Encrypted or Unencrypted

[Van]

The Greek preposition ἀπό (apo) is used in the New Testament to express many different concepts—so many, in fact, that the BDAG devotes three entire pages of fine print to these various concepts. Furthermore, G. K. Beale, in his commentary on the Book of Revelation in the “New International Greek Testament Commentary” series comments on page 702 that the translation “before” in Rev. 13:8 is a “viable” translation and explains why it is. The translators of the RSV of 1971 were very knowledgeable men who carefully considered each and every word in the Greek New Testament paying very close attention to the context. Indeed, they translated the same preposition as “from” in a similar but different context (Rev. 17:8). I did not have the privilege of discussing these translation choices with them, but I am quite sure that they had very sound reasons for the choices that they made. Moreover, for people with who know less than the first three letters of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets to sit in judgment upon them is an act of audaciousness that could scarcely be more ridiculous.

LOL, the agenda driven mistranslation makes the RSV and ESV laughingstocks. You do not change the text to fit your doctrine, you change your doctrine to fit the text. "Apo" never means before. Take a look at your NRSV!!

 

[Van]

After rereading though portions of this thread, I wanted to reiterate, for the purposes clarity, that I have no problem with people offering their own interpretations of particular passages and comparing and contrasting that interpretation/translation with that of others, including various published translations.

The real point that I am making here with the objections that I've voiced is that private bible study, interpretations and translations done by laymen need to be taken as just that, and that such private interpretation and translation is not NECESSARY for the regular person to do in order for them to read, study and understand the bible. All of the most commonly used English translations of the bible and even most paraphrases are done well enough that the average pew sitting Christian can read them, understand them and apply them to their lives in a manner that comports with righteousness, justice, wisdom and love, which is the whole point of reading the bible in the first place.

We can read and study the bible but not engage in "private bible study." Got it So if I think the NET version of a verse is spot on and the NKJV misses the mark, my view is just that of a layman, and the expertise of the published version is to be ignored. Got it.

 

[CJP69]

1) Here is a link to the method: Historical-grammatical method - Wikipedia

2) The method includes an effort to minimize grammatical transformations where verbs, nouns adverbs and the like are recast as another type.

3) The number of examples where we cannot stick with the grammar is fall smaller the number of needless transformations to suit agenda driven efforts.

4) Lets look at your example of Matthew 4:2:

NKJV
And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry.
NASB
And after He had fasted for forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.
NET
After he fasted forty days and forty nights he was famished.
NRSV
He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. ​

Your example presented grammatical the transformation of hungered (verb) into hungry (adjective).
However, that recast is totally unnecessary, as "he hungered more later" presents the idea using the actual grammar.

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.

 

[CJP69]

We can read and study the bible but not engage in "private bible study." Got it So if I think the NET version of a verse is spot on and the NKJV misses the mark, my view is just that of a layman, and the expertise of the published version is to be ignored. Got it.

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!

 

[Van]

Changing the parts of speech can change the structure of the sentence altering the idea presented in the original text. In the same way, if the actual intended meaning as conveyed with one of the word's historical meanings is change, the intended meaning is changed into falsehood. Like changing "apo's" meaning to before, rather than its actual historical meaning of out from or since.

 

[Van]

When scripture uses words metaphorically, we sometimes see that those hearing the metaphor misunderstand and take the words literally. The question is when we are translating the metaphor, do we present the literal meaning, or to we present the metaphorical mean. Lets look at a few.

In Matthew 16:5-12 Jesus refers the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, speaking of their false teaching, rather than literal bread. Here both bread (meaning spiritual nourishment, the bread of life) and leaven (meaning the corruption of false teachers) are initially misconstrued by His disciples. Since the passage reveals the metaphor's intended meaning no footnote is needed.

In John 4:7 - 15, the women at the well thinks Jesus is talking about literal water rather than spiritual water with His use of "Living Water." But by John 4:29 His metaphorical message had sunk in, the blessing of the Christ. Later, John 7:38, scripture indicates "living water" refers to being indwelt with the Holy Spirit. I do not think the text should be changed to "I will give you spiritual life" but perhaps a footnote reference to John 7:38 should be added to the text.

 

[Craigbythesea]

1) Here is a link to the method: Historical-grammatical method - Wikipedia

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.

4) Lets look at your example of Matthew 4:2:

NKJV

And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry.

NASB

And after He had fasted for forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.

NET

After he fasted forty days and forty nights he was famished.

NRSV

He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished.


Your example presented grammatical the transformation of hungered (verb) into hungry (adjective).

However, that recast is totally unnecessary, as "he hungered more later" presents the idea using the actual grammar.


I would be remiss if I did not praise "Craigbythesea, for actually addressing the topic with candor.

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)

 

[Craigbythesea]

LOL, the agenda driven mistranslation makes the RSV and ESV laughingstocks. You do not change the text to fit your doctrine, you change your doctrine to fit the text. "Apo" never means before. Take a look at your NRSV!!

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.

 

[Van]

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)

I am sorry but translation requires interpretation. Here is part of the NASB blurb:

The attempt has been made to render the grammar and terminology in contemporary English. When it was felt that the word for word literalness was unacceptable to modern readers, a change was made in the direction of a more current English idiom. In the instances where this was done, the more literal rendering has been indicated in the footnotes.​

Next the text does not say "later he hungered." But you are spot on that "later describes the noun "he." My bad. "More later he hungered." The idea is he hungered more after the fast than during the fast.

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.

Yes, "apo" has been mistranslated, by folks changing the text to fit their doctrine, but that is not one of the actual meanings of the word.

 

[CJP69]

Changing the parts of speech can change the structure of the sentence altering the idea presented in the original text.

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?

In the same way, if the actual intended meaning as conveyed with one of the word's historical meanings is change, the intended meaning is changed into falsehood.

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

Like changing "apo's" meaning to before, rather than its actual historical meaning of out from or since.

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?

 

[Van]

It can but whether it can or can't isn't the point.
SNIP
I can't think of any, can you?

Yet another taint so post, denying the obvious.
I have provided many examples from published translations where the meaning is needless obscured by ambiguous, vague, or double meaning words.

 

[CJP69]

Yet another taint so post, denying the obvious.
I have provided many examples from published translations where the meaning is needless obscured by ambiguous, vague, or double meaning words.

Translation: "Umm, I got nothin'!"


LOL!!!

 

[Van]

Saying something means nothing does not make the something nothing.

Formal equivalence tried to present the structure of the source language grammar minimizing needless grammatical transformations, such as changing nouns into verb. Translations of this type are best for use as study bibles.

 

[CJP69]

Saying something means nothing does not make the something nothing.

Formal equivalence tried to present the structure of the source language grammar minimizing needless grammatical transformations, such as changing nouns into verb. Translations of this type are best for use as study bibles.

Why?

 

[Van]

Why?

Often times more dynamic equivalence versions recast the text into a mistaken message, because it conforms with their doctrinal view.

 

[CJP69]

Often times more dynamic equivalence versions recast the text into a mistaken message, because it conforms with their doctrinal view.

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.

 

[Van]

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.

Why not start with the ones minimizing doctrinal influence?

In order to best discern the intended message, study of the historical word meanings, combined with the contextual usage in the verse or passage under study, and in accordance with grammatical structure used by the inspired writers is the approach being advocated. This allows to some degree the Bible student to decrypt ambiguous, vague and double meanings needlessly contained in our translations.

See posts #15 and #16 for examples using this method of study.

 

[CJP69]

Why not start with the ones minimizing doctrinal influence?

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.

In order to best discern the intended message, study of the historical word meanings, combined with the contextual usage in the verse or passage under study, and in accordance with grammatical structure used by the inspired writers is the approach being advocated. This allows to some degree the Bible student to decrypt ambiguous, vague and double meanings needlessly contained in our translations.

See posts #15 and #16 for examples using this method of study.

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.

 

[Van]

Because they don't exist. SNIP

Here this poster claims that Formal Equivalence translations are not best for study. Not the mainstream view.

The this poster suggests bible study using study tools such as an Exhaustive Concordance, Lexicon and Reverse Interlinear are unnecessary because ambiguous, vague and double meanings do not significant contribute to false teachings.

As if nobody claims "adoption" means to become a child of God, or no one claims foreknowledge refers to knowing the future. Not to mention claiming "Master" does not refer to Christ, and bought does not mean Christ died for all. I kid you not

 

[Van]

In order to best discern the intended message, study of the historical word meanings, combined with the contextual usage in the verse or passage under study, and in accordance with grammatical structure used by the inspired writers is the approach being advocated. This allows to some degree the Bible student to decrypt ambiguous, vague and double meanings needlessly contained in our translations.

See posts #15 and #16 for examples using this method of study.

Formal equivalence tries to present the structure of the source language grammar minimizing needless grammatical transformations, such as changing nouns into verb. Translations of this type are best for use as study bibles.