Featured Bill Mounce

Exactly. I had always thought you rather mild, until they demoted you to moderate. Now I don’t know what to think. But no doubt Biden will tell me… as soon as they tell him.

Come to think of it, perhaps he meant you used "a useful idiot.” Hey, I just did… in a sentence. How profound.

 

Yeah, they're certainly making good use of him. And get rid of him, then we're stuck with Kamala and God knows whom.

 

Word on the street is that several are bailing out on Kamala, and she may have gone slightly quieter for the moment. But her horrid cackle yet echoes.

Next election? Hmmm. We'll see, if God so allows. Or should that be, we'll see if God so allows?

 

Hah! Take that!

 

Yes. (I have translator friends who believe them necessary, though.) I insisted that we not use them in our Japanese NT. To me they simply confuse things. Many times in the KJV the italics are there in spite of the fact that the verb is inherent in the original text. Mounce is right about this. He mentions the predicate noun, but Greek also has a predicate adjective form with the verb "is" being understood by the form. This is taught in the first semester of Greek 101.

Furthermore, outside of the Bible, no one uses italics in that way. The Japanese certainly don't. Italics in Japanese indicates emphasis and nothing else, just like in English.

That's not exactly what Bill wrote. He even pointed out the necessity of studying just one word to understand the passage: "herb" in the KJV.

I strongly disagree with his comments on "word for word" translation. He actually says at the end of his essay, "Faithful translation is one that faithfully conveys the meaning of the original into the target language, not its form." That is in spite of the fact that earlier in the essay he had talked about the importance of a grammatical form, the predicate noun.

If grammatical forms have nothing to do with meaning, then we should ignore verbal aspect (tenses), the Greek cases, sentence order (which can indicate emphasis), and many other grammatical forms. I don't think Bill thought that one through.

 

Concerning italics in the KJV....
Changes in the King James version

§ 1. ITALICIZED WORDS OR PHRASES
The King James version was originally printed in the type style known as "black letter," which has the following appearance:



Words of the translation which were supplied to make the sense clear, but which were not represented in the Greek text used by the translators, were often set in small "roman" type:



In later editions, the ordinary text was set in roman type, with the supplied words in italics:

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled.

This typographical feature was not employed very consistently in the 1611 edition; in many places the supplied words are not indicated as one might expect. This inconsistency was probably the fault of the printer's compositors, who very often modified even the spelling of words in order to lengthen or shorten a line of type.

The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original: In Matthew, the 1611 edition uses roman type 69 times, whereas the more exact 1769 edition uses italics 384 times. The reader should be aware of the fact that the King James version is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Estienne 1550; and so in some cases the modern italics are misleading if used as an indication of the readings upon which the version is based. For example, in Mark 8:14 the modern editions italicize the words the disciples because they are not in Estienne, but it is evident that here the King James translators were following, as usual, the text of Beza 1598, where the words hoi mathetai are found. The following is a complete list of such cases.

Abbreviations:
S - Stephens 1550
B - Beza 1598
E - Elzevir 1624
C - Complutensian Polyglot 1522
Er - Erasmus 1527
Vul - Clementine Vulgate 1592
Tyn - Tyndale 1535
Gen - Genevan Bible 1560
Bish - Bishops Bible 1568


Mark 8:14 Modern editions italicize the disciples, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Mark 9:42 Modern editions italicize these, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C Vul.
John 8:6 Modern editions italicize as though he heard them not at end of verse, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C S1546 S1549 and the Bishops' Bible.
Acts 1:4 Modern editions italicize them after assembled together with, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Acts 26:3 Modern editions italicize because I know, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Acts 26:18 Modern editions italicize and before to turn, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
1 Cor 14:10 Modern editions print the words of them in ordinary type, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 had them in italics, in accordance with Vul.
Heb 12:24 Modern editions italicize that of before Abel, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon Er.
1 John 3:16 Modern editions italicize of God after love, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C B.
Rev 11:14 Modern editions italicize and before behold, in accordance with S. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B Vul.
Rev 19:18 Modern editions italicize both before free, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C.


Changes in the King James version

 

My Post: “And what of emphasizing studying only one word in a passage to get its meaning?”

??? The rest of your post seemed quite useful, but that part seems rather lost.

“1-2-3…” “CONTEXT!” “…4-5-6…” “CONTENT!” Just what exactly do you think I wrote? And how does it compare to your post? And how do the two compare to what Bill wrote?

The point was to give you an opportunity to comment on Bill’s approach here. If you wish to comment on my observations on it, you should at least go back in the thread and look for them. “…7-8-9-10…” “Confound it!”

 

You wanted me to interact and I did so.

I answered directly what you wrote.

I didn't intend to comment on your observations, but only on Bill Mounce's.

 

I still do not see how the Niv is as good as a translation as a more formal one such as Nas or Nkjv though!

 

Yes, translations that use italics to show additions to provide clarity in English differ and do not italicize the same words. For example in Philippians 2:11, both the NASB and NKJV add "that" (and that every tongue) but "is" is not italicized in the NASB version.

The attack on accuracy in presenting the inspired text here is based on finding mistakes in the effort to provide accuracy.

Is "that" needed for clarity? Nope, and every tongue.. makes the idea clear. So we have a verse where both the NKJV and the NASB erred in the use of italics (one more than the other) to attack the effort. However, why not use James 2:5 as an example. Here "to be" has been added by the NKJV and NASB and put in italics so the reader knows that addition actually alters the message from the chosen being rich in faith to not being rich in faith. But the poor mislead and misinformed reader of Mounce is without a clue, and therefore led into the belief of false doctrine.

 

Oh, boy. Here we go again. "And loving it."

Not at all what I said, but of course I do. You hadn’t yet commented on the OP, but seemed to want to “get back to [it].”

You responded to it but answered nothing, including this time. You could explain why you think you did answer it though, by answering my previous post, including why you think my question was supposedly misrepresenting Bill.

You did mention Bill’s but how did you comment on them? Are you agreeing with him that focusing on just the one word will explain the passage? Are you agreeing with him that people don’t “eat” herbs? Try explaining that. What’s the Greek, er, Hebrew, er, Mounce word, there? Beyond “fun with pet peeves,” just how much does any of it really matter?

But just to add fuel to the fire... As an example, I consider his advice to focus on the one word rather than all of the involved words fundamentally flawed, unscholarly, downright wrongheaded—obviously so—and just the sort of thing that leads to all manner of error.

 

True but irrelevant, unless your purpose on this thread is only to criticize me. If so, I can give you a bunch of things to criticize.

I feel I answered what I wanted to. You can't force me to answer anything I don't want to answer.

And I certainly don't remember thinking your question was misrepresenting Bill. What did I say to make you think that?

1. I entered the thread commenting on the term "idiom," as I recall. Then you and others chimed in. Fine. That's how the BB works.

2. I do not agree that focusing on just one word will explain the passage. But then, Bill did not say that. Go back and read the essay. Okay, now I'm saying that you do not understand Mounce.

3. Absolutely everything about the Word of God matters. I believe in verbal-plenary inspiration. Every single word matters. So whether or not to translate the original word as this or that is extremely important to a Bible translator--which he and I are, though he is far more famous and expert.

When I translate, I do just what he did. When I come across a difficult word, it must be researched. Otherwise, wrong renderings will occur. When I translate Genesis and other OT books, I will research the Hebrew word translated "herb" (‛eśeb
עֶשֶׂב), and find the optimal equivalent in Japanese for each usage.

Just out of curiosity, do you read Greek or Hebrew?

 

Still "and loving it." Of course no one can force you to answer something. You can plead the 5th. But answer you did not.

We agree on tons of stuff, but that response sounds suspiciously biased, as if Mounce has credentials so that he cannot be questioned. I wouldn't want to align myself with his indefensible article, thus am surprised by your attempted defense of it. While you may rightly "rip Riplinger," I must "denounce Mounce" regarding that article, not his credentials.

It gives the impression that he doesn't know English very well, or when Hebrew is the original language rather than Greek. His article is sloppy and off base. The clue? Already quoted and mentioned in my earlier post. But here is that post again:

For those who actually know English, his statement claiming we "don't eat herbs" is obvious nonsense. His analysis of the one word he is aiming for may be just fine. His reasoning for focusing on it is as bogus as a three-dollar bill.

Bill, go learn what this means: "eat." There are free online dictionaries to help, but throw away the one you were using, or learn to use it correctly.

 

Um, no, I did not "plead the 5th."

 

LOL. No one said you did. But maybe you should.