How to Improve Modern English Translation, 2.0

[Van]

The problem of our modern English translations is that they translate the same original language word or phrase meaning into NOT one, but many different English words. And some of the same English words are used to translate different original language word or phrase meanings.

For example both Hades and Gehenna are translated as Hell, but they are two very different places. For another, a Greek word with two meanings, to set apart for God's purpose, and to make holy, is translated into the same English word, obscuring the inspired message.

In summary the same meaning is translated into multiple words or phrases, and different meanings are translated into the same word or phrase.

The solution of the problem is to the extent possible, use different English words or phrases for each of the multiple meanings of the original language word or phrase.

This is a simple and easily understood concept. It has nothing to do with quibbling endlessly over KJV only or preferred doctrine.

Hopefully at lease some readers have and know how to use the Exhaustive Concordance associated with their primary study bible, such as the ESV, or NIV or NASB. [Note I did NOT mention the KJV, NKJV or any other in that family, as the last thread was derailed by such off topic quibbling.]

If you open your Exhaustive concordance and look at the lists of different English words used to translate the same Original language word, you will find far more words used that the original word has meanings. A lexicon might list 3 to 5 meanings for some word, but your exhaustive concordance might show 10 different English words. Thus, it would be possible to make our modern English translations far more concordant

 

[Van]

Another totally off topic discussion concerns word for word versus thought for thought translations. Both types and all those in between all could be more concordant.

The process does require use of the historical-grammatical method, where only the historically valid meanings of the original language words are used, and the grammatical structure of the original is preserved.

 

[Van]

1) To be more concordant means to more consistently translate the same word meaning with the same English word or phrase.

2) The improvement suggested is not affected by various textual differences. The idea is to be more internally consistent in translation meanings.

3) The lack of punctuation has little or no impact, but the grammatical structure must be reflected, thus the avoidance of grammatical transformations.

4) Yes, due to our language shifting, new more concordant translations would be desired about every 25 years.

5) Yes of course, multiple translations are highly desirable, again each of them should strive to be more concordant.

6) Nothing wrong with putting the most probable meaning in the main text, and less certain meanings in the footnotes.

7) The idea is for each Hebrew or Greek word or phrase meaning (one or more) the translation should use to the extent possible the same English word or phrase.

 

[Van]

Lets say a word as used in the NT Greek conveys one meaning. To use jargon, it would be said to be "monosemy" or having one meaning, rather than several related meanings.

When a word is used to convey multiple meanings, a lexicon lists the various meanings or usages in the NT.

When a translator searches for which of the word's multiple meanings best conveys the contextual meaning, he or she would search from among the lexical meanings. Like painting from colors of the grammatical historical semantic range of meanings.

Take the Greek word often translated as "saint." Strong's lexicon lists 4 meanings. If possible, translators could chose four separate words, one for each meaning. If referring to a thing, such as ground set apart for God's purpose, it could be translated as "sacrosanct." If referring to a person set apart for God's purpose, it could be translated consistently as "saint."
There is no need to translate the same word or phrase meaning with more than one or two English words or phrases.
Our current translations sometimes use 6 or 7 different English words to convey the same single Greek meaning. This is unnecessary. They could be more concordant.

 

[Van]

​

A lack of concordance is evident in all modern English translations because they reflect to often the inconsistent word choices of the pre-computer age.

Most Greek words of the NT are translated into far too many English words. "Rhema," a Greek word that appears about 70 times in the NT, is translated into about 10 different English words, plus plurals, when perhaps 3 or 4 would suffice.

One particularly egregious mistranslation will serve as an example of the problem. Luke 1:37 NASB

​

For nothing will be impossible with God.”​

The English word "nothing" is used to translate the Greek word group "every declaration (Rhema) shall NOT" be imposible with God.

The mistranslation of "Rhema" into "nothing" expands the scope of the message from what God says He will do, to everything imaginable. Fiddlesticks.

Another extremely poor choice is "thing and things." We will use Luke 2:15 as an example:

​

​

When the angels had departed from them into heaven, the shepherds began saying to one another, “Let’s go straight to Bethlehem, then, and see this "thing" that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us."​

Here after the angels had made a verbal declaration, the shepherds go to see "this declaration that has happened."

 

[Van]

I am beginning to fear not many on this forum actually use exhaustive concordances. Thus the lack of dismay over the needless overlap of words used to convey one meaning. Or perhaps a lack of understanding of how this sloppy effort at consistency adversely affects understanding.

How many English words or phrases are needed to convey the actually differing meanings of "Rhema?"

What if we used pronouncement and proclamation (when authority is indicated) for almost all of the 70 or so times the word appears in the NT. Yes, sometimes the idea refers to subject matter, and sometimes to allegations. But these exceptions are few in number, and even with them we are down to 4 translation choices, rather than 10.

 

[canadyjd]

We have enough translations. No need for another.

With all the study tools available, a serious Bible student can glean the meaning through the context in which the word was used.

We simply have to approach the text with an open mind, without pre-conceived bias or opposition to any particular theology that could cloud of understanding.

Peace to you

 

[Van]

We have enough translations. No need for another.

With all the study tools available, a serious Bible student can glean the meaning through the context in which the word was used.

We simply have to approach the text with an open mind, without pre-conceived bias or opposition to any particular theology that could cloud of understanding.

Peace to you

Canadyd seems to have no idea of how to use an Exhaustive Concordance, and seems clueless as to how to improve our translations.
I say improve the existing translations and the troll suggests I said we need more translation versions. Fiddlesticks.

We need more that to study our translation objectively, we need clear and accurate translations of the inspired word.

1) Luke 2:15 NASB "see this "thing"
2) CSB "see "what" has happened"
3) DRA " "see this "word" that"
4) ERV "great event"
5) Accurate and objective translation "see this proclamation that has happened."

 

[canadyjd]

Canadyd seems to have no idea of how to use an Exhaustive Concordance, and seems clueless as to how to improve our translations.

Personal attacks from @Van. How sad but not unexpected.

I say improve the existing translations and the troll suggests I said we need more translation versions. Fiddlesticks.

Personal attacks from @Van. How sad but not unexpected.

We need more that to study our translation objectively, we need clear and accurate translations of the inspired word.

Since you have admitted you do not even know basic biblical Greek grammar, I’ll ignore your assertions the translations we have aren’t clear. Have you ever considered they simply aren’t clear to YOU. You might have a comprehension problem.

What is clear is that @Van simply doesn’t comprehend the teachings of the EXPERTS in biblical Greek and Hebrew (which have devoted decades of their lives to research and understanding the languages in contexts).

It is not surprising he has started numerous threads about how we should change the words of scripture to fit his theology.

Peace to you

 

[Mikoo]

Personal attacks from @Van. How sad but not unexpected.

Personal attacks from @Van. How sad but not unexpected.

Since you have admitted you do not even know basic biblical Greek grammar, I’ll ignore your assertions the translations we have aren’t clear. Have you ever considered they simply aren’t clear to YOU. You might have a comprehension problem.

What is clear is that @Van simply doesn’t comprehend the teachings of the EXPERTS in biblical Greek and Hebrew (which have devoted decades of their lives to research and understanding the languages in contexts).

It is not surprising he has started numerous threads about how we should change the words of scripture to fit his theology.

Peace to you

Van likes to correct many of the Bible translations. I am still waiting for the Van Bible version, then we can have a clear and accurate translation of the inspired word.

 

[JesusFan]

Personal attacks from @Van. How sad but not unexpected.

Personal attacks from @Van. How sad but not unexpected.

Since you have admitted you do not even know basic biblical Greek grammar, I’ll ignore your assertions the translations we have aren’t clear. Have you ever considered they simply aren’t clear to YOU. You might have a comprehension problem.

What is clear is that @Van simply doesn’t comprehend the teachings of the EXPERTS in biblical Greek and Hebrew (which have devoted decades of their lives to research and understanding the languages in contexts).

It is not surprising he has started numerous threads about how we should change the words of scripture to fit his theology.

Peace to you

I have also asked him what his qualifications are to be judging just how accurate and faithful to the Hebrew and greek texts a Translation is, but so far no response back

 

[canadyjd]

I have also asked him what his qualifications are to be judging just how accurate and faithful to the Hebrew and greek texts a Translation is, but so far no response back

There is a bold audacity with every thread he starts.

He states he doesn’t know the basics of Biblical Greek grammar, constantly rejects expert opinions (there are a few on this board I consider extremely well educated in the Biblical languages and, perhaps, experts), and then makes these broad statements of needing better translations, and changing the words of scripture to fit his ideology.

I generally ignore him, nowadays, which is probably the best course of action.

Peace to you

 

[Ascetic X]

There is a bold audacity with every thread he starts.

He states he doesn’t know the basics of Biblical Greek grammar, constantly rejects expert opinions (there are a few on this board I consider extremely well educated in the Biblical languages and, perhaps, experts), and then makes these broad statements of needing better translations, and changing the words of scripture to fit his ideology.

I generally ignore him, nowadays, which is probably the best course of action.

Peace to you

It is sadly obvious that Van has a lot of anger inside him. He tries to lure individuals into conversations, then lashes out at them when they disagree with him.

Personal attacks, insults, and lengthy quarreling are what he enjoys engaging in. He doesn’t know how to discuss topics. He just makes assertions, then expects agreement. Sometimes, he cannot remember what his own opinions were a few days ago, because he starts contradicting himself.

He seems frenzied. As if by complaining about translations that do not please him, his rants will influence Bible publishers.

Who has ever been blessed or edified by anything he says?

 

[Van]

Personal attacks from @Van. How sad but not unexpected.

Personal attacks from @Van. How sad but not unexpected.

Since you have admitted you do not even know basic biblical Greek grammar, I’ll ignore your assertions the translations we have aren’t clear. Have you ever considered they simply aren’t clear to YOU. You might have a comprehension problem.

What is clear is that @Van simply doesn’t comprehend the teachings of the EXPERTS in biblical Greek and Hebrew (which have devoted decades of their lives to research and understanding the languages in contexts).

It is not surprising he has started numerous threads about how we should change the words of scripture to fit his theology.

Peace to you

This troll continues to address me and not the thread topic. Nuff said.

We need more that to study our translation objectively, we need clear and accurate translations of the inspired word.

1) Luke 2:15 NASB "see this "thing"
2) CSB "see "what" has happened"
3) DRA " "see this "word" that"
4) ERV "great event"
5) Accurate and objective translation "see this proclamation that has happened."

The correction to an accurate and contextual translation choice for "Rhema" is not rocket science.

 

[Van]

Van likes to correct many of the Bible translations. I am still waiting for the Van Bible version, then we can have a clear and accurate translation of the inspired word.

You take about me like a gossip, rather than address the topic.

If you are unable to offer suggestions for improving our translations, why post?

Has the godless left taken control, using false charges and cancel culture to intimidate those seeking to help the lost gain understanding of God's word. It is truly mind boggling.

If a person studies God's word, I believe he or she will discover poor translation choices and mistranslations based on an agenda. How many sermons have we heard, where the Pastor points out a truth somewhat hidden by poor translation? Tons in my experience.

 

[canadyjd]

This troll continues to address me and not the thread topic. Nuff said.

To be clear. My first post did not mention you at all. Your response was personal attacks upon me. Nuff said dauhhhh

We need more that to study our translation objectively, we need clear and accurate translations of the inspired word.

We already have clear and accurate translations and plenty of study tools to assist our understanding. They just don’t agree with your theology which is the only thing you seem to care about.

1) Luke 2:15 NASB "see this "thing"
2) CSB "see "what" has happened"
3) DRA " "see this "word" that"
4) ERV "great event"
5) Accurate and objective translation "see this proclamation that has happened."

The correction to an accurate and contextual translation choice for "Rhema" is not rocket science.

You simply cannot comprehend that nearly every word in every language has different meanings depending on the context.

You want everyone to see the context exactly like you do, otherwise they are wrong.

Example: Paul says in Philippians “He who began a good work in you will complete it…”

Many see that as a sanctification verse, but it isn’t.

Context: Phillipii was the sight of a major civil war battle which put Augustus upon the throne. There were two battles (called “works”), the first Octavia’s (later Augustus) army withdrew and allowed the other army to raid the camp.

The second, Octavian’s army flanked the other and destroyed them.

From this battle came a common saying “complete the once begun work”. One army declared victory too soon.

Paul is using a play on words from that cultural saying “He who began a good work in you…”. But the Greek word for “in” (en) can mean in, into, among.

The “you” is plural, so the “en” means among.

He who began a good work among you will complete it. Without understanding the cultural context, it’s difficult to pick up the nuances.

As you study the context, you see Philippians is full of references to persecution.

Paul is assuring these believers their work of spreading the gospel, given to them by God, will be completed despite the persecution he, and they are going through.

The translations are fine. The study tools are great. Anyone with an open mind not looking to prove a position can readily understand if they are willing to learn

Peace to you

 

[Van]

To be clear. My first post did not mention you at all. Your response was personal attacks upon me. Nuff said dauhhhh

We already have clear and accurate translations and plenty of study tools to assist our understanding. They just don’t agree with your theology which is the only thing you seem to care about.

You simply cannot comprehend that nearly every word in every language has different meanings depending on the context.

You want everyone to see the context exactly like you do, otherwise they are wrong.

Example: Paul says in Philippians “He who began a good work in you will complete it…”

Many see that as a sanctification verse, but it isn’t.

Context: Phillipii was the sight of a major civil war battle which put Augustus upon the throne. There were two battles (called “works”), the first Octavia’s (later Augustus) army withdrew and allowed the other army to raid the camp.

The second, Octavian’s army flanked the other and destroyed them.

From this battle came a common saying “complete the once begun work”. One army declared victory too soon.

Paul is using a play on words from that cultural saying “He who began a good work in you…”. But the Greek word for “in” (en) can mean in, into, among.

The “you” is plural, so the “en” means among.

He who began a good work among you will complete it. Without understanding the cultural context, it’s difficult to pick up the nuances.

As you study the context, you see Philippians is full of references to persecution.

Paul is assuring these believers their work of spreading the gospel, given to them by God, will be completed despite the persecution he, and they are going through.

The translations are fine. The study tools are great. Anyone with an open mind not looking to prove a position can readily understand if they are willing to learn

Peace to you

1) False, you misrepresented my view (we do not need more translation versions) which is a personal attack.
2) Our English translations are neither as clear as they could be, nor as accurate as they could be.
3) The thread is based on the concept the translators should be more consistent in both choosing the contextual meaning, and in translating that particular meaning into English. Again the opposite of your false allegation.
4) No, I want translators to more accurately choose the contextual meaning. So another false charge, another claim you can mind read.
5) LOL - Your example from the translation of Philippians 1:6 proves my point and destroys yours.

​

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work [fn]among you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.​

Footnote "Or in" NASB​

Thus the problem you presented is more contextually accurate in the NASB version. And the good work contextually is the spreading of the gospel.

 

[Mikoo]

You take about me like a gossip, rather than address the topic.

If you are unable to offer suggestions for improving our translations, why post?

Has the godless left taken control, using false charges and cancel culture to intimidate those seeking to help the lost gain understanding of God's word. It is truly mind boggling.

If a person studies God's word, I believe he or she will discover poor translation choices and mistranslations based on an agenda. How many sermons have we heard, where the Pastor points out a truth somewhat hidden by poor translation? Tons in my experience.

I am still waiting for the Van Bible version, then we can have a clear and accurate translation of the inspired word.

 

[Mikoo]

1) False, you misrepresented my view (we do not need more translation versions) which is a personal attack.
2) Our English translations are neither as clear as they could be, nor as accurate as they could be.
3) The thread is based on the concept the translators should be more consistent in both choosing the contextual meaning, and in translating that particular meaning into English. Again the opposite of your false allegation.
4) No, I want translators to more accurately choose the contextual meaning. So another false charge, another claim you can mind read.
5) LOL - Your example from the translation of Philippians 1:6 proves my point and destroys yours.

​

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work [fn]among you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.​

Footnote "Or in" NASB​

Thus the problem you presented is more contextually accurate in the NASB version. And the good work contextually is the spreading of the gospel.

Please help all of us. Give us what YOU claim you want! WE are still waiting for the Van Bible version, then we can have a clear and accurate translation of the inspired word.

 

[Van]

I am still waiting for the Van Bible version, then we can have a clear and accurate translation of the inspired word.

You are still posting off topic. And still posting falsehoods, as we should all strive for more accurate and clear translations of God's word. Do you not know if we study from more accurate translations, our understanding will be more accurate?