Hermeneutics and the goal of Concordance

[Jim1999]

What does "age" mean? I don't see your point. I often speak of "another age" which simply goes back before me in time.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[glfredrick]

What does "age" mean? I don't see your point. I often speak of "another age" which simply goes back before me in time.

Cheers,

Jim

Languages change over time, and words that meant something at an earlier time often mean something else (as usage changes) later. I used the term "age" to denote this period of time, which may be short or long.

Bad, for instance used to be used to denote, well, "bad." Now, saying something is "bad" often means that it is in fact very "good."

Cool used to mean that an item was chillier than the surrounding environment, Now, it typically means that, but also it is a term used to give the impression that something is "good" or "in style."

Getting into the text of Scripture, the KJV used a term, "pecular" to describe the people of God. The word in the usage of 1611 meant "set apart," but now it is generally used to denote people who are "weird" or otherwise not in keeping with societal norms, still (almost) the concept of "set apart" but with a very negative conotation instead of a very positive one.

Here is a partial list of words found in the KJV that either have gone out of common use or do not mean today what they meant in an earlier age:

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths [not to get clean,] bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty, borne, breach, brandished, bray, bristling, buffet, buckler, bulrush, burnished, butress, calamus, caldron, capital, carcasses, carnally, carrion, cassia, caulkers, centurion, chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste, chasten, chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern, citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven, commission, commonwealth [not shared money,] compound, concede, compulsory, conciliation, concubine, congealed, contemptuously, confederacy, contingents, corban, coriander, countenance, couriers covert, crags, crescents, crest, cropped, cubit, custodian [not the one who cleans the school halls,] curds, dainties, dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed, deride, despoiled, diadem, diffuses, dilapidation, dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner, docile, dragnet, dregs, drachmas, dropsy, dross, dryshod, eczema, edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails, envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise, expiration, faction, fallow, famish, fare, fatlings, feigned festal, fetched, fidelity, figurehead, filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers, fuller furlongs, gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew, homers, hoopoe, immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy, jubilation, kors, laden, lamentations, laud, lusty, mail [not a letter,] mammon, matrix [other than the movie,] mattock, mercenaries, mina [not a type of bird,] mite [not a bed bug,] moorings, nativity, offal, offscouring, omnipotent, oracle, pangs, papyrus [not a fruit,] paramours, parapet, penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins [not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot,] pinions [not a type of nut,] plaited [not dishes,] platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice, Praetorium, prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators, propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver, rampart ravenous, ravished, raze [not to lift up,] reconciliation, recount, rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled [does not have to do with guns,] rivulets, rogue, salute [ does not have to do with the army,] satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle [not a type of bus or spaceship,] siegeworks, sistrums [not an affectionate term for your sisters,] skiff, soothsayer, spelt straits, superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng, timbrel, tittle, tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton, warp, wend, wield, winebibber, woof, wrought.

 

[Van]

Hi Glfredrick, lets take good. The word means good, or better, or beautiful. Why not translate all the usages with one of these three words?

For example Romans 12:17 says honorable but could be good.

Matthew 15:26 says right but could be good.

Please provide any examples where good, better, beautiful will not work.

 

[Van]

There, simply, is no real way to make a one-for-one (or even a one-for three or four) concordance that will fit every Greek or Hebrew term as it is used in the Scriptures, which is exactly why there are a myriad of different translations and usages.

I disagree. There is no reason for the "myriad" of different translations of the same Greek word. As I have shown, they are largely unnecessary corruptions of the author's actual word usage.

 

[rbell]

It seems your problem you have is that English isn't Greek.

Man, that can't be helped. That's not a translation issue--it's a language issue.

 

[John of Japan]

I believe all modern translations have all utter failed to faithfully translate the Bible because they translate the same Greek word into many English words, obliterating the actual message of scripture.

I make this charge not based on any expertise, I do not even understand basic Greek grammar. I simply look at my Exhaustive Concordance, which tells me how each Greek word is translated, and I see the same word being translated into dozens of English words, but it appears to me that only a few, 4 or less, could be used.

So my first question is why the lack of concordance? My only guess is it may be the result of “pre computer” editing, or lack thereof. I think those who know how to translate should whittle down the variations, because I believe a very different and easily understood Bible would emerge.

I presented my observation to John of Japan, and he suggested I start a thread on this subject. So here goes:

Lets take the Greek preposition “ek” which means “out of”, “from” or “away from”, and “by”. It is used to show the point of origin of an action (place, time or cause.) Thus the English word “of” means much the same thing.

Apparently the word appears over 900 times in the KJV text, but only 61 times in the NAS text. “Ek” is translated into 25 English words in the NAS. Lets look at a few of them and see if we can substitute one of the following: (1) of: (2) out of: (3) from: (4) since, and (5) away from.

Matthew 7:9 reads (NASB95) “ Or what man is there among you who when his son asks for a loaf will give him a stone.” Why not a more literal translation which would read,

“Or what man is of you whom his son will ask for a loaf, he will not give him a stone will he?” Note the change from “among” to “of” which shifts the meaning. Among points to physical location, one of the group of men standing there, whereas “of” points to type of man based on location.

Why not translate “ek” as “among?” Because another preposition, “en” means in and therefore means among.

I'm going to start by saying that you could not have chosen a worse word to make your point with than the preposition ek (ek, ex; before a vowel). You seem to think that it only has a very few meanings, but nothing could be further than the truth. You say it means "'out of', 'from' or 'away from', and 'by'." But look at what just a mid range lexicon has for it, the Anlex by the Fribergs:

ἐκ before a vowel ἐξ ; preposition with the genitive; (1) spatially, denoting motion away from a place, after verbs of going, sending, escaping, moving from, out of, away from (MK 7.31); (2) denoting direction from which something comes from, out of (LU 5.3); (3) denoting origin as to family, race, city from, out of (LU 2.36); (4) denoting source, cause, motive, reason from, of, by (MT 5.37; JN 1.13); (5) denoting the distinguishing mark of a class, group, party from, of (AC 11.2); (6) used in periphrasis; (a) for the partitive genitive, after words denoting number of (JN 1.35; 6.60); (b) after an interrogative or indefinite pronoun of (LU 11.5; JN 6.64); (c) used with εἶναι belong to, be one of (MT 26.73); (d) after verbs of filling with (JN 12.3); (e) denoting price or value for (the amount of) (MT 20.2); (7) temporally; (a) denoting time from when from, since, for (JN 9.32); (b) showing sequence of time ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας day after day (2P 2.8); ἐκ δευτέρου for the second time, again (MT 26.42); ἐκ τρίτου for the third time (MT 26.44); (8) adverb; (a) ἐκ μέτρου by measure, sparingly (JN 3.34); (b) ἐκ μέρους individually, in particular (1C 12.27); (c) ἐκ λύπης reluctantly, grudgingly (2C 9.7); ἐκ συμφώνου mutually, by common consent (1C 7.5)

The large BAGD lexicon has much more, over five columns (2 1/2 large pages). I could add detailed analysis of its usage, but here's the thing. You freely admit you don't know Greek. So you would not understand my analysis, and it would be a waste of my time. You should just admit at this point that you are out of your depth with this word, and forget trying to make your point with it. Use a different word to make your point.

One more example: Luke 11:13, which reads (NASB95) If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

But “your” is not in the text and so a more literal translation would be “…more will the Father of heaven give….” And again “heavenly” is an attribute of behavior, or can be understood that way, whereas the Father of heaven clearly designates the entity in view.

This example does not prove your point either. Your thread is about translating by concordance, but then your argument on Luke 11:13 is more about how to translate. And by the way, you are reading your English understanding back into the Bible when you say that "heavenly" is "an attribute of behavior." It's not the same in the Greek.

 

[John of Japan]

If we look at Luke 11:54 we see modern translations rendering a figure of speech, "something out of his mouth" as "something he might say." My contention is if the Greek reads "something out of his mouth" then that is how it should be translated. Why assume we know what the idea is and put our words in the inspired author's mouth. Why not footnote the phrase and explain in a marginal note that it refers to words and ideas, not spit or vomit. I believe all these "helpful" translators simply corrupt the text.

Here you are actually making an argument from translation theory, the age old question of free vs. literal, and you do somewhat better. I agree with you here. But it doesn't prove your point.

 

[John of Japan]

If we look at John 9:32 we see "since the beginning of time it was never heard" in the NASB when the Greek reads "Out of the age it was never heard" Here we see the translators adding to the idea expressed. Now they may be right, but lets stick to the actual words, and put this insight in a footnote.

Once again, you are not proving your point. You've come across a Greek idiom. This particular idiom only occurs here in the NT and the LXX combined (though Gal. 1:4 has the same phrase with two more words, making it a different meaning), and it means just what the NASB translated it as, "since the beginning of time."

How to translate an idioms is not the same thing as whether or not to translate by concordance. If you wanted to make an argument from concordance, you would say that this Greek idiom should always be translated exactly the same--hard to do since it only occurs this once.

 

[John of Japan]

Hi Glfredrick, lets take good. The word means good, or better, or beautiful. Why not translate all the usages with one of these three words?

For example Romans 12:17 says honorable but could be good.

Matthew 15:26 says right but could be good.

Please provide any examples where good, better, beautiful will not work.

This word occurs 56 times in the NT. It's linguistically simplistic to think that these three English words will always translate it properly. 2 Cor. 8:21 has it in the plural (good things), something the English doesn't do. 2 Tim. 1:14 is similar in that usage but singular (a good thing). And "honest" is a perfectly legitimate rendering.

Once again you are not proving your point. To translate by concordance means to use the same word every time, but now you are allowing three meanings. That's not translating by concordance. And by the way, as is, it does not mean "better." That would be the comparative form of it, which is kallion (kallion).

 

[Mexdeaf]

We do this with English as well, but often fail to realize it because of the way we were taught (or the lack thereof) grammar. For instance, words with "re" such as "reform" or "renew" have a prefix that modifies the usage of the word. To "renew" is to make something new again, while just plain "new" means new for the first time. To extent that particular word even further we can also add a suffix, such as "renewable" which now is used to say that something has the capacity to be renewed. Virtually every English word has a root stem with prefix and suffix attached to modify the word, but we simply do not read English that way because we were not trained to read our own language in that fashion. Learn any alternative language, however, and one finds very quickly just how deficient one is in their home language, and just how much is taken for granted once true grammar is procured.

This is so true. Once I learned Spanish it gave me a whole new appreciation for the difficulties one faces in learning English grammar. I use the principle of root+prefix+suffix to teach English to my Developmental English students. It is a very helpful concept.

(Sorry for the hijack- carry on. Not literally- you're not really carrying anything on to anything, and I haven't really stolen anything, but you know what I mean. I hope.:smilewinkgrin

 

[Van]

Hi John of Japan, thanks for taking the time to try to address my concern. In the lexicon you provided, it basicly said what I said. I did not see many new meaning to argue for another translation word.

Mk 7:31=out;Luke 5:2=out of; Luke 2:36=of;Matt 5:37= of; John 1:13= of; Acts 11:2 = of; John 1:35= of; Matt 20:3 = out; John 9:32 = since; 2 Peter 2:8 = after; Matt 26:42 = for (as in for second or third time; John 3:34 = by; 1 Cor 12:27 = of; 2 Cor. 9:7 = of; 1 Cor 7:5 = by.

Bottom line all these meanings are (1) consistent with my view or (2) special constructions with another word. Lets take day "after" day. Why not translate that as day "out of" day, as in one day gives birth to the next day. This nuance of rebirth is lost in the corruption.

 

[glfredrick]

Hi Glfredrick, lets take good. The word means good, or better, or beautiful. Why not translate all the usages with one of these three words?

For example Romans 12:17 says honorable but could be good.

Matthew 15:26 says right but could be good.

Please provide any examples where good, better, beautiful will not work.

Because those words may not always fit the context of the "concept" of "good". You are asking for black and white tangible, when at times the text requires more nuance than that.

I highly recommend that you take some time out to study Greek grammar so that you at least have a rudimentary grasp of why words are translated as they are. You are hung up on the fact that words have a precise meaning, even after I have shown you repeatedly that this is not the case. The only cure for what ails you is scholarship, rightly applied, to the subject matter, in this case, Greek grammar.

About Matthew 15:26, is "right" not also "good?" But, using the word "good" in that sentence reduces the English grammar to a 3rd grade level. i.e., I'm gooder than you," instead of the more proper, "I am right."

If you truly desire a translation that only uses a handful of words, I recommend the New International Readers Version, which has a reading grade level of 2.9 (just under a 3rd grade reading level).

http://www.biblica.com/nirv/

Also, here, for reference is a nice site with charts that show the various Bible translations and how they fall along a continuum from most literal to most dynamic:

http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

 

[glfredrick]

There, simply, is no real way to make a one-for-one (or even a one-for three or four) concordance that will fit every Greek or Hebrew term as it is used in the Scriptures, which is exactly why there are a myriad of different translations and usages.

I disagree. There is no reason for the "myriad" of different translations of the same Greek word. As I have shown, they are largely unnecessary corruptions of the author's actual word usage.

You have "shown" nothing of the sort. What you have "shown" is your own bias toward the work of biblical translation, and that without any semblance of formal training by your own admission.

Perhaps it is time to set aside this argument (as I have been saying all along) until you gain more education on the matter. You are the blind leading the blind in this matter. And, yes, if you wish to take this as a personal attack, go right ahead. I have been rather gracious to work with you (again) in this thread so as to attempt to demonstrate just why your proposition is not accurate. In that you continually resist my and other's efforts to bring you up to speed on this issue, you demonstrate your willing ignorance and can rightly feel attacked unless or until you concede that you need to do some more study in the area of languages and grammar.

 

[David Lamb]

I believe all modern translations have all utter failed to faithfully translate the Bible because they translate the same Greek word into many English words, obliterating the actual message of scripture.

I make this charge not based on any expertise, I do not even understand basic Greek grammar. I simply look at my Exhaustive Concordance, which tells me how each Greek word is translated, and I see the same word being translated into dozens of English words, but it appears to me that only a few, 4 or less, could be used.

So my first question is why the lack of concordance? My only guess is it may be the result of “pre computer” editing, or lack thereof. I think those who know how to translate should whittle down the variations, because I believe a very different and easily understood Bible would emerge.

I presented my observation to John of Japan, and he suggested I start a thread on this subject. So here goes:

Lets take the Greek preposition “ek” which means “out of”, “from” or “away from”, and “by”. It is used to show the point of origin of an action (place, time or cause.) Thus the English word “of” means much the same thing.

Apparently the word appears over 900 times in the KJV text, but only 61 times in the NAS text. “Ek” is translated into 25 English words in the NAS. Lets look at a few of them and see if we can substitute one of the following: (1) of: (2) out of: (3) from: (4) since, and (5) away from.

Matthew 7:9 reads (NASB95) “ Or what man is there among you who when his son asks for a loaf will give him a stone.” Why not a more literal translation which would read,

“Or what man is of you whom his son will ask for a loaf, he will not give him a stone will he?” Note the change from “among” to “of” which shifts the meaning. Among points to physical location, one of the group of men standing there, whereas “of” points to type of man based on location.

Why not translate “ek” as “among?” Because another preposition, “en” means in and therefore means among.

One more example: Luke 11:13, which reads (NASB95) If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

But “your” is not in the text and so a more literal translation would be “…more will the Father of heaven give….” And again “heavenly” is an attribute of behavior, or can be understood that way, whereas the Father of heaven clearly designates the entity in view.

In summary, I believe the translators of old, mistakenly have taken a shotgun to the text. And we, with our computer sort and search capacity, should fix it ASAP!

I found your OP somewhat confusing, Van. (Sorry about that! ) Here are some of the things that confused me:

1. You started your post saying that you believe all modern translations have all utter failed to faithfully translate the Bible, but near the end, you say: "I believe the translators of old, mistakenly have taken a shotgun to the text."

2. You use as an example the Greek word ek. You say that it is translated into 25 (different) words in the New American Standard bible. That may be so - I don't have the NASB to look. But the KJV translates the Greek "ek" as: of, out of, from, among, by, for, on, with, beyond, with, over, in, unto, and possibly others. Not as many as the 25 you mentioned for the different ways ek is translated in the NASB, but 13 plus is enough to show that this isn't something that only happens in modern versions.

3. You said: "Apparently the word appears over 900 times in the KJV text, but only 61 times in the NAS text." Which word? The Greek word "ek"? Surely not. The English word "of"? That seems to occur 4062 times in the New Testament. The English word "of" as a translation of the Greek "ek"? I may be wrong, but even including "out of", I only made it 465 - not 900.

Like you, I am no Greek scholar, but I do know that translation from one language to another is by no means straightforward. The English word "of" occurs several times in the following, with many different meanings:

The head teacher of the school ruled with a rod of iron. With her mug of coffee and slice of cake on her desk, she bellowed at the boy of 11 in front of her. "I'm accusing you of the greatest laziness! You are a sloth of a student, and the work you do produce is of poor quality.
​

Now suppose for some reason, I wanted to translate that into German. (Yes, I know! Why ever should I want to translate such nonsense? :laugh: But just suppose I did). Suppose also that I already know that the German word "von" means "of". So I go ahead with my translation, and every time I come to the English word "of" I translate it into German as "von". That would certainly be consistent, but it wouldn't make much sense in German!

 

[Van]

Hi John of Japan;
Simple is superior to complex, so I do believe translators should keep it simple.

You say concordance only refers to one word, rather than a limited range of words. Fine, I am advocating for minimizing the pallet of words to the degree possible. How about more concordant?

I certainly do not object to translating good in the plural as good things. Better than goods which suggests physical things.

And no I was not reading back English into Greek, I was choosing the English word that best fit the idea in the Greek, which was not "heavenly" behavior but point of origin.

As far as "proving my point" I do not know how much more evidence would be required. Ek is found about 61 times in the NAS and is translated into about 25 words. Right now, we have seen (1) out; (2) of; (3) out of; (4) from; (5) for in conjunction with second or third time; (6) by; (7) since (8) after. This demonstrates that about 2/3s of the translations are unnecessary alterations of the basic word meanings. QED

 

[glfredrick]

Hi John of Japan;
Simple is superior to complex, so I do believe translators should keep it simple.

You say concordance only refers to one word, rather than a limited range of words. Fine, I am advocating for minimizing the pallet of words to the degree possible. How about more concordant?

I certainly do not object to translating good in the plural as good things. Better than goods which suggests physical things.

And no I was not reading back English into Greek, I was choosing the English word that best fit the idea in the Greek, which was not "heavenly" behavior but point of origin.

As far as "proving my point" I do not know how much more evidence would be required. Ek is found about 61 times in the NAS and is translated into about 25 words. Right now, we have seen (1) out; (2) of; (3) out of; (4) from; (5) for in conjunction with second or third time; (6) by; (7) since (8) after. This demonstrates that about 2/3s of the translations are unnecessary alterations of the basic word meanings. QED

The basic problem, Van, is that YOU DO NOT KNOW THE GREEK, so you are in no place to even begin to instruct those who do know Greek how they have missed the point. :wavey:

 

[JesusFan]

Not worth looking up, and I've covered the main points here again for that reason. Words have usages, and those usages are directed by context, not by a dictionary or concordance.

Red can mean a color, or it can mean a certain political leaning. Not exactly opposites (and I don't recall suggesting that any particular word can have a completely opposite meaning -- that is rather a contrived strawman call) but widely separated in concept.

Water can be a noun or a verb. Context is the only way to know. I can tell my kiddo to water plants or I can ask him to use the hose to place some water on plants. Same concept, but the actual word "water" is used in completely different ways, as one is noun and one is verb.



I am on topic. Every word has a range of usages not a single one. That is my point, to which you agree, with one exception that I will cover below.



Of course a word will fall within the hermeneutic of contextual analysis and within actual word USAGES (not meanings). I did not content that the same author would use the same word to mean opposites, but perhaps a different (human) author might use the same word to mean opposites. Historically, as usages differ in every age, some words have indeed become their opposite in usage, which a comparison with Webster's early dictionary and a modern version will quickly confirm. This is part of why a translation done several hundred years ago may now be inadequate, even if a very good translation in its day. Word usage changes through time. There is no set pattern, save that people continue usage as they see fit.



In English (in opposition to Koine Greek or even more so for Hebrew) we have a myriad of synonyms for almost every word. Ever hear of a thesaurus? There may well be a dozen potential English words that will work in place of one Greek term, and more (if you understood Greek grammar this would not even need explanation!) virtually every Greek (and Hebrew) word in the Scriptures have a multiplicity of "meanings" built in by the prefix, root, suffix, gender, number, etc. It can often take as many as 5 or 6 English words to actually say what that one Greek or Hebrew term is saying. Such is the nature of the game when translating from a very robust language into a hodge-podge language made up of any number of other languages such as English.

There, simply, is no real way to make a one-for-one (or even a one-for three or four) concordance that will fit every Greek or Hebrew term as it is used in the Scriptures, which is exactly why there are a myriad of different translations and usages.

As an example, Strongs cites the Greek, kalos (good), in the following way:

Transliterated Word: kalos
Root: a prim. word;

Definition: beautiful, good:--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used
beautiful (1),
better (5),
better (2),
commendable manner (1),
excellent (1),
fair (1),
fine (2),
good (79),
high (1),
honest (1),
honorable (1),
right thing (1),
sound (1),
treasure (1),
what is right (2).

Each of these various usages of a rather plain and simple word match the context where they are found, and each has something to do with the CONCEPT of "good" but not the "meaning" of good. You seem to struggle with the "concept" idea, but that is a critical factor in translation when there is often not a one-to-one direct translation for what is being expressed in the text.

But what happens when we complicate the concept of good just a tad and make it an adjective "do good"?

Then we have this word in Greek: ἀγαθο·ποιός -όν (agathopois ou) where "kalos" is buried as a root stem and modified with prefix, suffix, and other modifiers to cause it to mean "do goods" or "do gooders" when applied in context to an individual's intent.

The word can be a neutral genitive plural, masculine genitive plural, or feminine genitive plural; and is a present active participle masculine nominative singular as used in this instance. It is found in Acts 14:17, 1 Peter 2:14, and 3 John 1:11.

Further, you have said before that you are not interested in the etymology of any given word in the original languages, and that etymology has no bearing on what the word (should, according to you) mean. But that too is false. Etymology has everything to do with the original languages, for that is how the grammar is constructed and also how it is taken apart so that we can understand what is said.

We do this with English as well, but often fail to realize it because of the way we were taught (or the lack thereof) grammar. For instance, words with "re" such as "reform" or "renew" have a prefix that modifies the usage of the word. To "renew" is to make something new again, while just plain "new" means new for the first time. To extent that particular word even further we can also add a suffix, such as "renewable" which now is used to say that something has the capacity to be renewed. Virtually every English word has a root stem with prefix and suffix attached to modify the word, but we simply do not read English that way because we were not trained to read our own language in that fashion. Learn any alternative language, however, and one finds very quickly just how deficient one is in their home language, and just how much is taken for granted once true grammar is procured.

It is my hope that this post helps to educate you somewhat on how the original languages actually work and why it is that they cannot always have but 3 or 4 "meanings" that all actually mean the same exact thing.

Could all of this bea good reason why it isimpossible to really have a totally 'literally" english translation of the Bible? That htere will be times for a more 'dynamic" rendering in order to it to make sense to the reader of the Bible?

 

[Mexdeaf]

The word you keep using as "pallet" is more properly spelled "palette". Thanks.

 

[Van]

Hi David, first many modern translations follow the lead of earlier translations. That is why they read so much alike. For example compare KJV with NKJV or an old RSV with the new ESV. The "translators of old" refered to the brilliant scholars who translated without the aid of computer search and sort technology. The Modern translations refer to the NIV, NASB95, ESV, HCSB and NKJV.

Yes I am dubious of the 61 times in the NAS. I got that number from a website, but it did provide specific references to each and every of the 25 different words used to translate it. So even if the correct number is way higher, my point remains the same, about two thirds of the English words are unnecessary to convey the contextual idea and are therefore corruptions of the text.

And yes, I am not advocating not translating into grammatically correct English. But to say "it would be good for him" as opposed to "it would be right for him" does not introduce improper grammar.

 

[JesusFan]

Hi David, first many modern translations follow the lead of earlier translations. That is why they read so much alike. For example compare KJV with NKJV or an old RSV with the new ESV. The "translators of old" refered to the brilliant scholars who translated without the aid of computer search and sort technology. The Modern translations refer to the NIV, NASB95, ESV, HCSB and NKJV.

Yes I am dubious of the 61 times in the NAS. I got that number from a website, but it did provide specific references to each and every of the 25 different words used to translate it. So even if the correct number is way higher, my point remains the same, about two thirds of the English words are unnecessary to convey the contextual idea and are therefore corruptions of the text.

And yes, I am not advocating not translating into grammatically correct English. But to say "it would be good for him" as opposed to "it would be right for him" does not introduce improper grammar.

Think that at times there are NO "really fully known" what original documents truely said as parts in the texts would be "not all there" , other times good valid reasons to use different words from same text source in traslating, and at times better to traslate say Bible Idioms more in a dynamic fashion thatn strickly literal sense!