Featured Recently Published NT Translation

From the link:

Wow! That would thin out the posts a bit!

 

Wonder what a certain poster here who dislikes Csb/Niv/Esv think about this?

 

More examples of posters violating the rules and acting like sandbox bullies. On the basis of my trusted study aids, such as lexicons, commentaries, an exhaustive concordance, multiple translations, interlinears, the word for word translation philosophy versions are the best for study.

 

So the translators on the ESV/CSB teams did not use all of those tools than?

 

Yet another false claim, more obfuscation, more nonsense. Did he address all the evidence provided showing loose translations? Nope. He apparently does not even know how to use a lexicon, yet he makes claims about translator choices.
On the basis of my trusted study aids, such as lexicons, commentaries, an exhaustive concordance, multiple translations, interlinears, the word for word translation philosophy versions are the best for study.

 

But even with those helps you have made some colossal blunders with your unique renderings because you think you know what your are doing. You set yourself up as an authority, when you are certainly not. Yet you demean the efforts of real translators all the time.

The case is closed. Van is a wannabe and a sad sack.

 

Mr. Rippon has no idea what he is talking about. He apparently does not know how to do word studies. Did ESV translators translate "apo" as before? Yes, so a "colossal blunder" due to agenda driven translation. When you study a translation that omits words and phrases from the inspired text, adds words and phrases to the inspired text, and translates words outside of their historical range of meaning, you are studying the views of men, not the word of God.

None of these mockers offered any verse that could not be clearly and accurately translated using the word for word translation philosophy method.

 

But Van, Strongs lists "before".....uh oh


g0575. ἀπό apo; a primary particle; “off,” i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literal or figurative): — (x here-)after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for(-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-)on(-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.

"Yes, so a "colossal blunder" due to agenda driven translation."--This would be however, a most accurate description of your butchering of John 3:19-20


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Does the meaning of "apo" include before? Nope. Did the ESV at Revelation 13:8 translate it as before? Yes. Will McCree list another verse where "apo" is translated as before? Nope. The effort to put forth an error included in the "definitions" section as support is without merit.

The ESV butchered Revelation 13:8. Note the same phrase is translated "from" at Revelation 17:8 by the ESV.

 

But Strongs. .....it is your ultimate authority in translation and they say "before"

So now Strongs is wrong? You seemed so sure of it before. I am not defending "before". I would translate it as "from" personally. The point is your inconsistency. If word was not listed in the gloss of Strongs then it is wrong....now even if it is listed it wrong as well. Almost seems like Van is Van's ultimate authority for translating a word now.



**of course the ESV is not completely in left field here. Interestingly γέγραπται is written in the perfect tense, which implies it was written in the past. How do we guage this past? What did this writing occur before? ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. The book in question--which contains this writing-- is "of" the Lamb and of/from the foundation of the world as the genitive would suggest. Since the only way to judge time here for the perfect tense "written" is by the foundation of the world, one might assume that this wiritng had to occur before the καταβολῆς κόσμου. απο can certainly signify distance of time here. This is a possible meaning in Mounce's lexicon. The perfect tense of "written" does give a plausibility that it was "before" and not necessarily "from" if it is indeed refering to time and not a space. Or are we going to suggest the book is from, as in "out of" the foindation of the world. This shows ESV has grounds based on context for there decision. Of course TCassidy or JoJ may come and blow it out of the water. TCassidy only has about 39 years of Greek on me

***So the decision in the ESV was not likely determined by απο alone, but by the tense of γέγραπται

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

There are sure a bunch of bitter folks on the boards lately. Opinions about translation descend to everyone who disagrees is stupid.

 

I should add some clarification to the perfect tense (γέγραπται) theory effecting the ESV's rendering of απο.

Perfect tense normally occurs in the past, it has been completed and effects are still being felt.

Perfect tense here would be.... the past (prior to foindation of the world), has been completed (all the names are already there) and still has current significance (Day of the Lord/judgement day/Great white Throne room).

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

The same tense appears in Rev. 17:8. McCree makes things up like Strong's is my "ultimate authority." No quote will be forthcoming. Next, I am often told i should not disagree with a particular translation because I am lacking in education. But not one of the "experts" has provided a verse where "apo" is translated "before." But do they stand up for the truth?

Next, I am again challenged because of my "inconsistency." Before is not, repeat, is not among the historical meanings of the word "Apo." So again a made up charge, a smear. Was any other verse cited? Was an explanation given for the same phrase being translated two different ways?

Last point, when are the events described in Rev. 13:8 and 17:8 said to occur? End times! Therefore the names were not written, and others presumptively written, during the entire age, since the foundation to the end of the age.

 

Yet another mind reader. The folks advocating loose translations are not stupid. Wrong? Yes.

 

Sure was. My second to last post I believe. The perfect tense of γέγραπται

Judgment to occur in the end times. Yes. That is the point of the perfect tense. It occurred in the past. Has already been completed and has a present effect. The present effect will be felt all the way to judgement. But the perfect tense indicates something done in the past and has already been completed. So your name is already in that book. It has been there since the beginning of salvation history....since the foundation of the world.


I am not really sure what you are saying in that last sentence? Is there currently zero names in the book? It looks like you are saying no names were written in the age. From the beginning of creation until the end of creation. ....no names in the book???


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Maybe he was talking about you

And I don't think anyone wants a "loose transaltion". They want an accurate transaltion. It is the point of view of what accuracy is that causes the difference.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

More non-comprehension, the word is in the same tense in Rev. 17:8, yet apo is translated from.

No names were not written and presumptively written, before creation. The verse says the names were not written (or presumptively written) from or since or after creation. My name was entered after creation, during my lifetime, when I was chosen through faith in the truth.

More wasting time, misrepresenting my view, more obfuscation.

 

In the thread "Needlessly Loose Translations" where Van attempted to show how the NASB and CSB are needlessly loose translations for John 3:19-20 and the use of katalambanó.

Van refused to allow any rendering of katalambanó that was not one of the 3 words listed in Strongs. Even though several other Lexicon listed more words in there gloss. The also stressed the effect κατα had on the word. Those Lexicons were deemed wrong and Strongs was deemed right per the poster. Now Strongs is wrong in regards to απο? How does one know when Strongs is right or wrong in its gloss? One cannot dismiss other Lexicons because they don't agree with Strong' s gloss, then when a different word shows up do the reverse. That is a consistency problem.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

You are advocating the CSB, a demonstrably loose translation. If you wanted accuracy, you will admit the ESV butchered its translation of Revelation 13:8.

What might put this thread on track would be for someone to actually post a few examples, Matthew 23:13, John 3:16, James 2:5, Revelation 13:8 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13