Any who states that they do not know at all Greek Grammar should not be going on about translation issues
-
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!
How to Improve Modern English Translation, 2.0
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
And soon after that His Systematic theology
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
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
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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.
'Take'??? I am addressing the topic. maybe you shoul look at it again.
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.
Please help us then. Provide the Van Bible version, then we can have a clear and accurate translation of the inspired word.
Then please, provide the Van Bible version, then we can have a clear and accurate translation of the inspired word.
I see that someone wants to hinder discuss of ways to improve our English translations.
Like the brood of vipers that were not going to enter heaven, and prevented others from going in, these posters want to avoid discussion of ways to improve our translations. See Matthew 23:13
A lack of concordance is evident in all modern English translations because they reflect too 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 pronouncement that has happened."
Like the brood of vipers that were not going to enter heaven, and prevented others from going in, these posters want to avoid discussion of ways to improve our translations. See Matthew 23:13
A lack of concordance is evident in all modern English translations because they reflect too 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 pronouncement that has happened."
Most times "Rhema" is used to express what was spoken, words, pronouncements, proclamations, allegations, whatever the subject matter. To translate "Rhema" as "nothing" or "thing" does not confine the scope of the statement to the scope of the message, but facilitates misinterpretation. There is absolutely NO need to translate the same meaning as (1) statement, (2) remark, (3) saying, (4) teaching and (5) message.
Lots of threads by lots of people have expressed ways to improve our translation choices. Recently "Gender Neutral Versions has posts by many contributors, all advocating differing translation choices.
For example rather than going with brothers or brethren or brothers and sisters, siblings is inclusive of women. The NIV translates "he" as "they" but the poster thought that choice was terrible. Some objected to using they instead of he, because it suggests the plural, when the Greek grammar is singular. Others said "he or she" but still others objected because that rendering was choppy. Still another pointed out sometimes they is used when the gender is unknown, so they as a singular is grammatically correct translation into English. And the discussion goes on.
Bible study exposes poor translation choices, but a recognized path to inform the translators seems missing.
For example rather than going with brothers or brethren or brothers and sisters, siblings is inclusive of women. The NIV translates "he" as "they" but the poster thought that choice was terrible. Some objected to using they instead of he, because it suggests the plural, when the Greek grammar is singular. Others said "he or she" but still others objected because that rendering was choppy. Still another pointed out sometimes they is used when the gender is unknown, so they as a singular is grammatically correct translation into English. And the discussion goes on.
Bible study exposes poor translation choices, but a recognized path to inform the translators seems missing.
What is wrong, someone might ask, with translating different Greek words sharing somewhat similar but not the same meaning, with the same English word. For example "agapao" (G25) refers to love, and "phileo" (G5368) refers to love, but to different kinds of love. and so the distinction is lost with the NASB translation of John 21:15-17, where Jesus actually changes His question from a kind of love Peter lacks, to the kind Peter has currently for Jesus. The NASB addresses the problem with footnotes, but a better translation choice would be to use different English words, such as sacrificially love for "agapao" and "affectionately love" for "phileo."
Last edited:
Are you saying a person cannot suggest ways to improve our English translations without "knowing Greek grammar" and well as knowing "textual criticism?"
If something is confusing, but when the meanings of the underlying original language word is considered, a better choice becomes apparent, that choice cannot be declared. Fiddlesticks.
Lots of times, another translation has a better translation, such as translating "en" as among rather than in, based on context. Anyone can say the "among" choice is better and those using "in" should upgrade their choice based on context.
The choice of affectionately can be found in another translation. Your claim is not only bogus, it appears to be based on malice, not reason.
Note this same poster challenged the translation choices of some translation versions himself.
"2 main reasons for the translation such as NRSv and new Niv would be that they wanted to try to get men and women as having same roles and positions, and to try to undercut alleged male Parochialism of the OT"
Last edited: