21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

[Yeshua1]

So there Jay Green sat with his first year Greek knowledge, typesetting his interlinear NT, which he did himself rather than hiring someone (all for the glory!). On one side he had the NKJV, and on the other side the NASV, choosing whichever rendering he wanted for the interlinear. This created a mess: words not in the TR, etc. If he didn't see what he wanted, he would simply substitute a synonym.

So basically, was not really done in a fashion that would produce a useful scholarly tool....

 

[Yeshua1]

Using the best English word or phrase to convey the Greek word/phrase meaning, contextually considered, is not silly.

Think the point is that there is a wider latitude to there being more than just one valid rendering than you seem to give acceptance to being!

 

[John of Japan]

So basically, was not really done in a fashion that would produce a useful scholarly tool....

Correctamundo.

 

[Yeshua1]

Correctamundo.

His story on his translation and tools highlight to us that much better to see a team do such work, normally, as there would be checks and balances to the finished result...

 

[rsr]

Almost choked on that one.

There are separate words in Japanese for wind (風, kaze) and spirit (霊, rei). The "Holy Spirit" has His own word, 聖霊 (Seirei, "Holy Spirit"). And none of these words have Shinto connotations.

Duh. I knew that. I just didn't know it at the time ... Thanks for the information.

 

[Van]

Think the point is that there is a wider latitude to there being more than just one valid rendering than you seem to give acceptance to being!

I do not advocate for less than the best translation choice. If the inspired word means children, to choose "friends" is a betrayal of truth.

 

[John of Japan]

Almost choked on that one.


Duh. I knew that. I just didn't know it at the time ... Thanks for the information.

Always happy to help.

 

[John of Japan]

This is one of Green's peculiarities; he insisted that every English version (with one exception) had mistranslated the verse for centuries. He produced support for his view, but it seems a little thin to me. But what do I know? (Please, that's a rhetorical question; no response is required.)

This kind of thing is exactly why I get frustrated at the wannabe translators, people like Jay Green or some I could name on the BB. To accept Green's rendering we have to believe that (1) the Holy Spirit is making audible noises; (2) lost people hear those noises; (3) the Holy Spirit does physical actions such as blowing or breathing, the meanings of the Greek verb pneo.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not advocate for less than the best translation choice. If the inspired word means children, to choose "friends" is a betrayal of truth.

There are times though when there are more than one acceptable way to translate the Greek over into English, correct? Such as if one chooses to take the idioms straight over, or try to give it an english sense!

 

[John of Japan]

Speaking of wannabe translators, I once had a call from an American businessman living in Yokosuka, Japan, offering to help with our translation.

Me: Do you know Japanese?
Him: No.
Me. Do you know Greek?
Him: No.
Me: Well, if you want to contribute financially, please send the check to my mission board.
Him: I don't believe in mission boards.

Then he was offended because we couldn't use him.

 

[rlvaughn]

The 1994 21st Century King James Version was published and copyrighted by 21st Century King James Bible Publishers, a division of Deuel Enterprises of Gary, South Dakota. The president of this publisher was William D. Prindle.

Looked around to see if I could find anything on William D. Prindle, but didn't find much. If Find-A-Grave is correct, he is Major William Day "Bill" Prindle, Jr. He has two books on Amazon, this Bible and Bible Word Comparison.

 

[Van]

There are times though when there are more than one acceptable way to translate the Greek over into English, correct? Such as if one chooses to take the idioms straight over, or try to give it an english sense!

Why do you argue for error, mistranslation, and agenda driven eisegesis? Of course more than one English word or phrase can translate the same meaning intended by the source language word. That obviously is not the issue, it is beside the issue.

As far as idioms, where the intended meaning is not conveyed by the literal meaning of the idioms words, why not provide a literal translation and then footnote it with the idiomatic meaning or possible meanings? Rewriting the text to alter the message is not sound translation methodology.

 

[John of Japan]

As far as idioms, where the intended meaning is not conveyed by the literal meaning of the idioms words, why not provide a literal translation and then footnote it with the idiomatic meaning or possible meanings?

Why not? Because to do so would be ridiculous.

Rewriting the text to alter the message is not sound translation methodology.

What do you base this statement on? (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Your knowledge of Greek and/or Hebrew? You have none.Y our experience in translating? You have none. Your training in translation? You have none. Your training in any foreign language whatsoever? You have none. Am I not right?

In the light of the above, for you to make authoritative-sounding statements such as this is for you to be a pure wannabe, no more and no less.

Translating an idiom with an equivalent idiom or even with a non-idiom in such cases is sound translation methodology. Footnoting an incomprehensible foreign idiom is total confusion. And no, to translate an idiom with an equivalent idiom is to preserve the meaning, not to lose the "intended meaning."

 

[Van]

JOJ, you have the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to question my qualifications. You know nothing of the priesthood of believers. My view, footnote idioms, is shared by many versions that do just that, such as the NET. [personal attack removed]

I have every bit as much right to my opinions on how to best translate scripture as you do. And my views are supported by many published translators and commentators. The concept that man-made credentials allows you to to disqualify others is not biblical, it is not treating others as more important than ourselves. Jesus had no use for lip service Christians.

You post as if each and every idiom is scripture was identified and its intended meaning was known. Pure hogwash. We have various English translations translating idioms differently. You view is ridiculous, absurd and nonsensical.

10:15 Break the arm44 of the wicked and evil man!
Hold him accountable for his wicked deeds,
which he thought you would not discover.

Footnote 44: The arm symbolizes the strength of the wicked, which they use to oppress and exploit the weak.

Dr. Wallace agrees with me, in at least some cases!!!

 

[Yeshua1]

JOJ, you have the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to question my qualifications. You know nothing of the priesthood of believers. My view, footnote idioms, is shared by many versions that do just that, such as the NET. I am sick and tired of your pushy bully behavior, like some sort of dictatorial elitist.

I have every bit as much right to my opinions on how to best translate scripture as you do. And my views are supported by many published translators and commentators. The concept that man-made credentials allows you to to disqualify others is not biblical, it is not treating others as more important than ourselves. Jesus had no use for lip service Christians.

You post as if each and every idiom is scripture was identified and its intended meaning was known. Pure hogwash. We have various English translations translating idioms differently. You view is ridiculous, absurd and nonsensical.



Dr. Wallace agrees with me, in at least some cases!!!

Think that John was just stating that you do make some big time statements without having the direct qualifications to make them though!

 

[annsni]

You know nothing of the priesthood of believers.

What supports this statement? Does the priesthood of believers means that you know languages and can translate them into other languages? I don't think so.

My view, footnote idioms, is shared by many versions that do just that, such as the NET.

That's really not a wise way to communicate the truth of what someone is saying in one language to the other. How do you say "my sweetie" to someone in France? You would call them "my little cabbage". Would it make sense if you were translating from French to English that you would put in "my little cabbage" and then footnote what it truly means? How cumbersome!

I have every bit as much right to my opinions on how to best translate scripture as you do. And my views are supported by many published translators and commentators. The concept that man-made credentials allows you to to disqualify others is not biblical, it is not treating others as more important than ourselves. Jesus had no use for lip service Christians.

Yes, you have as much of a right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. However, just because you think you have "equal" voice to a scholar doesn't mean that you have the same wisdom on the subject. "Man made credentials" shows that he IS qualified to judge whether someone was making right or wrong translational decisions. Does one need to allow false information to continue in order to make them more important than ourselves? I hope your doctor bows to your medical wisdom over his own "man made credentials" and doesn't make you less important. I'm guessing he doesn't though because he actually knows more than you do in reality.

 

[annsni]

Kind of off topic, but Genesis 36:24 in The Living Torah at ORT.org has an interesting addition in brackets:

That is interesting. Do they mean that he figured out how to breed to create mules (female horse, male donkey) or that he figured out how to breed two mules (which is unlikely since the vast majority of mules are sterile).

 

[Yeshua1]

What supports this statement? Does the priesthood of believers means that you know languages and can translate them into other languages? I don't think so.



That's really not a wise way to communicate the truth of what someone is saying in one language to the other. How do you say "my sweetie" to someone in France? You would call them "my little cabbage". Would it make sense if you were translating from French to English that you would put in "my little cabbage" and then footnote what it truly means? How cumbersome!



Yes, you have as much of a right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. However, just because you think you have "equal" voice to a scholar doesn't mean that you have the same wisdom on the subject. "Man made credentials" shows that he IS qualified to judge whether someone was making right or wrong translational decisions. Does one need to allow false information to continue in order to make them more important than ourselves? I hope your doctor bows to your medical wisdom over his own "man made credentials" and doesn't make you less important. I'm guessing he doesn't though because he actually knows more than you do in reality.

 

[Yeshua1]

The people who have training and gabe actually translated the word of God need to be seen as being more than us lay people in this area, as we cannot really argue for and against that well....

 

[TCassidy]

Translating an idiom with an equivalent idiom or even with a non-idiom in such cases is sound translation methodology.

And all competent translators agree:

Sometimes a faithful translation "requires" an idiomatic translation to maintain semantic integrity: Example: The literal Hebrew expression “that which was in my autumn days” but contrary to English connotation, this Hebrew metaphor refers to the time of greatest fruitfulness.
What is the difference among free translation, semantic translation ...
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-among-free-translation-semantic-translati...