowing his work there was Coverdale's, Matthew's, Taverner's, Great Bible, Geneva and the Bishop's. All of them leaned heavily on Tyndale's original translation.

Of course Tyndale was dependent on Martin Luther's Bible. And in Luther's lifetime he revised it five times.

When it comes to one of the Japanese versions called Shin Kaiyaku was first published in 1970. Then it was revised again in 1978,2003 and another one is projected to be released next year.


There is a Korean translation that first came out in 1993 (NKSB). It had two more revisions in 2001 and 2004.

A Norwegian translation (No78) came out in 1978 with revisions in 1985 and 2011.

There is a Swedish translation called the Svenska Folkbibeln. It was originally published in 1998 and revised in 2014.

So, it is infantile for anyone to suggest that Bibles need only to be revised every two centuries. They are living in Never-never land.

 

A new translation will need a couple of quick revisions to correct mistakes. But, there's a difference between being revised and needing revised. It proves little about the need to point out the practice of revision.

The 2011 NIV revision did not need to be made. Most new translations do not need to be made. And, when I say not needed, I mean they shouldn't have been made.

 

A glib answer would be until the Lord returns. But seriously, there is a need for the body of Christ to have the same scriptures to study. For example I say John 6:29 teaches God requires us to believe, whereas others (Cals) would say that verse teaches God causes us to believe.

We have the lesson of the tower of Babel where language was confused. My view is if we translate with correspondence and transparency in English we will help unify rather than divide the body. It is a very important subject.

 

You bring up two different issues. 1) The need for a common coin, a shared translation so what we can all be on the same page, as it were, when we refer to the Bible. 2) The correct translation.

 

Oh, so you were content with the TNIV. I like it too.

 

Hi Smyth, the idea is that through revisions to improve transparency and correspondence we would fashion a more common coin.

 

Thanks for the clarification. Now if we constructed an English translation today that did a reasonably good job of translating the underlying text, say the CT, then two drivers for revision would exist. A significant revision of the underlying text, or as mentioned by others, a change in the meaning or usage of the words in the translation. For example begotten changed to fathered. I would guess, revision might be needed on average every 15 to 25 years. But if we discovered a blunder like in 1 John (the Comma) a revision would be needed right away.