Featured Encrypted or Unencrypted

What possible difference can such nitpicking make? Who is it that cannot understand that Jesus was hungry after having not eaten for forty full days? What possible agenda driven effort could have produced "He was hungry" vs. "He hungered"? What conceivable agenda could even theoretically exist that would benefit from that difference?

You know what this feels like to me? This feels exactly like the sort of thing that lawyers do when reading the law. This feels very much like when the Pharisees refused to accept the money from Judas because it was unlawful to put blood money into the treasury. The fact that it had just come out of the treasury in order to pay it to Judas doesn't enter their thick skulls because they're more concerned about parsing out the exact wording of the law to see whether they are in compliance. Morality be damned, principle be damned, all that matters is that this word is here and that word is there.

In short, who cares whether the idea is expressed with a verb or an adjective? It's precisely the same exact idea!

Don't get me wrong, here. Having a methodology to follow when performing large details tasks such as translating the bible is completely necessary but there are the rules and then there's common sense, right? You've got to leave enough wiggle room in your methodology to allow for the application of at least a modicum of common sense and suggesting that "He hungered" is superior to "He was hungry" on the basis that one is a verb and the other an adjective, kicks common sense to the curb, to say the least.

 

See what I mean?!!!!

Read everything anyone says that isn't in perfect lockstep agreement with your position and the response is sarcasm and implied insult a derision. You intentionally lie about what I said and respond to your lie as if I actually said it!

Keep it up and see how many people find you a good source of biblical interpretation!

What a complete waste of time you are! Why would anyone give a damn about a word you say about anything? I know that I sure as Hell don't!

 

The article for which you provided a link is about the historical-grammatical method of interpretation! It says absolutely nothing about there even being an Historical-grammatical method of translation.

Matt. 4:2 καὶ νηστεύσας ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα καὶ νύκτας τεσσεράκοντα ὕστερον ἐπείνασεν.

This verse does NOT say, “he hungered more later”! It says, literally, “later he hungered.” That is, after Jesus had fasted, he experienced hunger. Hence,

Matt. 4:2. And he fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry. (RSV)

 

Apparently you are not even aware that the BDAG (that I cited in my post) is, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition published by the University of Chicago Press in 2000. This is the standard Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament that is used in colleges, seminaries, and universities around the world!

Moreover, whether the preposition ἀπό is translated as “from,” “since”, or “before” has no bearing on the interpretation of the verse—but some people cannot resist the temptation to scream, holler, and yell about nothing at all.

 

It can but whether it can or can't isn't the point. The point is that it doesn't in the example you've given. Are you able to give even one example where this is actually the case?

Again, do you have even one single example where this has happened?

Okay, granting, for the sake of argument, that your contention about this particular word is correct, what doctrine or religious practice has been altered, much less "turned into falsehood", by virtue of someone having "changed "apo's" meaning to before"?

Let me guess!

None at all! Right?

What doctrine or religious practice ever could even potentially be altered, never mind rendered false, by means of "changing "apo's" meaning to before"?

I can't think of any, can you?

 

Translation: "Umm, I got nothin'!"


LOL!!!

 

Why?

 

And you think that doesn't, hasn't or can't happen with other systems of translation?

There is doctrinal influence all over the place in every English bible you pick up.

 

Because they don't exist. There is no such thing. If someone wants to be doctrinally influenced then they're going to be so influenced. Indeed, I'd say that probably everyone would be so influenced whether they wanted to be or not, regardless of what method they used.

My point is that it isn't as straight forward and objective as you make it sound. Every single one of those parameters you just listed are all subject to someone's opinion and honest, well meaning people can have honest disagreements about any one or all of them, especially when discussing ambiguous, vague or otherwise less than perfectly clear passages.

Such linguistic analytics has its place but for the average person, it just isn't necessary. Even for most bible students, it isn't necessary. The "decrypting" of more difficult passages is most effectively performed by understanding and applying the clear passages to those that are less clear. The passages that exist where that cannot be done are truly few and far between if they exist at all. They certainly do not exist in such numbers as to significantly effect Christian doctrine or practice. Typically, such things are minor details that scholars have fun bantering about.