For benefit or reason

[Van]

Endless drivel, pointless posts, except perhaps to add pages to hasten closure.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Endless drivel, pointless posts, except perhaps to add pages to hasten closure.

Now, now Van. Stop your sniveling.

I've just been laying out objective facts. Citing the wording of 14 versions for all your references is a worthwhile endeavor. It gives the viewing audience --including you -- a good, up close idea of how these multiple translations render things. Of course, most of the time these versions do not conform to your dictates. That's not surprising. Authentic translators follow sound principles.

 

[Van]

Now, now Van. Stop your sniveling.

I've just been laying out objective facts. Citing the wording of 14 versions for all your references is a worthwhile endeavor. It gives the viewing audience --including you -- a good, up close idea of how these multiple translations render things. Of course, most of the time these versions do not conform to your dictates. That's not surprising. Authentic translators follow sound principles.

Did this effort address that "sake" is ambiguous and could mean "because of" or "for the benefit of?" Nope
Did RR address the issue of translating at least 6 different Greek words as if they were the same word?
All RR did was cite various versions with the same ambiguous and thus flawed choices. As if a flawed choice was justified because several chose the flawed choice. Endless drivel, pointless posts, except perhaps to add pages to hasten closure.

Why do you suppose so many translations chose the ambiguous choice, rather than the one with clarity? Why translate "Heneka" as "for the sake of" when "because of" makes clear what the intended meaning was? Were they copying from a prior translation because they did not know the actual meaning of "heneka?" Or were they afraid of deviating from the accepted traditional way of translating the verse? Or were they motivated by the fear they might be charged with a "quirky." "odd" or "unconventional" translation?

Should we just read "because of" every time we seek "sake" in the text? Nope. We can read "because of" every time "dia" or "heneka" is translated using sake, but what about the remaining words on the list:

Of the four remaining, only G5228 "hyper" might be translated using "sake" but since "for the benefit of" accurately presents one of the word's meanings, there seems to be no need to use "sake!"

 

[RipponRedeaux]

All RR did was cite various versions with the same ambiguous and thus flawed choices. As if a flawed choice was justified because several chose the flawed choice.

For goodness sake Van, not just the majority, but the overwhelming majority of translations do not have your particular slant on things. You snip have the temerity to insist that trained Bible scholars who genuinely know how to translate are in grave error. You have insisted for ages on the BB that there are "deeply flawed" words and phrases in various translations. You have even called entire Bible translations "deeply flawed." But you don't have enough insight and discernment to see that your energy is wasted. It's futile. Your ego is outsized and needs to be reeled in. True Bible translators differ from you in many ways. For your sake I hope you can see this ASAP.

 

[Van]

Why do you suppose so many translations chose the ambiguous choice, rather than the one with clarity? Why translate "Heneka" as "for the sake of" when "because of" makes clear what the intended meaning was? Were they copying from a prior translation because they did not know the actual meaning of "heneka?" Or were they afraid of deviating from the accepted traditional way of translating the verse? Or were they motivated by the fear they might be charged with a "quirky." "odd" or "unconventional" translation?

Should we just read "because of" every time we seek "sake" in the text? Nope. We can read "because of" every time "dia" or "heneka" is translated using sake, but what about the remaining words on the list:

Of the four remaining, only G5228 "hyper" might be translated using "sake" but since "for the benefit of" accurately presents one of the word's meanings, there seems to be no need to use "sake!"

 

[George Antonios]

Here is the NASB95 translation of Matthew 15:3: "And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"

Do folks transgress the commands of God to benefit their tradition or do they transgress the commands of God in order to follow their tradition's doctrines. YLT has "because of your tradition?"

The English word "sake" can mean "for the benefit of" or "for the purpose of."

The Greek word translated "for the sake of" is "dia" and here is used to show instrumentality, i.e. "because of." The idea does not seem to advocate violating God's commands for the supposed benefit of false doctrine. No, the idea is we should not violate God's commands because some man-made doctrine renders God's command to no effect.

Bottom line, when translations render "dia" as "for the sake of" they create ambiguity, whereas going with "because of" provides clarity.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

 

[Van]

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Yes, translating "dia" when used to show instrumentality by using "by" is much better than sake.

 

[Van]

For goodness sake Van, not just the majority, but the overwhelming majority of translations do not have your particular slant on things. You snip have the temerity to insist that trained Bible scholars who genuinely know how to translate are in grave error. You have insisted for ages on the BB that there are "deeply flawed" words and phrases in various translations. You have even called entire Bible translations "deeply flawed." But you don't have enough insight and discernment to see that your energy is wasted. It's futile. Your ego is outsized and needs to be reeled in. True Bible translators differ from you in many ways. For your sake I hope you can see this ASAP.

Did I say the use of "sake" is a grave error? Nope - so RR misrepresents truth.
Is using a word that means two or more things, one correct and one or more incorrect a flawed translation? Yes if words or phrases are available to present the one correct meaning are available.
Yes the NIV is deeply flawed, and I have listed more than 50 examples in the NT alone.
Yes, any effort to enlighten you is wasted energy, and such effort if futile. This thread was an effort to enlighten others.
Only the infantile mind of a naysayer would claim to have the measure of my "ego." The mind reader strikes again!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Thus the NIV translation of Matthew 15:3, Matthew 15:6, Matthew 19:12 and Matthew 24:22 is deeply flawed.

Van, in his last post, is refuted by his own words above.

Van needs to look up the meaning of the words "deeply" and "flawed." Then he needs to understand the significance of the phrase "deeply flawed."

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Yes the NIV is deeply flawed, and I have listed more than 50 examples in the NT alone.

Over the years I have debunked your juvenile false claims regarding that issue.

 

[Van]

Van, in his last post, is refuted by his own words above.

Van needs to look up the meaning of the words "deeply" and "flawed." Then he needs to understand the significance of the phrase "deeply flawed."

Note to Readers, when someone claims to dictate "how" things should be said, the person is trying to avoid the substance of what was said.

 

[Van]

Over the years I have debunked your juvenile false claims regarding that issue.

Over the years you have posted claims that a wrong is not wrong if more than one translation contains the flaw. Utter nonsense.
I do word studies and post the results. RR does not seem to do word studies but posts "taint so" nevertheless. The concept that modern translation could be improved is one I hold.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Note to Readers, when someone claims to dictate "how" things should be said, the person is trying to avoid the substance of what was said.

I did not do that. I said you don't know the meaning and significance of "deeply flawed." A good dictionary could be your friend, that is unless you'd like to rewrite dictionaries too.

It's ironic that you would say that those who dictate how things should be said are avoiding the substance of what was said. You play on a one-stringed harp saying particular passages "should read." Then when asked by myself and others "Why?" You just repeat the hollow claim of "It should read." And that is the height of folly and arrogance. You offer no reasoning. You just refer back to your hollow claim of "See my response." Your response is just "It should read...this, that or the other." It is so strange and illogical of you Van. You are the one with avoidance issues Van.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Over the years you have posted claims that a wrong is not wrong if more than one translation contains the flaw. Utter nonsense.

Most of the time in your oft-repeated posts on what you claim are "deeply flawed" translations --your interpretive glosses are laughable. Most of the time no legitimate translation has your take --which is so far left field it's out of the ball park all together. But you, armed with all your non-knowledge, proceed to trash genuine translations.

 

[Van]

SNIP.

Totally off topic drivel.

 

[Van]

Most of the time in your oft-repeated posts on what you claim are "deeply flawed" translations --your interpretive glosses are laughable. Most of the time no legitimate translation has your take --which is so far left field it's out of the ball park all together. But you, armed with all your non-knowledge, proceed to trash genuine translations.

Yet another taint so post. This person does not do word studies and seems incapable of adding anything to biblical discussions concerning the best choice of English words or phrases to translate accurately the intended message of God.

All our high selling English translations (including NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, and LEB) can be improved by reducing the usage of words with ambiguous meanings, such as "sake."

 

[rsr]

Sorry, folks, but this episode of the Rip 'n Van Show has been cancelled.