Yes,thanks David --I edited it after I saw your post.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hermeneutics and the goal of Concordance
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
- Status
Yes,thanks David --I edited it after I saw your post.
Hi David, you made the following charge:
But in many of your following posts, you make statements that seem to presuppose that you are an expert in translation, and that you do know NT Greek. Indeed, in many of your posts, you haved disagreed with people who are expert translators and know Greek.
However, you provided no quote to support your false witness. (1) I am no expert and have never, not once said or suggested that I am. For you to charge me with this absurdity without a quote is slander.
I did disagree with "experts" who said I should not use a word as the dictionary defines it. Go figure. That does not make me an expert in translation or Greek.
I can read English, and so can read Greek experts who say the Greek grammar allows this or that, and offer a view, supported by experts, that differs from those who claim expertise and post on this board. That does not suggest I think I am an expert.
David, you have slandered me.
But in many of your following posts, you make statements that seem to presuppose that you are an expert in translation, and that you do know NT Greek. Indeed, in many of your posts, you haved disagreed with people who are expert translators and know Greek.
However, you provided no quote to support your false witness. (1) I am no expert and have never, not once said or suggested that I am. For you to charge me with this absurdity without a quote is slander.
I did disagree with "experts" who said I should not use a word as the dictionary defines it. Go figure. That does not make me an expert in translation or Greek.
I can read English, and so can read Greek experts who say the Greek grammar allows this or that, and offer a view, supported by experts, that differs from those who claim expertise and post on this board. That does not suggest I think I am an expert.
David, you have slandered me.
Last edited by a moderator:
As we have seen, any Exhaustive Concordance, demonstrates beyond question that our modern translations are loose because they use the same English word to translate different Greek words and thus blur the distinction between the Greek word meanings.
No one has offered a reason for this, so lack of scholarship appears to be the only possiblity.
No one has offered a reason for this, so lack of scholarship appears to be the only possiblity.
Hi Mexdeaf, you have no clue as to the actual topic of this thead, do you?
I was reading about software that appears intended to provide the edit service I am talking about, something called "translation memory managment." Apparently the software became somewhat viable in the late 1990's so should be available for use now.
I was reading about software that appears intended to provide the edit service I am talking about, something called "translation memory managment." Apparently the software became somewhat viable in the late 1990's so should be available for use now.
glfredrick
New Member
One more time...
An exhaustive concordance is merely a LIST of the various words used in any given text. It can be a concordance of the original language, and show the translated usage or it can be a concordance of the translated language and show the original usages. It is nothing more than this. Not a "dictionary" nor an "encyclopedia" nor a work of grammar, nor a lexicon, nor even an adequate tool for anything more than looking up LISTS OF WORDS.
Your (faulty) assertion assumes that your assessment is correct as you assail
and assault those who assay otherwise, in that a dictionary/concordance should ascribe the actual meaning of any given word in the text of Scripture merely shows your ignorance of the subject -- a point that several of us have been trying to get through your thick skull (yes, please do consider that one more attack, you always do!) for days now.
CONTEXT drives usage, not a book with a list of words and additionally, there is NO one-for-one English/Greek or English/Hebrew adherence. At best, the intended usage in context drives the actual translation.
Did I move it or did you misplace it? 
I have provided examples of a half dozen Greek words, where modern translations needless vary the English word used to translate them. "Ek" was translated into over 20 English words, when about 8 or combinations thereof, would work. While that might reflect more variance than average, it appears many Greek words could be translated with four or less English words. Yes, the translation would not replace more liberal translations, like the ESV or NIV, but something like the NASB-95 which aspires to be more of a literal translation could be greatly improved, in my (non-expert) opinion.
I have provided examples of a half dozen Greek words, where modern translations needless vary the English word used to translate them. "Ek" was translated into over 20 English words, when about 8 or combinations thereof, would work. While that might reflect more variance than average, it appears many Greek words could be translated with four or less English words. Yes, the translation would not replace more liberal translations, like the ESV or NIV, but something like the NASB-95 which aspires to be more of a literal translation could be greatly improved, in my (non-expert) opinion.
Hi Glfredrick, my exhaustive concordance of the NIV provides a list of every word used in the Bible. And by using the numbering index, a list of every usage of every Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek word used in the Bible. So I can see that a Greek word is translated into dozens of English words. Even with my thick shull, I was able to see needless variation for no good reason.
An Exhaustive concordance is a very important Bible Study tool, and if you do not know this, then you Sir are not trained in Word Study methodogy.
Context is important, but words have meaning. You cannot change the meaning of the words used to change the message and say "but the context" required it. The people who do that gave us the JW bible.
An Exhaustive concordance is a very important Bible Study tool, and if you do not know this, then you Sir are not trained in Word Study methodogy.
Context is important, but words have meaning. You cannot change the meaning of the words used to change the message and say "but the context" required it. The people who do that gave us the JW bible.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Van, I would like to assure you that I meant no slander, or offence of any kind, to you. I apologise to you that I did not make my post clear enough, so that you got the impression that I was slandering you.
You say I was making a charge. I wasn't; I was simply giving my answer to the question you had asked: "Why do most posters offer opinions about me, but none about the topic?"
I really did not mean that you had anywhere claimed to be an expert, just that some of your posts come acrossas seeming to be from someone who is an expert.
I will stop there, because I trust there is no need for a more lengthy apology. I really am sorry for any upset I have unintentionally caused you.
glfredrick
New Member
Nice try, Van, but it is precisely BECAUSE I know that I am offering you scholarly advice on this issue. I am rather well trained in Bible, in the original languages, in hermeneutics, in theology, history, and in skilled exegesis. I have yet to find that you have any of those credentials in your own resume.
I am still of the mind that your issue isn't at all with the concordance, but with the fact that you CANNOT make Scripture say what YOU think it needs to say because of the work of godly and accurate translators and the grammar and lexicon of the Greek and Hebrew languages.
I also notice that you did not respond to that part of my allegation above, but chose to go a different track, building in my mind the fact that I am right on the money in my discernment of your true purpose.
You did not know how to use an exhaustive concordance, saying it is just a list, and now expect others to accept you as an expert. LOL
I am not trying to alter scripture, those like yourself, who change the meaning of the text by redefining of the meaning of words, and then claim "but the context required it" are the corruptors of the text.
Why make charges and insinuations, Glfredrick. If truth is your enemy, you are on the wrong side.
I am not trying to alter scripture, those like yourself, who change the meaning of the text by redefining of the meaning of words, and then claim "but the context required it" are the corruptors of the text.
Why make charges and insinuations, Glfredrick. If truth is your enemy, you are on the wrong side.
glfredrick
New Member
glfredrick
New Member
Yup, you knew personally every authority in history and they all agreed with you.
However, I am addressing the YLT and NASB-95 authorities, and saying they blew it because of a lack of concordance, as defined in the dictionary. I have provided about a half dozen examples and not one of them has been refuted, but only disparaged.
It would seem there is not much interest in actual bible study concerning better utilization of computure search and sort ability to bring the word of God into focus.
Odd.
However, I am addressing the YLT and NASB-95 authorities, and saying they blew it because of a lack of concordance, as defined in the dictionary. I have provided about a half dozen examples and not one of them has been refuted, but only disparaged.
It would seem there is not much interest in actual bible study concerning better utilization of computure search and sort ability to bring the word of God into focus.
Odd.
Below is an excerpt which describes the process needed to improve modern translation. The effort described was completed before computer software existed to allow an objective, as opposed to an ends driven, effort. But the issue has been recognized for about 100 years and now we have the technology to address it.
"With the use of the Concordant method of translation the CPC endeavored to recognize the importance of the vocabulary of Scripture, keeping distinct the words used in the original languages by giving each Greek word—as far as is possible—its own unique and consistent English equivalent.[3] While acknowledging that absolute consistency cannot be achieved in the making of an idiomatic English version, the introduction to the Sixth edition of the Concordant Literal New Testament states that the CLNT, by being harmonious with the original texts, keeps to a minimum the confusion resulting from translating different Greek words with the same English word, or one Greek word with many English words. It is this principle of consistent or "concordant" translation which was also employed...."
"With the use of the Concordant method of translation the CPC endeavored to recognize the importance of the vocabulary of Scripture, keeping distinct the words used in the original languages by giving each Greek word—as far as is possible—its own unique and consistent English equivalent.[3] While acknowledging that absolute consistency cannot be achieved in the making of an idiomatic English version, the introduction to the Sixth edition of the Concordant Literal New Testament states that the CLNT, by being harmonious with the original texts, keeps to a minimum the confusion resulting from translating different Greek words with the same English word, or one Greek word with many English words. It is this principle of consistent or "concordant" translation which was also employed...."
What is odd is that there are several "experts" here on on BB dialoging with you that actually are involved in process of translating bible versions...
Again not trying to be harsh here at all. its just there is SO MUCH involved in the process that you seem to overlook !
there is really no way to exactly match up from one language to another, so ALL translations have degree of both literally and dynamic methods employed!
This is an area really where 'experts" only need apply!
Last edited by a moderator:
Many of the so-called experts told me I was using the word incorrectly, yet the excerpt in post #117 uses the word as I used it. So all those posts were drivel.
And to claim a translation cannot be made more concordant is drivel.
And to claim it cannot be made more concordant because of stuff beyond my understanding is drivel.
Translation is the art of "matching up" one language to another. I certainly agree no one can do it perfectly, but the issue is can we go to school on the efforts of the past and improve the translation efforts by making them more concordant and I say yes.
I expect if a real expert posted on this thread, he or she would agree with me and perhaps tell me of on going efforts in this direction.
And to claim a translation cannot be made more concordant is drivel.
And to claim it cannot be made more concordant because of stuff beyond my understanding is drivel.
Translation is the art of "matching up" one language to another. I certainly agree no one can do it perfectly, but the issue is can we go to school on the efforts of the past and improve the translation efforts by making them more concordant and I say yes.
I expect if a real expert posted on this thread, he or she would agree with me and perhaps tell me of on going efforts in this direction.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
If, like me, you are not familiar with the Concordant Literal New Testament, you can find sample passages from it at: http://www.concordant.org/version/clntsamp.pdf
Here, for instance, is Mary's song (Luke 1.46-55), to give a flavour:
Here, for instance, is Mary's song (Luke 1.46-55), to give a flavour:
46 And Miriam said, “My soul is magnifying the Lord, 47 And my spirit exults in God mySaviour, 48For He looks on on the humiliation of His slave. For lo! from now on all generations will count me happy, 49For the Powerful One does great things for me, And holy is His name, 50 And His mercy is for generations and generations To those fearing Him. 51 He does mightilywith His arm, He scatters the proud in the comprehension of their hearts, 52 He pulls down potentates from thrones, And exalts the humble. 53 The hungry He fills with good things, And the rich He sends away empty. 54 He supported Israel, His boy, To be reminded of mercy 55 According as He speaks to our fathers. To Abraham and to his seed, for the eon.”
- Status