Needlessly Loose Translation Choices

[Yeshua1]

The KJV did no such thing. Have you ever read the Preface by Miles Smith?

I thought that they translation same English word all of the time?

 

[Jerome]

literal translation:
For the one speaking language not to people, nevertheless is speaking to God, for no one is hearing, and even to the Spirit he is speaking secrets. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

For the one speaking language not to people, nevertheless is speaking to God, for no one is hearing, and even to the Spirit he is speaking secrets. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.


I just have to chuckle, as aren't the two different English words highlighted in 'Van's Tran' actually the same word in Greek?

 

[Van]

More nitpicking, more effort to ridicule, but no effort to add to the discussion. I simply copied the CSB for verse three, it was not translated (or actually edited) by me. In verse three, men could be changed to people, so the nit pick is simply obfuscation. Did he say speaking in tongues was not a modern day heresy? Nope.

Salty wondered why we do not have edifying discussions. See the problem?

Too much bunker mentality?

 

[Van]

More assertions of the empty sack, with no examples to demonstrate the need for loose translation. As shown before an idiom can be translated literally and footnoted with the apparent idiomatic meaning. Every word of God's word is inspired, every phrase is inspired, and to play fast and loose with God's word to twist scripture to fit man-made doctrine is indeed bad, bad, bad!

 

[Van]

Do you understand that what you call "loose translating" would be actually the translators choosing to translate it that way based upon their understanding on how to translate, ant trying to corrupt the Bible intentionally?

No, I am not a mind reader. When you translate several Greek words, with differing shades of meaning, into the same English word or phrase, you are translating loosely. Ditto for translating a word outside of its historical range of meanings, such as surprise.
The fictional claim is repeated and repeated but the claim refers to an empty sack with no examples.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, I am not a mind reader. When you translate several Greek words, with differing shades of meaning, into the same English word or phrase, you are translating loosely. Ditto for translating a word outside of its historical range of meanings, such as surprise.
The fictional claim is repeated and repeated but the claim refers to an empty sack with no examples.

There are times where there can be a legit difference though, as there is more than one way to translate something over, correct?

 

[Jerome]

For the one speaking language not to people, nevertheless is speaking to God, for no one is hearing, and even to the Spirit he is speaking secrets. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

I just have to chuckle, as aren't the two different English words highlighted in 'Van's Tran' actually the same word in Greek?

I simply copied the CSB for verse three, it was not translated (or actually edited) by me.

What?

Doesn't CSB start off ICor 14:3 with "person," rather than "one":

3 But the one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

I simply copied the CSB for verse three, it was not translated (or actually edited) by me.

 

[McCree79]

More nitpicking, more effort to ridicule, but no effort to add to the discussion. I simply copied the CSB for verse three, it was not translated (or actually edited) by me. In verse three, men could be changed to people, so the nit pick is simply obfuscation. Did he say speaking in tongues was not a modern day heresy? Nope.

Salty wondered why we do not have edifying discussions. See the problem?

Too much bunker mentality?

You did not. The CSB reads "On the other hand, the person who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation". That is not what you posted for verse 3.

You posted
"But the one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation."
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

You did not. The CSB reads "On the other hand, the person who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation". That is not what you posted for verse 3.

You posted
"But the one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation."
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

He must have his own edition of that translation!

 

[Van]

There are times where there can be a legit difference though, as there is more than one way to translate something over, correct?

Give me an example if you are not just repeating an assertion without a basis in reality.

 

[Yeshua1]

Give me an example if you are not just repeating an assertion without a basis in reality.

1 Corinthians 7:28 one of those really hard passages to translate!

 

[Van]

You did not. The CSB reads "On the other hand, the person who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation". That is not what you posted for verse 3.
You posted "But the one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation."
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

I incorrectly thought I had copied the CSB, but now that I have looked it up in a colossal waste of time, It turns out I did not even quote the NASB accurately. But all this clamoring is simply finding fault to avoid the topic. The subject is verse 2. I provided an edit of that verse that clarifies its meaning.

I am trying to engage in discussion of an important topic, protection of the Word of God from loose, inaccurate, and ambiguous translations contained in modern translations (and in older ones as well.)

 

[McCree79]

I incorrectly thought I had copied the CSB, but now that I have looked it up in a colossal waste of time, It turns out I did not even quote the NASB accurately. But all this clamoring is simply finding fault to avoid the topic. The subject is verse 2. I provided an edit of that verse that clarifies its meaning.

I am trying to engage in discussion of an important topic, protection of the Word of God from loose, inaccurate, and ambiguous translations contained in modern translations (and in older ones as well.)

Thanks for clarifying. I think everyone on this thread would support an accurate translation. Even those who are more strongly supporting a more functional transaltion do so because they think it best conveys what God is saying to the reader.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

1 Corinthians 7:28 one of those really hard passages to translate!

Funny, the NASB managed to translate it, the LEB managed to translate it, and the NKJV managed to translate it. So what exactly is "really hard" to translate?

28 But if you marry, you have not sinned, and if the virgin marries, she has not sinned. But such people will have affliction in the flesh, and I would spare you.

But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.

So we have affliction in the flesh presenting an obscure meaning. So instead, the translators could insert ""difficult circumstances" and footnote the literal "affliction in the flesh" phrase. Nothing really hard about that!

 

[McCree79]

Funny, the NASB managed to translate it, the LEB managed to translate it, and the NKJV managed to translate it. So what exactly is "really hard" to translate?





So we have affliction in the flesh presenting an obscure meaning. So instead, the translators could insert ""difficult circumstances" and footnote the literal "affliction in the flesh" phrase. Nothing really hard about that!

While not disagreeing with the above translations. The LEB would be very close to how I would translate it. But Yeshua may be refering to the word παρθένον(παρθένος). "In Greek literature outside the NT, parthenos generally refers to a young woman of marriageable age with or without a focus on virginity."-Mounce Word Study.

While I agree with how the transaltions rendered the word, careful judgment had to be exercised based on context (v.34).

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

I thought that they translation [sic]same English word all of the time?

You don't think before you post. You don't verify. You repeat false things much of the time.

Do what I said and see for yourself --read the Preface of the KJV by Miles Smith.

 

[Van]

The empty sack has been turned inside out. Modern translations contain needlessly loose translation choices. And the effort to justify the malfeasance has been exposed as an assertion without evidence.

 

[Van]

I thought that they translation same English word all of the time?

One has to wonder why you thought that falsehood? Did you read it somewhere? Pick a word, any word. Let's take "perish" in John 3:13.

The KJV translates Strong's G622 in the following manner: perish (33x), destroy (26x), lose (22x), be lost (5x), lost (4x), miscellaneous (2x).

 

[Yeshua1]

While not disagreeing with the above translations. The LEB would be very close to how I would translate it. But Yeshua may be refering to the word παρθένον(παρθένος). "In Greek literature outside the NT, parthenos generally refers to a young woman of marriageable age with or without a focus on virginity."-Mounce Word Study.

While I agree with how the transaltions rendered the word, careful judgment had to be exercised based on context (v.34).

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

yes, for was the intent on ones own daughter, on someone you are to marry, or what?

 

[Yeshua1]

The empty sack has been turned inside out. Modern translations contain needlessly loose translation choices. And the effort to justify the malfeasance has been exposed as an assertion without evidence.

Does that mean that the Csb is not a valid translation, and not the word of God then?