1 Corinthians 7:1

They both have the same meaning IMO.

 

Here are for your consideration, from several good translations. The word translated ”to touch” is # 680 according to Strong’s numbering system.

1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
(VW-Bible)

1 But concerning what you wrote to me, (it is) good for a man not to touch a woman;
(LITV)

1 Now concerning what you wrote to me: (It is) good for a man not to touch a woman.
(MKJV)

And concerning the things of which ye wrote to me: good <it is> for a
man not to touch a woman,
(YLT)

7:1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: (It is) good for a man not to touch a woman. (KJV)

7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. (NASB)

7:1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
(ASV)

7:1 But concerning the things of which ye have written (to me): (It is) good for a man not to touch a woman; (Darby Translation)

Harald

 

The question is, What exactly was the nature of the problem?

Some evidently believed that they would be more godly by abstaining from any sexual contact, even in marriage. Thus, "what they wrote about" was their belief that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

I am inclined to this view because of the context.

Howevewr, "it is good not to marry" could also be in view since Paul proclaims it good for a man to have a wife to avoid fornication.

Probably the major emphasis of the question was on sexual relations whether in marriage, or getting married and having sexual relations. The teaching could have been that one should not marry and that if one was married they should abstain from sexual relationships.

 

Jamal, you are correct, the version in question does not translate the verse so much as interprets the verse. I personally think that makes it a poor version in this instance.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 1 Cor. 7:1 (ESV)
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is a much better translation than the NIV here, given the meaning of the word "touch" in NT times as a euphemism referring to sexual contact.

 

The Greek word απτεσθαι means "touch." To say it means "sexual relations" is an interpretation, not a translation.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The Greek word απτεσθαι means "touch." To say it means "sexual relations" is an interpretation, not a translation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But we must remember the other side of the equation. In context, the "touching" is clearly sexual in nature. It therefore means a "sexual relationship."

The ESV seems to have a good rendering of it as Tom has given it. The NASB, NKJV, and NRSV all say "touch." I do not prefer the NIV's translation.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jamal5000:
Can you suggest to me another modern translation that can be considered an exceptional version? The ESV or the NASB maybe?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My version of choice is the KJV but I also realize that may be unsuitable for some. I suggest you look at the 3rd Millenium Bible or the KJV21, or even the NKJV. All are solidly based on the overwhelming majority of Greek MSS evidence and are fairly good translations.

 

posted January 02, 2002 12:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jamal5000:
Can you suggest to me another modern translation that can be considered an exceptional version? The ESV or the NASB maybe?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I use the NAS and sometimes refer back to the KJV on occasions. One of the funniest things is that for a while i went to a church that the KJV was preached from and every single sunday after the Pastor read a certain verse he would have to say what this or that meant and what he said was always what the NAS already had

My wife use to use the NIV (non inspired version) she hates it when I call it that.
Remember that there are different Translation methods. Some try to translate for us exactly what the Greek said, others interrupt what it says.

scott

 

Jamal,
I highly recommend either the ESV or NASB. You would be wise to own both. Choose one as your primary translation.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The Greek word απτεσθαι means "touch." To say it means "sexual relations" is an interpretation, not a translation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree with this.

If culturally and contextually it seems likely that απτεσθαι is referring to sexual relations, that should be noted [for completeness] but the word itself should be translated as "touch" IMHO.

Searcher.

 

how wld one translate the following into whatever language:

"o man, that kills me."

"perish the thought!"

"he's dogged by the same problem."

"this happened:"

it wld appear to me that we shd communicate the MEANING to the target language using the most semantically equivalent n natural-sounding wording in that language.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Searcher:
[QB]
If culturally and contextually it seems likely that απτεσθαι is referring to sexual relations, that should be noted [for completeness] but the word itself should be translated as "touch" IMHO.

[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Good thoughts, FSIH. I gave some similar examples of when I was in Brazil learning the language and trying a word for word translation. I got some strange looks because I should have been using a dynamic translation.

Everyone who deals in modern language "gets it." They understand the issues involved. I think many times it becomes a oversimplified in Bible translation. Where a formal translation works, I think we should use it. But the goal of translation is communication and we must realize that dynamic translation is absolutely necessary for clear communication.

 

on "dynamic translation is absolutely necessary for clear communication," AAAAAAAmen to that, my brother! it's time to stop that "literal as possible, dynamic as necessary" nonsense, which is self-defeating fr the outset.

cld we have some of the examples of ur Brazil experience?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
how wld one translate the following into whatever language:

"o man, that kills me."

"perish the thought!"

"he's dogged by the same problem."

"this happened:"

it wld appear to me that we shd communicate the MEANING to the target language using the most semantically equivalent n natural-sounding wording in that language.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depending on one's take we could translate these quotes in one of two styles:

EG:

"o man that kills me"

Translation 1: "O man[1] that kills[2] me"
Marginal Notes:
[1] interjection: commonly used for emphasis
[2] transitive and intransitive verb: possible slang phrase: to have an overpowering effect on somebody, for example, causing extreme admiration, helpless laughter, or utter amazement.

Translation 2: "Wow! That is funny!"

The problem in translation 2 is that it is an interpretation of what was meant, and not a translation of what was said. Such interpretation is open to bias and error.

That is why there are no perfect translations. Everyone draws the line in a different place, and then they argue amongst themselves that everyone else's line is wrong.

So we go back to Koine so we can rise above this nonsense. Or can we? Which texts do we use? The oldest? The most popular? Which is the oldest? Exegetical issues? Suddenly we are drawing lines again, but this time in a fancier assembly of nay-sayers.

How much interpretation an individual wants with their scripture is a matter of preference.

Some are only interested in knowing Jesus, and they do not care for the details. These people are content with an easy to read translation - so long as it is sound in all the major doctrine. Their relationship is primarily with Christ and not a bible version. Regardless of what we think of their translation, it is more scripture than the average first millennium Christian would see in their lifetime.

On the other end are those who wring the word like a sponge; squeezing ever more and more from it. While they do not agree on which texts are original, they do agree that scripture is God's word, and as such we make a grave error when we make a translation that changes the meaning of a word or phrase, even when that word or phrase is idiomatic, or has a better equivalent phrase. They do not regard the word as a cookbook, where you can change the text as long as it makes the same cake in the end. They believe that scripture is inspired, but interpretation is not.

So in answer, I would translate those phrases using method 2. Whatever idiom, or equivalent meaning is lost in my literal translation I would add in a marginal note. I admire a translator that lets me chew my own food.

I don’t think that any contrary opinion is wrong. I recognize that my opinion is flavored by my bias. My concern is that I never get so caught up in the minutia that I miss the big picture. Knowing a truth intimately means very little if I am not practicing it.

Searcher.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Searcher ]

 

Searcher:
Translation 1: "O man[1] that kills[2] me"
Marginal Notes:
[1] interjection: commonly used for emphasis
[2] transitive and intransitive verb: possible slang phrase: to have an overpowering effect on somebody, for example, causing extreme admiration, helpless laughter, or utter amazement.

&gt;&gt; sorry that warn't no translation. as i understand it, most definitions of translation involve communicating across different languages. perhaps u can try it in French or Urdu, but my attempt in Hokkien wld go: "Chio kau peng!" (crudely glossed: "[u made me] laugh till flipped!"

mere annotation doth not a translation make!

Searcher: Translation 2: "Wow! That is funny!"

&gt;&gt; that's better, esp. if u'd done it in another language.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:cld we have some of the examples of ur Brazil experience?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Most notably when I tried to ask someone their age by literally translating "How old are you?" I got the strangest look. The missionary I was with smiled and rephrased the question with amazing results. When I asked what he said he told me the following (literally translated into English): How many years do you have?

A literal translation communicated nothing. A dynamic translation communicated very clearly.