Needlessly Loose Translation Choices

[Van]

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.

More attempts to disparage me, and no on topic support. Now if you think the rich young ruler was seeking eternal life from Baal, have at it Please stop with the subject change effort, it is beneath you.
It looks to me like you are misrepresenting my view to change the subject.

Folks, the case is closed, modern translations contain needlessly loose translations.

 

[Van]

Where is the quote? None will be provided. I have explained the flawed translation of John 3:19. No rebuttal will be forthcoming except personal incredulity. I explained that this view did not conflict with John 3:20. This response was ignored. All they have is an empty sack. No verse has been provided that needs to be translated loosely.

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.

 

[McCree79]

More attempts to disparage me, and no on topic support. Now if you think the rich young ruler was seeking eternal life from Baal, have at it Please stop with the subject change effort, it is beneath you.
It looks to me like you are misrepresenting my view to change the subject.

Folks, the case is closed, modern translations contain needlessly loose translations.

People can want eternal life for selfish reasons. The young man was shown to be selfish. There is zero reason to assume this selfish man was seeking God or loved God.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

People can want eternal life for selfish reasons. The young man was shown to be selfish. There is zero reason to assume this selfish man was seeking God or loved God.

I have no interest in continuing this parody. Selfish people seeking God shows they have limited spiritual ability.

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.

 

[McCree79]

Iy. Selfish people seeking God shows they have limited spiritual ability.

He was NOT seeking God. Scripture says he was seeking eternal life. That is not the same thing. You are twisting scripture to say things it doesn't. You are trying to rewrite scripture, John 3:19-20, to say what it does not. You policy of picking words from Strongs that fit your theology is hugely flawed.

*"Lets review." The NASB and CSB are superior to Van's translation. They were also written by people who can read the orginal language's. Their methods are much more sound that what has been offered as an alternative.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

He was NOT seeking God. Scripture says he was seeking eternal life. That is not the same thing. You are twisting scripture to say things it doesn't. You are trying to rewrite scripture, John 3:19-20, to say what it does not. You policy of picking words from Strongs that fit your theology is hugely flawed.

*"Lets review." The NASB and CSB are superior to Van's translation. They were also written by people who can read the orginal language's. Their methods are much more sound that what has been offered as an alternative.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

I have to admit that I am not nearly as “comfortable” with the CSB as I am the NASB.

But then I am less inclined to do other then recline.

Thank you for your work in the languages! I wish more of the threads would explore and expose the original works.

Mostly I rely upon you and others, that have remained skilled, to address at any time an error I may post when it relates to my own efforts in the languages. Such work is as all great translations do, a work needing multiple peer review (not that I am puffing myself up to that of a peer but seeking validations so as to guard from error).

Because Strong’s is a click away and rather easy to navigate, I do more often use it as a remembering tool.

Perhaps you have a suggestion of another free online source? Seems others I looked at refer back to the Strong’s, too in at least the numbering system. But even Melvin Dewey (Dewey Decimal System) is still used to organize and the Strong’s numbering is better then inventing something else.

 

[McCree79]

I have to admit that I am not nearly as “comfortable” with the CSB as I am the NASB.

But then I am less inclined to do other then recline.

Thank you for your work in the languages! I wish more of the threads would explore and expose the original works.

Mostly I rely upon you and others, that have remained skilled, to address at any time an error I may post when it relates to my own efforts in the languages. Such work is as all great translations do, a work needing multiple peer review (not that I am puffing myself up to that of a peer but seeking validations so as to guard from error).

Because Strong’s is a click away and rather easy to navigate, I do more often use it as a remembering tool.

Perhaps you have a suggestion of another free online source? Seems others I looked at refer back to the Strong’s, too in at least the numbering system. But even Melvin Dewey (Dewey Decimal System) is still used to organize and the Strong’s numbering is better then inventing something else.

The comment on the NASB and CSB is referring to John 3:19-20. Which van feels they are "needlessly loose". That of course is nonsense. The CSB is not nearly as bad as some would make it out to be.

I don't have an issue with Strongs as much as I do with how some use it. It is great to get a gloss and refresh your mind. A gloss is nothing but a brief definition. It is not an exhaustive word Study. It also doesn't help you know when to use what words.

As far as free online resources, Mounce is good. διάκονος | billmounce.com.

This link will take you there and show you the greek for deacon. You can look up whatever... διάκονος was just the first word to come to my mind. Mounce often goes beyond the gloss and gets a little deeper.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

The comment on the NASB and CSB is referring to John 3:19-20. Which van feels they are "needlessly loose". That of course is nonsense. The CSB is not nearly as bad as some would make it out to be.

I don't have an issue with Strongs as much as I do with how some use it. It is great to get a gloss and refresh your mind. A gloss is nothing but a brief definition. It is not an exhaustive word Study. It also doesn't help you know when to use what words.

As far as free online resources, Mounce is good. διάκονος | billmounce.com.

This link will take you there and show you the greek for deacon. You can look up whatever... διάκονος was just the first word to come to my mind. Mounce often goes beyond the gloss and gets a little deeper.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

I think I looked at that some time ago.

I’ll look again and put it in my bookmarks

Thanks

 

[Van]

He was NOT seeking God. Scripture says he was seeking eternal life. That is not the same thing. You are twisting scripture to say things it doesn't. You are trying to rewrite scripture, John 3:19-20, to say what it does not. You policy of picking words from Strongs that fit your theology is hugely flawed.

More change the subject nonsense to preclude any discussion of the topic. More he was seeking eternal life from non-gods. LOL
Correctly and accurately translating John 3:19-20 does not alter its meaning. I have no "policy of determining the historical range of meanings from Strong's lexicon. I use all the on-line lexicons and commentaries I can find.

 

[Van]

Oops double post

 

[McCree79]

More change the subject nonsense to preclude any discussion of the topic. More he was seeking eternal life from non-gods. LOL
Correctly and accurately translating John 3:19-20 does not alter its meaning. I have no "policy of determining the historical range of meanings from Strong's lexicon. I use all the on-line lexicons and commentaries I can find.

You are absolutely changing the meaning of John 3:19-20. Changing the NASB from "rather"(19) to "more readlily" changes the meaning from they loved the darkeness instead of Jesus; to a meaning or they loved the darkness more than Jesus. Or that the loved the darkness more willingly than Jesus. Verse 20 contradicts :more readily. To prevent this contradiction, you insist we read "hate" as love less. Van insists that John is using hyperbolic language here. There is no support for this, unlike Luke 14:26, where hyperbolic language is obvious since otherwise would to be to contradict the law. No other scripture can support the theory that the lost love Jesus, they just love sin more. Jesus confirms in John 7:7 that the world hates him.

Those changes absolutely change the meaning. The fact you can't see that is telling.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Again no quote offered to support this poster of disinformation.

Lets turn to John 3:19-20:

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. (NASB)

I used John 3:19 to demonstrate the loose (expansionist) translation contained in modern translations. "Rather" could be translated as "more readily." Thus verse 19 would read ",,,people loved the darkness more readily than the Light, for their deeds were evil. And in verse 20 I pointed out that among the historical meanings of the word translated as "hate" is "to love less." Thus verse 20 would read "For everyone who does evil loves the light less, and does not come to the Light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. These translation choices do not create any conflict with any other statement of John, they are consistent with John.

Next, we get the claim that since the "world" (fallen mankind) hates Jesus, that means no individual, for even a moment ever seeks God or puts their trust in Jesus. Absurd overreach, yes, but there you have it, the empty sack. Again, Matthew 23:13 shows this claim is bogus yet again.

 

[McCree79]

Again no quote offered to support this poster of disinformation.

Lets turn to John 3:19-20:


I used John 3:19 to demonstrate the loose (expansionist) translation contained in modern translations. "Rather" could be translated as "more readily." Thus verse 19 would read ",,,people loved the darkness more readily than the Light, for their deeds were evil. And in verse 20 I pointed out that among the historical meanings of the word translated as "hate" is "to love less." Thus verse 20 would read "For everyone who does evil loves the light less, and does not come to the Light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. These translation choices do not create any conflict with any other statement of John, they are consistent with John.

Next, we get the claim that since the "world" (fallen mankind) hates Jesus, that means no individual, for even a moment ever seeks God or puts their trust in Jesus. Absurd overreach, yes, but there you have it, the empty sack. Again, Matthew 23:13 shows this claim is bogus yet again.

"No quote"??? You just admitted I represented you appropriatly. I have shown your contradiction. What are you talking about?

μισέω means "to hate". The only time it means "love less"....is when its meaning is exaggerated *beyond* its normal bounds. And that is determined by a variety of things...but the meaning *of the individual word* never truly changes. Such as contradictions it would create, context, the type of language used etc... On what grounds do you declare 3:20 hyperbole? How would you go about determining that?

I never said that no individual ever comes to salvation. You are making things up. Those who love the darkness rather than Christ, do not love him. Jesus says they hate him.

TDNT on love and hate in John.

"Love and Hate in John. In John divine love conflicts with cosmic hate. The world's hatred for God, Christ, and God's people is sin. The world is blinded and impelled by darkness and therefore hates the light (Jn. 3:20). Since Jesus is the light, the world hates Jesus (7:7). In so doing it hates God (15:23-24). It also hates the disciples (15:18). To live in the light is to be a target of hate. To hate the brethren is to live in darkness (1 Jn. 2:9, 11). Yet there is a proper hatred, as in Jn. 12:25, which states that one must hate one's life in this world in order to keep it for eternal life."

Also, if μισέω does not mean hate in John, but "love less", than love must mean to hate less in verse 16. If hyperbolic language is being used in this passage as you demand. Than ἠγάπησεν is hyperbolic as well and means to hate less. Would you allow "For God so hated the world less that He gave His only Son"??? Of course not. You would reject hyperbolic language in regards to love. Hate and love are not hyperbolic here.

Also v.21 shows that people do in fact come to that light. "But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

They are contrasted with those who "hate" in v.20 who do not come to the light.

Matthew 23:13: The verse you apeal too....
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." Are you just randomly spouting off verses in hope no one checks them? Or are you imply that I am shutting the door of Heaven in people's faces? Preventing others from entering the kingdom??? Two verses later they are referred to a child of hell.....which is it? Making things up or serious rules violation? You can't claim it was the parable of the soils and that you just said the wrong chapter, for even the verse is off.

*I presented no argument as to which 23:13 would even closely resemble a rebuttal

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Again no quote offered to support this poster of disinformation.

Lets turn to John 3:19-20:


I used John 3:19 to demonstrate the loose (expansionist) translation contained in modern translations. "Rather" could be translated as "more readily." Thus verse 19 would read ",,,people loved the darkness more readily than the Light, for their deeds were evil. And in verse 20 I pointed out that among the historical meanings of the word translated as "hate" is "to love less." Thus verse 20 would read "For everyone who does evil loves the light less, and does not come to the Light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. These translation choices do not create any conflict with any other statement of John, they are consistent with John.

Next, we get the claim that since the "world" (fallen mankind) hates Jesus, that means no individual, for even a moment ever seeks God or puts their trust in Jesus. Absurd overreach, yes, but there you have it, the empty sack. Again, Matthew 23:13 shows this claim is bogus yet again.

Your claim was that your changes did not alter the meaning. Your last post did not address my demonstration that it does in fact alter the meaning dramatically. I will take that acknowledgement that you are changing its meaning found in the NASB.

Again, please show where people love Jesus, but still choose the *darkness* to support your claim.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Again no quote offered to support this poster of disinformation.

Lets turn to John 3:19-20:


I used John 3:19 to demonstrate the loose (expansionist) translation contained in modern translations. "Rather" could be translated as "more readily." Thus verse 19 would read ",,,people loved the darkness more readily than the Light, for their deeds were evil. And in verse 20 I pointed out that among the historical meanings of the word translated as "hate" is "to love less." Thus verse 20 would read "For everyone who does evil loves the light less, and does not come to the Light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. These translation choices do not create any conflict with any other statement of John, they are consistent with John.

Next, we get the claim that since the "world" (fallen mankind) hates Jesus, that means no individual, for even a moment ever seeks God or puts their trust in Jesus. Absurd overreach, yes, but there you have it, the empty sack. Again, Matthew 23:13 shows this claim is bogus yet again.

The point of John in this though is to show to us that the light of Jesus, the Gospel message of Him, will reveal whether one is of the light, one of His own, or one in the darkness, one of the devils own. They do not bounce back and forth from one kingdom to another!

 

[agedman]

"No quote"??? You just admitted I represented you appropriatly. I have shown your contradiction. What are you talking about?

μισέω means "to hate". The only time it means "love less"....is when its meaning is exaggerated *beyond* its normal bounds. On what grounds do you declare 3:20 hyperbole? How would you go about determining that?

I never said that no individual ever comes to salvation. You are making things up. Those who love the darkness rather than Christ, do not love him. Jesus says they hate him.

TDNT on love and hate in John.

"Love and Hate in John. In John divine love conflicts with cosmic hate. The world's hatred for God, Christ, and God's people is sin. The world is blinded and impelled by darkness and therefore hates the light (Jn. 3:20). Since Jesus is the light, the world hates Jesus (7:7). In so doing it hates God (15:23-24). It also hates the disciples (15:18). To live in the light is to be a target of hate. To hate the brethren is to live in darkness (1 Jn. 2:9, 11). Yet there is a proper hatred, as in Jn. 12:25, which states that one must hate one's life in this world in order to keep it for eternal life."

Also, if μισέω does not mean hate in John, but "love less", than love must mean to hate less in verse 16. If hyperbolic language is being used in this passage as you demand. Than ἠγάπησεν is hyperbolic as well and means to hate less. Would you allow "For God so hated the world less that He gave His only Son"??? Of course not. You would reject hyperbolic language in regards to love. Hate and love are not hyperbolic here.

Also v.21 shows that people do in fact come to that light. "But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

They are contrasted with those who "hate" in v.20 who do not come to the light.

Matthew 23:13: The verse you apeal too....
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." Are you just randomly spouting off verses in hope no one checks them? Or are you imply that I am shutting the door of Heaven in people's faces? Preventing others from entering the kingdom??? Two verses later they are referred to a child of hell.....which is it? Making things up or serious rules violation? You can't claim it was the parable of the soils and that you just said the wrong chapter, for even the verse is off.

*I presented no argument as to which 23:13 would even closely resemble a rebuttal

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

My own opinion is that John (in comparison to other writers) has two outstanding characteristics.

1). He is extremely precise in his word choice and how the structures of the word placement impact the meaning of those words. John is the typical teacher (which in my opinion is why he had a school in Ephesus) in which he states what he means and means what he states.

2). In the gospel, john often is using the literary technique of compare and contrast. Each section of the Gospel of John discloses an area in which John is contrasting and demonstrating radical differences.​

For example:

John three. The contrast as to the eternal state of one who believes to that of the unbeliever.
John one. The contrast as to those who turn from the light to those who do not turn from the light.
John six. The contrast as to the basic elemental gospel and the humankind turning way
John ten. The contrast as a shepherd and His claims to the humankind not just turning away but ready to use force to remove His influence.​

And so forth.

McCree did very good in demonstrating the exactness of the words John used.

 

[Van]

Your claim was that your changes did not alter the meaning. Your last post did not address my demonstration that it does in fact alter the meaning dramatically. I will take that acknowledgement that you are changing its meaning found in the NASB.
Again, please show where people love Jesus, but still choose the *darkness* to support your claim.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Will the disinformation poster quote me saying "I did not change the meaning?" Nope, he made that up!
And how does this poster know what the intended meaning of John was. He doesn't. But he is saying the interpretation of the translation in the NASB differs from the interpretation from the translation that does not translate it as hyperbole. My point exactly.
What I showed is that fallen people seek God and trust in Jesus, just as those of Matthew 23:13 and all those added to the church in Acts.

Needlessly Loose translations cannot be supported. They are indeed needless.

Why were not several verses listed that need to be loosely translated? Because there are none!!
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]

...
What I showed is that fallen people seek God and trust in Jesus, just as those of Matthew 23:13 and all those added to the church in Acts.
...

As shown throughout many threads, that statement is unsupported by Scriptures.

Even those Scriptures of which you have offered as supportive of the statement have been shown to be unsupportive of that statement.

But you cling to the error despite the efforts of all others.


However,

You do have one characteristic that can be admired, although you are consistently non-compliant and consistently obstinate, you are never-the-less consistently consistent.

 

[McCree79]

Will the disinformation poster quote me saying "I did not change the meaning?" Nope, he made that up!

From post 149

Can says....

"Correctly and accurately translating John 3:19-20 does not alter its meaning."

You altered the meaning, and claimed not too.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

From post 149
Van says.... "Correctly and accurately translating John 3:19-20 does not alter its meaning."

You altered the meaning, and claimed not too.

McCree is no prophet, he does not know the intended meaning which I did not change. I changed an interpretation to one that is consistent with all scripture, whereas the bogus interpretation conflicts with Matthew 23:13.