How to Improve Modern English Translation, 2.0

[JesusFan]

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

Any who states that they do not know at all Greek Grammar should not be going on about translation issues

 

[JesusFan]

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.

And soon after that His Systematic theology

 

[Mikoo]

You are still posting off topic.

Nope.

And still posting falsehoods,

Please provide an example o fthis accusation. Or retract it.

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?

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

 

[canadyjd]

1) False, you misrepresented my view (we do not need more translation versions) which is a personal attack.

You weren’t mentioned. Therefore, no personal attack. It is an observation. As when you read scripture, you are having a very hard time comprehending what is written. (Not a personal attack, just an observation)

2) Our English translations are neither as clear as they could be, nor as accurate as they could be.

Insinuating we need better translations…

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.

Again, not the opposite, but consistent with the observation we don’t need more translations. We need people that can comprehend what is written. (Not a personal attack. Just an observation)

4) No, I want translators to more accurately choose the contextual meaning. So another false charge, another claim you can mind read.

Since you have admitted to having no knowledge of basic Biblical Greek, you wouldn’t recognize an accurate contextual meaning if it jumped up…. And screamed “I’m an accurate contextual meaning!!)

5) LOL - Your example from the translation of Philippians 1:6 proves my point and destroys yours.

Only in your mind. My example proved the point we need to trust the experts in biblical languages, have good study tools, and an open mind not filled with bias. (Not a personal attack. Just an observation)

…..​

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

Correct. I differ with you in demanding everyone else agree with my assessment.

Let each be convinced in his own mind. Let us reason together in civil discussion and sharpen our understanding of God’s Word, without personal attacks and name calling toward those that disagree.

Peace to you

 

[Van]

Nope.

Please provide an example o fthis accusation. Or retract it.

Again, 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.

 

[Van]

You weren’t mentioned. Therefore, no personal attack. It is an observation. As when you read scripture, you are having a very hard time comprehending what is written. (Not a personal attack, just an observation)

Insinuating we need better translations…

Again, not the opposite, but consistent with the observation we don’t need more translations. We need people that can comprehend what is written. (Not a personal attack. Just an observation)

Since you have admitted to having no knowledge of basic Biblical Greek, you wouldn’t recognize an accurate contextual meaning if it jumped up…. And screamed “I’m an accurate contextual meaning!!)

Only in your mind. My example proved the point we need to trust the experts in biblical languages, have good study tools, and an open mind not filled with bias. (Not a personal attack. Just an observation)

Correct. I differ with you in demanding everyone else agree with my assessment.

Let each be convinced in his own mind. Let us reason together in civil discussion and sharpen our understanding of God’s Word, without personal attacks and name calling toward those that disagree.

Peace to you

1) The poster is a troll. Note this is not a personal attack it is an observation. Fiddlesticks.
2) Claiming we need "more" translations misrepresents the fact we need our translations to be more concordant.
3) We need our translations to be more clear and accurate, and we need bible students to be more proficient in gaining an accurate understanding.
4) LOL - context is discerned from the context, whether expressed in Hebrew, Greek or English.
5) The Reformation was about obtaining direct access to an understandable bible, rather than given to us by greedy charlatans.
6) LOL - the NASB translated "en" as among. And you did NOT understand the context.
7) You have not presented any suggestions of how to improve our modern translation, but only misrepresented the suggestions I have made. See Post #7 folks.

 

[canadyjd]

1) The poster is a troll. Note this is not a personal attack it is an observation. Fiddlesticks.

Notice which poster is calling names.

2) Claiming we need "more" translations misrepresents the fact we need our translations to be more concordant.

How do you accomplish that without another translation making the verses “more concordant”? How is that accomplished without another translation?

3) We need our translations to be more clear and accurate, and we need bible students to be more proficient in gaining an accurate understanding.

How do you make our translations “more clear and accurate” without another translation that makes it “more clear and accurate”? Who decides what is “more clear and accurate?” You?

4) LOL - context is discerned from the context, whether expressed in Hebrew, Greek or English.

Absolutely brilliant observation. Well done.

5) The Reformation was about obtaining direct access to an understandable bible, rather than given to us by greedy charlatans.

The Reformation was about reforming the RCC from the doctrinal errors found in the Latin Vulgate and RCC traditions. Maybe you should learn Church history as you learn the Bible (not a personal attack, just an observation)

6) LOL - the NASB translated "en" as among. And you did NOT understand the context.

I have learned as I studied. I was taught the passage in Philippians referred to personal sanctification. During my study, I realized that was incorrect.

I changed my mind to agree with scripture instead of attempting to change the words of scripture to fit my beliefs, as some on this board have repeatedly done. (Not a personal attack, just an observation).

7) You have not presented any suggestions of how to improve our modern translation, but only misrepresented the suggestions I have made. See Post #7 folks.

I don’t think we need to “improve” the translations. We need to “improve” our use of study tools that reveal the meaning in context.

Peace to you

 

[Van]

Notice which poster is calling names.

How do you accomplish that without another translation making the verses “more concordant”? How is that accomplished without another translation?

How do you make our translations “more clear and accurate” without another translation that makes it “more clear and accurate”? Who decides what is “more clear and accurate?” You?

Absolutely brilliant observation. Well done.

The Reformation was about reforming the RCC from the doctrinal errors found in the Latin Vulgate and RCC traditions. Maybe you should learn Church history as you learn the Bible (not a personal attack, just an observation)

I have learned as I studied. I was taught the passage in Philippians referred to personal sanctification. During my study, I realized that was incorrect.

I changed my mind to agree with scripture instead of attempting to change the words of scripture to fit my beliefs, as some on this board have repeatedly done. (Not a personal attack, just an observation).

I don’t think we need to “improve” the translations. We need to “improve” our use of study tools that reveal the meaning in context.

Peace to you

1) Name calling is NOT your only bag, as denial is your forte.
2) Next you pretend you do not know a new rendering of an existing translation replaces rather than adds. We have over 60 English translation versions now, and if each one was updated to be more concordant, we would still have about 60 versions. Note the outdated editions are usually NOT listed as additional versions. Yes, there are some exceptions, the NASB95 and the NASB, but over time the old version is replaced for common usage.
3) Denial that our translations should be improved to make them more clear and accurate. Fiddlesticks.
4) Agreed
5) The Reformation was about improving our understanding of God's Word, rather than works salvation by buying indulgences.
6) LOL - you again make my point, the translation of "in" was not contextual, among might have avoided misinterpretation being taught.
7) Yet another assertions we do not need to improve our translations. Fiddlesticks.

 

[Van]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 NASB

Was God, the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit? Nope.

Here, God refers to our Triune God. So a more clear and accurate translation might read:

In the beginning, our Triune God created the heavens and the earth.

The clarifying addition is in italics, making clear the translators interpretation of the text.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 NASB

Here the verse could be clarified as: "In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God the Father and Logos was God the Son.

Or the clarification could be footnoted.

 

[Mikoo]

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

'Take'??? I am addressing the topic. maybe you shoul look at it again.

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

I did offer a 'suggestion'. Here is is again: Still waiting for the Van Bible version, then we can have a clear and accurate translation of the inspired word.

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.

Please help us then. Provide the Van Bible version, then we can have a clear and accurate translation of the inspired word.

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.

Then please, provide the Van Bible version, then we can have a clear and accurate translation of the inspired word.