Challenging traditional Translation choices.

[Van]

That 'translation' of yours is an awkward construction.

I prefer "They are double-minded, unstable in all their ways." (CEB)

Right, you do not believe in the historical/grammatical translation method.

 

[Salty]

You have been corrected multiple times for your inane error. But your stubbornness prevents you from acknowledging the truth.

RR - I do see your response as a bit strong - but I think it comes down to "We will have to agree to disagree"
And I suppose that Van sees you just as stubborn. He may just sees the truth from a different point of view.
And he may just be trying to correct you.

A word to the Wise is sufficient.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Right, you do not believe in the historical/grammatical translation method.

You're silly. All I said was your his/her construction is awkward.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

RR - I do see your response as a bit strong - but I think it comes down to "We will have to agree to disagree"
And I suppose that Van sees you just as stubborn. He may just sees the truth from a different point of view.
And he may just be trying to correct you.

A word to the Wise is sufficient.

I come down hard on those that go in for eisegesis.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Here I take issue with your poor grammar.
"Yet I am willing you be aware." Why can't you plainly say one of the following?
"I want you to be aware"
"I want you to know."
"I want you to understand."

Paul is making intentional distinctions in this passage. It's not "every person" but "every man." Verses 3 through 15 of this chapter set off men and women, or husbands and wives. To remove that differentiation disrupts the theme of what Paul is discussing, and hence, distorts the Word of God. Don't wrest the Scriptures Van.

The above is from my post #15.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Not only are you violating Greek grammar, but English grammar as well. I corrected you earlier, but you must have missed my advice. To be a genuine translator you must know the original language(s) and also know the receptor language. In this case, English is problematic for you.

Doesn't it make better grammatical sense to say "I want you to be aware." Or, "I wish that you were aware." Or, "I hope that you are aware." Or, "I want you to understand." Or, "I want you to realize." Or, "I want you to know."

There lots of standard English alternatives.

And of course, the word "person" is completely unacceptable for this verse as I pointed out earlier. Verses 3 to 12 are setting off distinctions between men and women. You have no right to twist Scripture for any reason.

The above is from my post number 30 which deals with 1 Cor. 11:3.

 

[Van]

You're silly. All I said was your his/her construction is awkward.

Note RR pretends he did not know his choice changed a word in the singular to a word in the plural, violating the grammar...

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Note RR pretends he did not know his choice changed a word in the singular to a word in the plural, violating the grammar...

With regard to your 'translations' they are in violation of every kind of biblical fidelity.

Since you are in favor of the singular form then you would have no issue with the NIV rendering of James 1:8
"Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do."

 

[Salty]

With regard to your 'translations' they are in violation of every kind of biblical fidelity. "

Would you care to explain?

 

[Van]

With regard to your 'translations' they are in violation of every kind of biblical fidelity.

Since you are in favor of the singular form then you would have no issue with the NIV rendering of James 1:8
"Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do."

Are you unaware "they do" is plural, whereas the Greek is singular?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Are you unaware "they do" is plural, whereas the Greek is singular?

It sounds like you are totally out of the loop. You sincerely don't know about the singular 'they' though you use it often. I will quote from a portion of the NIV preface.

"In recognition of this shift in language and in an effort to translate into the 'common' English that people are actually using, this revision of the NIV generally uses other constructions when the biblical text is plainly addressed to men and women equally. The reader will frequently encounter a 'they,' 'them' or 'their' to express a generic singular idea. Thus, for instance, Mark 8:36 reads: 'What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?' This generic use of the 'indefinite' or 'singular' 'they/them/their' has a venerable place in English idiom and has quickly become established as standard English, spoken and written, all over the world. Where an individual emphasis is deemed to be present, 'anyone' or 'everyone' or some other equivalent is generally used as the antecedent of such pronouns."

 

[Van]

It sounds like you are totally out of the loop. You sincerely don't know about the singular 'they' though you use it often. I will quote from a portion of the NIV preface.

"In recognition of this shift in language and in an effort to translate into the 'common' English that people are actually using, this revision of the NIV generally uses other constructions when the biblical text is plainly addressed to men and women equally. The reader will frequently encounter a 'they,' 'them' or 'their' to express a generic singular idea. Thus, for instance, Mark 8:36 reads: 'What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?' This generic use of the 'indefinite' or 'singular' 'they/them/their' has a venerable place in English idiom and has quickly become established as standard English, spoken and written, all over the world. Where an individual emphasis is deemed to be present, 'anyone' or 'everyone' or some other equivalent is generally used as the antecedent of such pronouns."

Surely you jest. The Greek word translated by the NIV (and about 7 others) as "their" is a singular pronoun. Thus to remove the unintended exclusivity of male gender from the verse while sticking with the Greek grammar, the following is a faithful rendering: "What good is it for a person to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his or her soul."

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Surely you jest. The Greek word translated by the NIV (and about 7 others) as "their" is a singular pronoun.

It can operate as a singular pronoun as 'they' and 'them' do as well.

Tell me specifically what you object to in that snippet from the NIV preface. Or do you agree with it? It's hard to tell because your language is confusing.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"What good is it for a person to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his or her soul."

No, as I have said before, the he/she and his/her construction is awkward. It is getting as obsolete as the dodo bird.
Here are some better alternatives to your rendering of Mark 8:36 :

Robert Mounce : "After all, what good would it be to gain the whole world if, in the bargain, you had to forfeit your own life?"
KNT : "After all, what use is it to win the world and lose your own life?"
NLT : "And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?"
NIV : "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?"

 

[Van]

It can operate as a singular pronoun as 'they' and 'them' do as well.

Tell me specifically what you object to in that snippet from the NIV preface. Or do you agree with it? It's hard to tell because your language is confusing.

My post was crystal. Translation of nouns into nouns, plurals into plurals, singulars into singulars, and so forth, rather than presenting a corrupted translation using "grammatical transformations."

 

[RipponRedeaux]

My post was crystal.

You mean you think it was as clear as crystal. Saying "My post was crystal" is as silly as saying "It was glass."

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Translation of nouns into nouns, plurals into plurals, singulars into singulars, and so forth, rather than presenting a corrupted translation using "grammatical transformations."

In the NET Bible notes it has a repeated refrain of something to the effect that the Greek translated directly would be awkward English. The Greek has to yield to the English. Martin Luther said the same thing about the Greek being subservient to the German language.

In Acts 8:27a it says "So he got up and went." The NET note says :
Grk "So getting up he went." The aorist participle (anastas) has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

D.A. Carson wrote an article called The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation. Here is a significant snippet:
"How often, for example, have I taken second-year Greek students aside and explained at length how rarely a Greek participle should be rendered by an English participle, how many of the Greek connectives must find no formal equivalent in a specific English word but survive in the flow of the English sentence, and so forth."

 

[agedman]

In the NET Bible notes it has a repeated refrain of something to the effect that the Greek translated directly would be awkward English. The Greek has to yield to the English. Martin Luther said the same thing about the Greek being subservient to the German language.

In Acts 8:27a it says "So he got up and went." The NET note says :
Grk "So getting up he went." The aorist participle (anastas) has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

D.A. Carson wrote an article called The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation. Here is a significant snippet:
"How often, for example, have I taken second-year Greek students aside and explained at length how rarely a Greek participle should be rendered by an English participle, how many of the Greek connectives must find no formal equivalent in a specific English word but survive in the flow of the English sentence, and so forth."

This is why translation work by amateurs and those such as myself who are no longer cognitively up to those more recently schooled, MUST seek the wisdom of and humbly submit to those more recently schooled in the languages.

I may push back at times, but will, when shown, dust off my shovel and dig deep to root out arrogance and not be jealous to contend out puffery.

I do not like the trend towards a gender neutral Bible translation. It just seems to place responsibility of the men being in the the very front lines of the warfare with the enemy of truth. If anything, in my opinion, men need to be the first to hold forth the word of truth. The men need to be acknowledging the Godliness of women, but also be stronger so as to be the example.

To me the gender neutral approach does not lift women, it allows the men to have an excuse for their own lack of standing in full armor hold forth the Word of God as the final authority.

 

[Jerome]

Oh look:

Van in 'Flaws of the KJV' thread: "When a person changes 'deeply flawed' to 'deep flaws' and then does not fess up, they are wrong."

And just today:

Van: "What are some of the 'other reasons' to admit a person with Covid but not 'for Covid?' A protocol? If someone says they have shortness of breath, many hospitals would..."

 

[Van]

You mean you think it was as clear as crystal. Saying "My post was crystal" is as silly as saying "It was glass."

On and on the naysayers are allowed to post off topic insults...