Hermeneutics and the goal of Concordance

[glfredrick]

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?

Yup... There is NO completely literal translation of any one language to any other language -- ever. All requires at least some interpretation of concepts that cannot be simply expressed in the other language.

Just watch the puzzled looks on the faces of immigrants to America as they try to sort out our slang-ridden language, where nuance of facial expression or vocalization make words mean almost completely opposite things (as I expressed above in tangible example).

I work with both Cuban and multi-national African and Eastern immigrants on a daily basis. They struggle with English because the same word doesn't always mean the same thing. Same goes for the translation of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into English, and even more so when differences in English usage over the centuries are factored into the equation (see my list of archaic English terms used in the KJV above).

 

[Van]

Better versus Good

Consider Matthew 15:26, 18:8,9; 26:24; Mark 7:27; 7:42; 7:45; 9:47 and 14:21.

Which of these could not be translated "good."

 

[Rippon]

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

That chart is highly inaccurate. Just a few notes:

The ESV,RSV and NRSV should not be so spread out. They should be closely clustered. The HCSB should be just a bit to the right of them.

The NJB is certainly to the right of the 84NIV and TNIV. Actually the NIV/TNIV needs to be moved at least an inch and a half to the left.

The NLT needs to be positioned much more to the left of the NCV/ICB.

 

[Van]

Hi Jesusfan, general assertions are fine, but do you have a specific verse in mind where the critical text does not provide the Greek words, and a lexicon does not provide the range of meanings, where we could stick to as few English words as possible.

One of my issues I call overlap. Where two different Greek words are translated into the same English word. This should be avoided in my opinion to the extent possible.

 

[Van]

Lets consider the English word "appointed." At least 8 different Greek words are all translated as appointed. What is up with that?

 

[JesusFan]

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:

This is an area where "only Scholars need apply!"

 

[Van]

The problem is a lack of scholarship. If you translate the same Greek word into many English words, and then translate many Greek words into one of the English words, you have blurred the inspired word of God.

 

[TCGreek]

The problem is a lack of scholarship. If you translate the same Greek word into many English words, and then translate many Greek words into one of the English words, you have blurred the inspired word of God.

What is your scholarship for all this pontificating, then?

 

[Rippon]

If you translate the same Greek word into many English words, and then translate many Greek words into one of the English words, you have blurred the inspired word of God.

If your favorite Bible version is the KJV --it is "guilty" of non-concordance. Of course I don't think complete concordance is possible and it would not make any sense. Depending on the context of a given passage, the nuance would not be exactly the same as the usage of the same Greek word occuring elsewhere.

 

[glfredrick]

The problem is a lack of scholarship. If you translate the same Greek word into many English words, and then translate many Greek words into one of the English words, you have blurred the inspired word of God.

That might be true if you are trying to make the case that ONE English version is actually THE inspired Word of God rather than all English versions being the Word of God, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And, I doubt that the persons working with the original language to translate the Word of God lack scholarship... You REALLY have no idea, do you... :BangHead:

 

[JesusFan]

That might be true if you are trying to make the case that ONE English version is actually THE inspired Word of God rather than all English versions being the Word of God, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And, I doubt that the persons working with the original language to translate the Word of God lack scholarship... You REALLY have no idea, do you... :BangHead:

IF KJV was so Inspired , why did the translaters take a solid majority straight over from Tynsdale/Geneva Bibles?

And isn't it true that the Nasv/HCSB/ESV could ALL make a different slight difference in rendering Greek text into English, and each have valid points to be seen as being "right"

 

[glfredrick]

IF KJV was so Inspired , why did the translaters take a solid majority straight over from Tynsdale/Geneva Bibles?

And isn't it true that the Nasv/HCSB/ESV could ALL make a different slight difference in rendering Greek text into English, and each have valid points to be seen as being "right"

7 Start with God—the first step in learning is bowing down to God;
only fools thumb their noses at such wisdom and learning.
8-19 Pay close attention, friend, to what your father tells you;
never forget what you learned at your mother's knee.
Wear their counsel like flowers in your hair,
like rings on your fingers.
Dear friend, if bad companions tempt you,
don't go along with them.
If they say—"Let's go out and raise some hell.
Let's beat up some old man, mug some old woman.
Let's pick them clean
and get them ready for their funerals.
We'll load up on top-quality loot.
We'll haul it home by the truckload.
Join us for the time of your life!
With us, it's share and share alike!"—
Oh, friend, don't give them a second look;
don't listen to them for a minute.
They're racing to a very bad end,
hurrying to ruin everything they lay hands on.
Nobody robs a bank
with everyone watching,
Yet that's what these people are doing—
they're doing themselves in.
When you grab all you can get, that's what happens:
the more you get, the less you are.

Or, the same in the 1611 KJV:

7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
9 For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.
10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
18 And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.

Both "say" the same thing, but the Message would make sense to some guy on the street while the KJV would just have him scratching his head and wondering about the weirdo that just spoke to him.

 

[TCGreek]

I find it interesting how KJOists attempt to make their point for all different angles only to fall short.

Just an observation.

 

[Van]

I have asked several questions but not one of those who question my qualifications have answered them. But we have had several posts on KJV onlyism.

I asked why we have a single Greek word translated into many different words rather than a few. No answer.

I asked why we have so many different Greek words translated into the same English word, as if there was no difference in the intended message, when the inspired word chose this Greek word and not some other. No answer.

Most everyone claims there is no problem and the only reason I believe there is a problem is a lacking in my qualifications. To me this is simply a smoke screen to avoid specific responses.

Summary, if "ek" which has a large range of meanings, could be captured using 8 English words or combination thereof, then more Greek words ought to be translated into 3 or four words. This would reduce overlap, so different Greek words would be translated with different English words in most cases and thus more clearly present with clarity the actual message of the inspired word.

To refer back to Romans 3:30 which says the circumcised are saved by faith and the uncircumcised are saved through faith, my question is what does this mean, what is the difference being presented by Paul which we may grasp.

No answer will be forthcoming on that question either, or so I suspect.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Your questions have been answered, but you don't like the answers. That's not our fault.

 

[preachinjesus]

I asked why we have a single Greek word translated into many different words rather than a few. No answer.

Granted I don't know all the background on this question so if I'm missing something I apologize.

One major reason is most translations don't translate words they translate concepts, they translate phrases, they translate via context. Just like in English we have words that rely on their context for meaning, the same thing applies in Greek and Hebrew. Often words are translated differently because of their context and immediate meaning.

See how this works in English:
We saw the band playing live music.
If he desires to live he needs to stop eating ten pizzas a day.

See the different meaning of the same word?

I asked why we have so many different Greek words translated into the same English word, as if there was no difference in the intended message, when the inspired word chose this Greek word and not some other. No answer.

English is different than Greek. We use multiple words to mean one thing and one word to mean multiple things. In most translations they aren't trying to translate words but trying to translate concepts in their appropriate context. Just a thought.

Summary, if "ek" which has a large range of meanings, could be captured using 8 English words or combination thereof, then more Greek words ought to be translated into 3 or four words. This would reduce overlap, so different Greek words would be translated with different English words in most cases and thus more clearly present with clarity the actual message of the inspired word.

Well this isn't a realistic approach to a philosophy of translation. If you're looking for a overly cumbersome, difficult and wooden text you can approach this but most all English translations don't do this. (This includes the KJV) You want to keep your translations readable and sensible. The Amplified attempts this but fails miserably.

Based on a brief reading of this OP and resulting conversation I'd encourage you to do several things:
1. Learn Greek and Hebrew...honestly it'll clear up a lot.
2. Read From Exegesis to Exposition I can't remember who this is by but its a great book that gets into translation philosophy. Also read Old Testament Exegesis and New Testament Exegesis, these are great books!
3. Check out a translation like the NET which provides a TON of translator notes to help clarify things.
4. Stop using Strong's...it creates more confusion that its worth imho

Not being snarky, just the kind of advice I'd offer to someone in my congregation if they asked. :thumbsup:

 

[John of Japan]

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

Your point, your OP was concordance. You totally failed to prove it. If you want to prove that a more limited number of words to translate ek is better, that's not concordance. Start a new thread, call it something else, but don't claim you proved your point about concordance.

 

[Van]

Hi John of Japan,

I think you are being a tad judgmental. I think you are using your understanding of the meaning of the word concordance, and since I am not using it in that way, somehow my usage is inappropriate. As I have said, I use words as defined in the dictionary. Concordance simply means a state of agreement, and so choosing the fewest English words possible to translate a Greek word provides concordance.

If we back away from that a bit, we might agree that translating a Greek word into an English word that changes the intended meaning of the Greek word reflects a lack of concordance. The question is not whether the practice is proper according to the accepted practices of translators, we know all of them throw in any related word in that fits their purpose. No, the issue is what is the best practice. And I say minimizing the number of different words used to translate a Greek word is a worthy goal, a sound hermeneutic.

 

[Van]

Hi PreachinJesus,
The issue is not that Greek words have a range of meanings. The issue is if a Greek word has three meanings, why not translate it using three English words as a goal, and only add others if the context requires it. For example, say the text reads it would be "good" for a person.... But one translation renders it "would be good, another would be better, and yet another would be right and yet another world be honorable. I see no need for this. If "good" is the primary, i.e most common usage, then stick with good if that word works contextually and grammatically.

Yes, some translations are paraphrases, others dynamic, and still others try to be very literal like the NASB or YLT. These would form the basis for a more concordant translation.

I disagree that whittling down the unnecessary diversity of translation choices is unrealistic. I think it is a very realistic and easily achievable goal. I expect that the translation shops have software that could be modified to present limited choices for translators to choose.

Thanks for your helpful advice on improving my understanding of the topic, but what I want is more conversation concerning the topic.

 

[preachinjesus]

Hi PreachinJesus,
The issue is not that Greek words have a range of meanings. The issue is if a Greek word has three meanings, why not translate it using three English words as a goal, and only add others if the context requires it. For example, say the text reads it would be "good" for a person.... But one translation renders it "would be good, another would be better, and yet another would be right and yet another world be honorable. I see no need for this. If "good" is the primary, i.e most common usage, then stick with good if that word works contextually and grammatically.

That's good in theory but not the way translation works.

Yes, some translations are paraphrases, others dynamic, and still others try to be very literal like the NASB or YLT. These would form the basis for a more concordant translation.

I do believe, as others have noted, that you are using "concordant" incorrectly.

I disagree that whittling down the unnecessary diversity of translation choices is unrealistic. I think it is a very realistic and easily achievable goal. I expect that the translation shops have software that could be modified to present limited choices for translators to choose.

Again, I don't think you understand how translations come together. For the major English translations it isn't one or two guys sitting in a room deciding this or that. Rather it is full translation committees that seek to produce a readable, useful text for all people based on their particular translation philosophy.

Our modern day translations are reliable and reflect the original text of the Bible well. If you desire this kind of translation than acquire the tools and do it yourself. That would be an interesting thing to see accomplished.

Thanks for your helpful advice on improving my understanding of the topic, but what I want is more conversation concerning the topic.

Well it is difficult to have a conversation with someone who isn't up to speed on the actual matters that relate to the topic. I mean this as no offense nor do I speak it harshly. As I've read over this thread again I see where others have made the points I attempted. We are trying to engage with you but it is difficult.