Needlessly Loose Translation Choices

[Van]

McCree79, Have you studied the verse that says you need to hate your mother and father? And then looked at the verse that says we are honor our mother and father. Have you resolved the difficulty by understanding that love and hate are sometimes used to illustrate a difference in affection, we are to love Christ more than we love our parents?

Translations that needlessly add to the scope of the statement are adding to scripture and corrupting the text, creating apparent conflicts where none actually exist. Included in the range of meaning of the Greek word translated "hate" is "to love less!"

 

[McCree79]

Have you studied the verse that says you need to hate your mother and father? And then looked at the verse that says we are honor our mother and father. Have you resolved the difficulty by understanding that love and hate are sometimes used to illustrate a difference in affection, we are to love Christ more than we love our parents?

Its not an issue at all. It was not written by John and was certainly not written in the context of spiritual warfare. John is operating with a theme Luke was not using.

*and I am not denying the range of the word. But based on context, your rendering is highly improbable

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Highly improbable, especially if looked at with Calvinist presuppositions. OTOH, if we look at the fact that we all fall short of the glory of God, we must surrender our prideful self-sufficiency to walk toward the light. But thanks for your on topic posts. They exemplify how siblings are to hold others accountable to God's word

 

[McCree79]

Highly improbable, especially if looked at with Calvinist presuppositions. OTOH, if we look at the fact that we all fall short of the glory of God, we must surrender our prideful self-sufficiency to walk toward the light.

Your rendering has John contradicting himself. You have not refuted. To do so would to to destroy his established themes. Show me proof of evil people, lovers of the dark, who also loving Jesus. Just not as much as evil.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

The rich young ruler was seeking eternal life. The people of Matthew 23:13 were seeking God. Romans 9:30-33 gives examples of people seeking God in various ways. Matthew 13:1-23 shows 3 soils that were receptive to the gospel. The woman at the well. Scrpture is full of examples. And John does not contradict himself. But sometimes interpretations create that issue.

Let's review:

1) Many examples were provided where modern translations did not minimize the number of different English words or phrases used to translate one source language word meaning.

2) Many examples were provided where modern translations used the same English word or phrase to translate several different source language words. It appears little or no effort was made to minimize this issue.

3) A few examples were provided where modern translations used ambiguous words or phrases which allow mistaken doctrine to creep in unnoticed.

4) A few examples were provided where modern translations did not minimize the scope of a statement, allowing an expansionist view to add to scripture.

The case is closed, modern translations contain needlessly loose translation choices.

 

[McCree79]

The rich young ruler was seeking eternal life. The people of Matthew 23:13 were seeking God. Romans 9:30-33 gives examples of people seeking God in various ways. Matthew 13:1-23 shows 3 soils that were receptive to the gospel. The woman at the well. Scrpture is full of examples. And John does not contradict himself. But sometimes interpretations create that issue.

Only one soil accepted the gospel. The other were pretenders. The rest heard ακουσωσιν, but only the 4th ραπαδεχονται. See Mark's version.

Im Matthew's account only the 4th were said to understand (συνεις). Only the are lovers of God.

The rich young ruler wanted eternal life. No indication he lived God. He loved his wealth.

Woman at the well. On what grounds to say she loved Jesus, but choose the darkness over Him, because her love of the darkness was greater? There is nothing there to suggest such.

Romans 9 scripture you suggested shows jewish pursuit of the law. Not love for Jesus. Your arguments are how you say, "an empty sack".

You are reading way too much into scripture to see things that are not present.

I also like how you use the phrase "case closed". Like you have to some authority to declare such. You are using liberal tactics that you accuse several other people of who disagree with you.

So anyway, back to my challenge. Show me a place where someone loved the light (Jesus) , but loved the darkeness more.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

Highly improbable, especially if looked at with Calvinist presuppositions. OTOH, if we look at the fact that we all fall short of the glory of God, we must surrender our prideful self-sufficiency to walk toward the light. But thanks for your on topic posts. They exemplify how siblings are to hold others accountable to God's word

Are believers to walk toward the light or are they to walk in the light?

Perhaps you are suggesting unbelievers can in some manner walk toward the light?

Again, are not unsaved told to repent (turn around)?

Sometimes your presentation seems to hold that just anyone ar anytime in any manner and in any way get God’s attention and be saved.

Is this what you consider sound?

 

[Van]

Only one soil accepted the gospel. The other were pretenders. The rest heard ακουσωσιν, but only the 4th ραπαδεχονται. See Mark's version.

Mark 4:1-12 teaches the same truth, Total Spiritual Inability is bogus doctrine.

Im Matthew's account only the 4th were said to understand (συνεις). Only they are lovers of God.

But the second soil received the word with joy, clearly understanding the message of salvation.

The rich young ruler wanted eternal life. No indication he loved God. He loved his wealth.

But he was seeking God to learn how to obtain eternal life, clearly demonstrating some spiritual ability.

Woman at the well. On what grounds to say she loved Jesus, but choose the darkness over Him, because her love of the darkness was greater? There is nothing there to suggest such.

She knew of the coming Messiah, and she thought Jesus was the Messiah, therefore she had some spiritual ability.

Romans 9 scripture you suggested shows jewish pursuit of the law. Not love for Jesus. Your arguments are how you say, "an empty sack".

No Sir, your rebuttal is the empty sack. I said these passages show spiritual ability, the pursuit of God, and you change it to the claim I said these people loved Jesus.

You are reading way too much into scripture to see things that are not present.

I believe Scripture means what it says, and it says fallen people can understand spiritual milk.

I also like how you use the phrase "case closed". Like you have to some authority to declare such. You are using liberal tactics that you accuse several other people of who disagree with you.

The case is closed, the evidence is in, and the truth has been made obvious.

So anyway, back to my challenge. Show me a place where someone loved the light (Jesus) , but loved the darkness more.

I did show you where people demonstrated some spiritual ability demonstrating the doctrine of total spiritual inability is bogus.

BTW here is my quote, unaltered:

The rich young ruler was seeking eternal life. The people of Matthew 23:13 were seeking God. Romans 9:30-33 gives examples of people seeking God in various ways. Matthew 13:1-23 shows 3 soils that were receptive to the gospel. The woman at the well. Scrpture is full of examples. And John does not contradict himself. But sometimes interpretations create that issue.

Returning to topic, loose translations create the opportunity for speculation which is the mother of false doctrine.

 

[Van]

Are believers to walk toward the light or are they to walk in the light?
Perhaps you are suggesting unbelievers can in some manner walk toward the light?
Again, are not unsaved told to repent (turn around)?
Sometimes your presentation seems to hold that just anyone ar anytime in any manner and in any way get God’s attention and be saved.
Is this what you consider sound?

Certainly your rewrite of my view is unsound. Please address the topic. Needlessly loose translations.

 

[Van]

Let's review:

1) Many examples were provided where modern translations did not minimize the number of different English words or phrases used to translate one source language word meaning. And some of these choices deviated from the historical word meaning being supposedly translated. One poster referred to this practice as a "full on paraphrase."

2) Many examples were provided where modern translations used the same English word or phrase to translate several different source language words. It appears little or no effort was made to minimize this issue.

3) A few examples were provided where modern translations used ambiguous words or phrases which allow mistaken doctrine to creep in unnoticed.

4) A few examples were provided where modern translations did not minimize the scope of a statement, allowing an expansionist view to add to scripture.

The case is closed, modern translations contain needlessly loose translation choices. And those defending the loose translations have provided no evidence (thus an empty sack) for the necessity of those loose translations.

 

[agedman]

Certainly your rewrite of my view is unsound. Please address the topic. Needlessly loose translations.

Ok

I figured I had your view correct.

Btw, when you posted to MCree stating the second soil was understanding, that is mere intellectual ascent and not core value change brought by the work of the Holy Spirit. There was nothing of life sustaining given to that soil by the farmer. The same is found when Paul testified before Felix.

Beside exposing your view and showing it as incorrect, you continue to misrepresent salvation in the post to McCree.

What is puzzling is the consistent demand for others to change, yet when you are repeatedly shown the error of your statements you repeat the error.

That is not logical.

 

[McCree79]

Mark 4:1-12 teaches the same truth, Total Spiritual Inability is bogus doctrine.

But the second soil received the word with joy, clearly understanding the message of salvation.

But he was seeking God to learn how to obtain eternal life, clearly demonstrating some spiritual ability.

She knew of the coming Messiah, and she thought Jesus was the Messiah, therefore she had some spiritual ability.

No Sir, your rebuttal is the empty sack. I said these passages show spiritual ability, the pursuit of God, and you change it to the claim I said these people loved Jesus.

I believe Scripture means what it says, and it says fallen people can understand spiritual milk.

The case is closed, the evidence is in, and the truth has been made obvious.

I did show you where people demonstrated some spiritual ability demonstrating the doctrine of total spiritual inability is bogus.

BTW here is my quote, unaltered:

Returning to topic, loose translations create the opportunity for speculation which is the mother of false doctrine.

Demonstate anything you said from scripture. You account of Mark contradicts Matthew which says only 1 soil understands. Mark also says only soil accepted . You are ignoring the very words of scripture. You have also yet to demonstate that this woman loved Jesus, but loved the darkness more. That was the challenge. Which account says the rich young man was seeking God? They all say he was seeking eternal life. That is not the same thing. The young man was shown to love wealth, not God.

You are reading things into Scripture that are not written.

Stop saying case closed. You do not have any qualification to declare such. You are doing nothing but grinding your theological axe. Everyone who knows actually knows Greek, who has posted here, are disagreeing with you conclusions? Why do you think that is? Is it more likely that we are all wrong about the translation process and that all major translations are makimg horrible mistakes (NASB included) or maybe.....just maybe....Van is wrong??? Which is more likely?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

But the second soil received the word with joy, clearly understanding the message of salvation.

Where does it does it say "clear understanding"? It doesn't. You are reading that into the text. The only soil that "understands" is the fourth. To receive the message audibly with joy does not mean you understand what you have received. Only the 4th understood. Matthew is clear about that. You are attempting to read somthing from Scripture that is not there. Matthew does not say that the 2nd soil understood.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Ok
I figured I had your view correct.
Btw, when you posted to MCree stating the second soil was understanding, that is mere intellectual ascent and not core value change brought by the work of the Holy Spirit. There was nothing of life sustaining given to that soil by the farmer. The same is found when Paul testified before Felix.
Beside exposing your view and showing it as incorrect, you continue to misrepresent salvation in the post to McCree.
What is puzzling is the consistent demand for others to change, yet when you are repeatedly shown the error of your statements you repeat the error.
That is not logical.

Yet another you, you, you post addressing the poster and not the topic. That sir is not logical, in fact it is the use of a fallacy.

 

[Van]

Demonstate anything you said from scripture. You account of Mark contradicts Matthew which says only 1 soil understands. Mark also says only soil accepted . You are ignoring the very words of scripture. You have also yet to demonstate that this woman loved Jesus, but loved the darkness more. That was the challenge. Which account says the rich young man was seeking God? They all say he was seeking eternal life. That is not the same thing. The young man was shown to love wealth, not God.
You are reading things into Scripture that are not written.
Stop saying case closed. You do not have any qualification to declare such. You are doing nothing but grinding your theological axe. Everyone who knows actually knows Greek, who has posted here, are disagreeing with you conclusions? Why do you think that is? Is it more likely that we are all wrong about the translation process and that all major translations are making horrible mistakes (NASB included) or maybe.....just maybe....Van is wrong??? Which is more likely?

Yet another you, you, and you post addressing the poster and not the topic. And no quote where I said this or that.
I am not ignoring scripture. Did I say the woman loved Jesus? Nope. But that is the false implication you presented. Did I say the rich young ruler was seeking eternal life? Yes. Next McCree appoints himself hall monitor.

Ah, you did address the topic, "Everyone who knows actually knows Greek, who has posted here, are disagreeing with you conclusions?" No one has disagreed that modern translation contain needlessly loose translation? All they have offered is "Van does not know Hebrew and Greek, and therefore should not share the results of his study. In other words demonstrating bunker mentality.

I asked for examples of verses that could not be translated using the word for word philosophy method. Every verse cited could be translated using the method. The case is closed, claiming personal incredulity somehow invalidates the evidence is yet another fallacy.

 

[Van]

Where does it does it say "clear understanding"? It doesn't. You are reading that into the text. The only soil that "understands" is the fourth. To receive the message audibly with joy does not mean you understand what you have received. Only the 4th understood. Matthew is clear about that. You are attempting to read something from Scripture that is not there. Matthew does not say that the 2nd soil understood.

LOL, the second soil received the gospel with joy. McCree now claims the second soil did not understand the message of salvation that provides joy. Nope, it was just mumbo jumbo that tickled his fancy. The case is closed, Matthew 13:1-23 shows 3 soils that were receptive to the gospel.

 

[McCree79]

Yet another you, you, and you post addressing the poster and not the topic. And no quote where I said this or that.
I am not ignoring scripture. Did I say the woman loved Jesus? Nope. But that is the false implication you presented. Did I say the rich young ruler was seeking eternal life? Yes. Next McCree appoints himself hall monitor.

Ah,

Post 128. You say he was seeking God for eternal life. Your own words van. Where does it sat he was seeking God?

When I asked for an example of someone who loved Jesus, but loved the darkeness more, you used the woman at the well as an example. It's Van vs. Van now. You not only seen to cause John to contradict John by a reckless rendering, but you contradict yourself.




Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

LOL, the second soil received the gospel with joy. McCree now claims the second soil did not understand the message of salvation that provides joy. Nope, it was just mumbo jumbo that tickled his fancy. The case is closed, Matthew 13:1-23 shows 3 soils that were receptive to the gospel.

You need to read the passage sir. All 4 soils ακούω but only one soil is said by Matthew to understand. Which soil does Matthew say συνιεις ? Only the 4th soil. Matthew said it not me. Mark says only the 4th soil παραδέχονται. Matthew and Mark disagree with you.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2:30 PM Pacific.

 

[McCree79]

Van was challened present support for his support that John3:19 indicated people just loved the light less than Jesus. He offered the woman at the well. Which he now seems will to retract. He offered the parable of the 4 soils. Which failed miserably. He offered the rich young ruler who sought eternal life. Seeking eternal life does equate loving God. He also offered a passage of Romans of Jews pursuing the law. Law does not equal Jesus or love.

The needless loose translation. Of Van produced a contradiction between John 3:19 and 3:20. Van is also unable to provide proof to support his rendering of 3:19 with other passages. I would would advise Van to leave the transaltion process to people who can read Greek.

*clarification...van wants 3:20 to read "love less" instead of "hate" in order to not contradict his version of 3:19

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk