Featured Corrupted text?

When folks try to harmonize differing verses, they do no one a favor.

Bible study does not require becoming fluent in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew. OTOH, to discern the intended message of scripture does require study, including the various ways scholars understand the text. We are not called to walk always in another person's furrow, simply accepting one person's or one group's view. We are to study to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word of truth. Word study can provide valuable insight into the intended meaning of scripture.

Our modern English translations are wonderful, but to claim they cannot be improved so that God's intended message is better conveyed is without merit. See post #6 for illustration.

 

Translating "rhema" as declaration(s), remark(s) or matter(s) eliminates the need to use the same English term "word" for both rhema and logos. By the careful use of synonyms, transparency is enhanced.

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY DECLARATION THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'”

Matthew 12:36
“But I tell you that every remark that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.

Matthew 26:75
And Peter remembered the declaration which Jesus had said, “Before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.

There are a few examples where the general rule does not work well, for example when an Apostle is presenting the gospel, his speech is better rendered declaration than remark.

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to obfuscate in translation.
Logos is also rendered "matter" but could more accurately be rendered "doctrine" or message.
Mark 8:32, Acts 15:6, and Philippians 4:15 could use doctrine, and Acts 8:21 could use "message."

And of course, several other words are also rendered "matter."

 

Did you hear the one about what is good for the goose is good for the gander?
When you post the NASB77 is better than the NASB95 or NASB21 or NASB Legacy, were you asked for your qualifications? Nope! So did someone appoint you hall monitor, or are you simply an obfuscation proponent, making absurd claims?

Does someone need special or gnostic knowledge to study God's word. Does scripture say do not study to show yourselves approved, because only those with human accreditation should study and share?

Or are the proponents of the status quo introducing destructive heresies?

 

Asked and answered.

Does someone need special or gnostic knowledge to study God's word. Does scripture say do not study to show yourselves approved, because only those with human accreditation should study and share?

Or are the proponents of the status quo introducing destructive heresies?

 

The NASB renders other Greek words as or including "matter" and if you look at the NIV, you will find about 15 additional Greek words rendered matter. It appears some translators have taken a shotgun to the text to avoid transparency and concordance. The opposite of the stated goals of translation.

Let us go over a few from the NASB:

Acts 18:14, the Greek word meaning in this context "some" is rendered "matter." G5100
Romans 16:2, 2 Corinthians 7:11 and 1 Thessalonians 4:6, G4229 could be rendered "thing" rather than "matter.
And in some verses "matter" has been added with and without italics unnecessarily, for example 2 Corinthians 8:10 and 2 Peter 1:20.

 

As I said, behold the destructive heresy of the priesthood of translators, those qualified by people, are the only ones allowed to assess the merits of translation. It is right here in River City.

 

Pay no attention to Y1, he asks questions, but is so contemptuous of others, he does not answer questions. He puts words by inference, into the mouths of others.

As I said, behold the destructive heresy of the priesthood of translators, those qualified by people, are the only ones allowed to assess the merits of translation. It is right here in River City.

Folks, falsehood after falsehood, to hide the failure of our English translations to adhere to concordance of word meanings and transparency.

Nida said, "... an F-E translation attempts to reproduce several formal elements,including: (1) grammatical units, (2) consistency in word usage, and (3) meanings in terms of the source context.

 

Did anyone suggest translation from one language to another was a simple as using a concordance or lexicon? Nope so yet another post of disinformation, calculated to derail the presentation of truth.

Nida said, "... an F-E translation attempts to reproduce several formal elements,including: (1) grammatical units, (2) consistency in word usage, and (3) meanings in terms of the source context. (F-E = formal equivalence)

Has anyone suggested a reason for obliterating the distinctions presented according to the grammar and word choice, contextually considered by the inspired text? Why were two different places, Hades and Gehenna both rendered Hell?

 

One reason presented in one of his posts (JOJ) is that the translations were produced before the development of computer search engines that could identify redundant usage or discordant usage. But that reason provides no support for the lack of transparency or concordance in translations done in this century.

 

End users of any work product are more than qualified to comment of the problems they experience in trying to use the product. Feedback is a well know key to improvement. Some called expert posting on this board have asserted that end users, like myself, cannot comment on the work product because we are not qualified to produce the end product. That dog will not hunt.

Two Greek words, rhema and logos, are used primarily to refer to words, statements, what was said etc. In addition, John uses logos, translated Word, to refer to the second person of the trinity, i.e. the word became flesh.

Logos appears about 330 times in the NT, and rhema about 68 times. Often, they are translated in the same English words, i.e. word, words, etc.

This produces confusion when reading an English translation, because the underlying distinctive of one word over the other is lost in translation, and such blurring is unnecessary.

Rhema appears to me to primarily refer to what a person says, or what is said about a person, hence declare, declaration(s), remark(s), matter(s) seem to capture the basic meanings of Rhema.
Now, as John of Japan pointed out, sometimes a particular Greek construction, such as using the word in a particular grammatical way or in conjunction with another word or words, additional English words may be required.

My position is that most Greek words are translated into far too many English words unnecessarily. Rhema is translated into about 20 different English words, when six or so would seem to do the trick.

 

Why were two different places, Hades and Gehenna both rendered Hell, in modern translations?
Lets see if we get an answer or yet another deflection question...