Featured Bill Mounce

Coffee.

 

I think it's already been stated that "word-for-word" doesn't mean that literally, which is a delicious irony in its own "rite."

 

Translatng ideas is nothing but commentary. Translating words escapes the commentary.

 

Not me

 

It has not been demonstrated that translating words always escapes the commentary since the very same words may have or require a different translation depending on the idea and meaning in the entire statement or context.

 

It doesn't excuse abandoning translating word fir word as much as possible. Its an excuse and i don't trust such an excuse

 

Jesus cited against the Devil, Deuteronomy 8:3, ". . . Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. . . ." -- Matthrew 4:4. And furthermore argued, ". . . Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." -- Matthew 5:18 which goes to the very spilling of the words.

 

Which, taken to its logical conclusion based on such literal interpretation, would mean we should be memorizing Scripture in the original languages and using it like incantations.

With regard to many languages, a translation of any length cannot be both literally word for word and correct. A bit of experience and common sense will tell you this. Just open up an interlinear and look.

 

So according to you translation is not logical or valid?

Often because of culture differneces original language words must be translated to words of the different culter too. And not every translator across culture words agree as to how meanings should be translated, such as Hebrew to Greek to English for us who speak English. Which does not work where a culture the language cannot support any excact word for word equivalents.

 

Not even transliterations of names? Sad.

 

There should always be an attempt to match up though a corresponding word for word whenever possible in a translation.

 

Would Luke 4:4 conflict with your understanding or interpretation of Matthew 4:4?

Every word from Deuteronomy 8:3 quoted by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 4:4 is not found in the quotation in Luke 4:4. Six individual words [“that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”] spoken by Jesus as found in Matthew 4:4 are not preserved and presented in Luke 4:4.

Is this fact a hint or indication that some people's understanding or interpretation of Matthew 4:4 could be incorrect? According to the understanding that Matthew 4:4 would require an every-word translation, could early readers of the gospel of Luke who did not have a copy of the gospel of Matthew have every word of God since Luke does not have six words quoted and stated by Jesus?

Would a just application of the "every word" interpretation of some concerning Matthew 4:4 suggest that the Holy Spirit was wrong to move Luke to omit six of the words stated by Jesus? Would a consistent application in effect suggest that Luke 4:4 casts doubt on part of what is stated in Matthew 4:4?

Was it OK to omit or delete words in Luke 4:4 as long as they are somewhere else? Would a consistent, just application of some people's claims and assertions concerning Matthew 4:4 in effect condemn Luke 4:4 for not including and preserving every word that Jesus stated? Does Luke 4:4 clearly demonstrate or prove that some people's interpretation of “every word” at Matthew 4:4 could be faulty or wrong?

 

Luke 4:4, "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
Matthew 4:4, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Deuteronomy 8:3, ". . . know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."

Neither Luke nor Matthew are faulty. Two different details of the one event.

Note the following:
Matthew 3:17, ". . . This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Mark 1:11, ". . . Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Luke 3:22, ". . . Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."
Luke gives in this instance what was actually said to Jesus.

The inerrant narratives give different details.

 

Yeah, you mean like James for Jacob?

 

Was it giving a direct word for word accounting of what he stated, or the "gist" of it?

 

Where it keeps the same sense, yes. But translators should not be slaves to a foreign form.

It has already been established here that "word-for-word" is not to be taken literally. Idioms are a prime example.

If you really need the closest thing possible to word-for-word translation, consult an interlinear.

 

What is (or are) it here? Did you understand his post?

 

No translation can BE Exactly word for word, but should strive to be whenever possible, as against taking a dynamic rendering always, as its a matter of what is the usual way seen to approach translation, more formal or more dynamic?