Needlessly Loose Translation Choices

[John of Japan]

Yet another mindless claim of mind reading. He then attempts to tell you how I use words, straight out of the liberal left playbook. I defined concordance. Did he quote that? Nope.

Van's definition of concordance was mistaken. Translating by concordance does not include phrases. That's a different issue.

One thing for sure, posts like his make him sound less like an authoritative source.

Ah, yes, so this means that Van considers himself an authoritative source, even though (1) he does not know either Greek or Hebrew; (2) he has never actually done translation work; (3) he apparently is fluent in no other language than English; (4) he considers Strong's to be his top source for the original languages; (5) he is not a linguist in any way, shape or form.

Other than these little details, he's a top authority on Bible translation. And he's so humble and sweet about it!

Did he provide a verse that could not be translated using the word for word philosophy method? Nope. So what we have here is an empty sack.

I rarely participate in Van's threads, and when I do, I always feel remorse. Like now--I just feel like an empty sack....

 

[Yeshua1]

28th I suppose.

Which is the Greek text that you prefer to translate from?

 

[John of Japan]

Which is the Greek text that you prefer to translate from?

The New Testament in the Original Greek, Byzantine Textform (2005), ed. by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. However, our Japanese NT is from the TR for various reasons. I offer my "Beginning Greek" students the choice between those two for the 2nd semester.

 

[Yeshua1]

It would be amusing to have a discussion between van and one of the translators that were on the Csb team, as van would be the one to "instruct" the other textual expert on how and why should have translated the passage!

 

[Yeshua1]

The New Testament in the Original Greek, Byzantine Textform (2005), ed. by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont. However, our Japanese NT is from the TR for various reasons.

What do you think of the Critical greek editions?

 

[Jerome]

Well look what I found:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordant_Version

"the Concordant Publishing Concern (CPC)...was founded by Adolph Ernst Knoch in 1909.....The CPC's efforts yielded a restored Greek text, titled The Concordant Greek Text....The Concordant Greek Text forms the basis of the Concordant Literal New Testament, which is more idiomatic in its English than the hyper-literal sublinear."

"each English word in the Concordant Version does exclusive duty for a single Greek or Hebrew word....To facilitate a readable English translation, additional synonyms or other concordant variants are also used, as needed."

"The names of some of those who assisted A. E. Knoch during the various phases of the preparation work on the CLNT are as follows: Melville Dozier (Superintendent of Schools in Los Angeles), J. H. Breckenridge (Attorney for the Irvine Ranch) who advised on legal matters, C. P. Wilcox of Long Beach, Horace M. Conrad of South Pasadena, who assisted with proofreading, Mrs. Gibson and Mrs. Walker, who prepared the slips for the card index system, Dr. Emma Lucas, Earl Taber, Vi E. Olin, Edna Parr, Dr. and Mrs. W. S. Bagley, Pastor George L. Rogers of Almont, Michigan, who served as an expert on the Greek verb and assisted with type, David Mann, Frank Neil Pohorlak (later known as Dr. Pohorlak), Alexander Thomson of Scotland, Edward H. Clayton of England, who served as an advisor in translation matters, Ben Bredimus and Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Kirk of Seattle and Adlai Loudy."

 

[John of Japan]

What do you think of the Critical greek editions?

They are useful in their apparatus especially, but they overemphasize the Alexandrian family of texts, in spite of claiming to be eclectic. However, I do like the UBS 4 I have with the little dictionary at the end. It's nice when doing devotions from the Greek to be able to look up words so easily.

 

[Jerome]

Official website:

concordant.org/version/

"The Concordant Version uses a method of translation that takes into account the superhuman perfection of the scriptural writings"

"The 'Bible,' as we have it, and the 'Scriptures,' as it exists in the original tongues, are often quite different. It is wise to remember this. Use 'Bible' and 'Bible Scriptures' for the translations and preserve 'Scriptures' for its sacred use to indicate the inspired originals."

"special typographic features....boldface and lightface words, besides many special symbols and superior characters. These features are explained in the Introduction."

 

[Yeshua1]

They are useful in their apparatus especially, but they overemphasize the Alexandrian family of texts, in spite of claiming to be eclectic. However, I do like the UBS 4 I have with the little dictionary at the end. It's nice when doing devotions from the Greek to be able to look up words so easily.

I still have and use the 3rd Greek edition with the small Greek lexicon in it, is that still valid?

 

[John of Japan]

Official website:

concordant.org/version/

"The Concordant Version uses a method of translation that takes into account the superhuman perfection of the scriptural writings"

"The 'Bible,' as we have it, and the 'Scriptures,' as it exists in the original tongues, are often quite different. It is wise to remember this. Use 'Bible' and 'Bible Scriptures' for the translations and preserve 'Scriptures' for its sacred use to indicate the inspired originals."

Obvious amateurs. No one does this.

 

[John of Japan]

I still have and use the 3rd Greek edition with the small Greek lexicon in it, is that still valid?

it is if you are a critical text advocate.

 

[Yeshua1]

it is if you are a critical text advocate.

I like to use the Greek text itself, as that Apparatus seems like "Greek to me!"

 

[HeirofSalvation]

How about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

As a quick liner note:
Those debates never actually happened B.T.W:

It was a rhetorical strawman popular in the late middle ages when men like Anselm, Aquinas, and perhaps more significantly, John Duns Scotus ruled the day....

We actually get our English word "Dunce" from abusing the thoughts of 'Duns-Scotus'....he was a brilliant Theologian/Philosopher.......gave us the concept of "haecceity" for human identity etc...
Medieval Theories of Haecceity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Basically, it's an argument by the ill-educated and un-informed to insult those with greater Theological knowledge and Sophistication than they themselves have.

No Theologian debated how many angels could "dance on the head of a pin".
That's a lie promulgated by the less-informed in order to poison the well against the more informed, by suggesting they wasted their time on trivialities and non-sense....
Never actually happened.

I get it....I'm grossly jealous and sinfully envious of those with more formal training and greater knowledge than I possess, and I also am tempted to insult the more scholastically gifted myself.....I get the temptation.
But, that didn't happen.

Carry on.

 

[Van]

Hi McCree79, for you to assume I had not viewed the passage and considered its intended meaning is disappointing. "Hate" is sometimes used to highlight contrast. Look at the other possible historic meaning.

 

[Van]

Van's definition of concordance was mistaken. Translating by concordance does not include phrases. That's a different issue.

Once again the self appointed hall monitor wants to define the meaning of words differently from those intended by the author. Sound familiar!!

Ah, yes, so this means that Van considers himself an authoritative source,

Yet another claim by JOJ that he reads minds. Pay no attention to his twaddle.

he considers Strong's to be his top source for the original languages;

Yet another falsehood, actually refuted in this very thread. There is no limit to the falsehoods this person posts.

--I just feel like an empty sack....

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

[Van]

As a quick liner note:
Those debates never actually happened B.T.W:

No Theologian debated how many angels could "dance on the head of a pin".

Carry on.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Basically, those posting avoid the topic and hurl insults and make up falsehoods. And not one of them has the integrity to admit the modern translations contain many loose translations that should be corrected. Not one.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thanks for the history lesson.

Basically, those posting avoid the topic and hurl insults and make up falsehoods. And not one of them has the integrity to admit the modern translations contain many loose translations that should be corrected. Not one.

Maybe they do.
I don't pretend to know the best answer for your queries....
Just wanted it known that the "debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"... is a falsehood....
Didn't happen.

 

[McCree79]

Hi McCree79, for you to assume I had not viewed the passage and considered its intended meaning is disappointing. "Hate" is sometimes used to highlight contrast. Look at the other possible historic meaning.

You said this prior.

"But if "rather" was translated "more readily" then the overstatement is avoided. Many of the apparent conflicts in scripture arise from these "expansionist" choices."

So, you see "rather" as an over statement and seem to prefer "more readily". As in "more willingly" or "more easily"?
You are allowing for for an interpretation that they could easily love Jesus, but not as easily evil. Or they were willing to love Jesus, but they were more willing to love evil. You are saying that they loved Jesus, but not as much as evil. That possibility is contradicted in the very next verse. There was never a possibility they were coming, because they hate Him. There is no hint of willingness or love in them for Jesus. They are filled with hate for him. Love and hate. Light and Darkness are used to convey spirtual warfare in John. You are attempting to create middle ground that does not exist. There is no middle of "love Jesus slightly less". Which is what your "more readily"/ "more easily"/ "more willingly" translation allows.

Matthew 12:30 supports the fact that there is only two sides. Love or hate. Light or darkness.
"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for the history lesson.

Basically, those posting avoid the topic and hurl insults and make up falsehoods. And not one of them has the integrity to admit the modern translations contain many loose translations that should be corrected. Not one.

Corrected by those who do not know either Greek or Hebrew?

 

[Van]

I see Yeshua1 is still posting posts that demonstrate non-comprehension. Still waiting for the translation.
Does he know why they contain loose translations or why they have not corrected them or at least dialed back on the egresious problems? Nope.

So we get the same old dance, Van does not know this, Van thinks he is an expert, and on and on with the same old smear campaign. Meanwhile not one poster even recognizes the efforts to justify loose translations are fictional, just an empty sack.