Some Comparisons of our English Translations.

[Van]

I am still waiting for "source" material as well. This is not a "minor" matter in many questions on (no implication of impropriety, but served too long as a college/grad school prof refereeing debates) our translation/vocab choices and what "weight" scholarship gives.

Do not be fooled Dr. Bob, RR knows the source as he posted on the prior thread which included the link. No, this interest in "source" is simply to deflect from the thread topic, which is improving our English translations by consistently rendering the original language word or phrase meanings.

 

[Van]

I actually addressed this issue several weeks ago when preaching through John. You are indeed correct.

It is not just Liddell & Scott that testify to τελέω being used to pay off debt, taxes or a transaction. BDAG, EDNT, AMG, Barclay and the TDNT also speak of this.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The issue is not that one of the usages in scripture is "Pay." The issue is what meaning (finished, performed, paid) is God's intended message in this verse. Finished is the choice of most scholars. To claim God is using ambiguity, intending multiple meanings, is simply ludicrous.

 

[Van]

If we compare the English translations on "Biblegateway," the vast majority go with Finished, Completed, or Consummated for John 19:30. Only two chose "accomplished, and none chose paid.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

LOL, the fact is I did not hide that one of the meanings of the word is "pay," but posted it, so I was not wishing, as your mind reading claims.

LOL. The fact is that you objected to the fact that one of the meanings of teleo is 'pay' being mentioned in the margin of a Bible translation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If we compare the English translations on "Biblegateway," the vast majority go with Finished, Completed, or Consummated for John 19:30. Only two chose "accomplished, and none chose paid.

LOL. So you always go with the most popular meanings when you make your suggestions on this forum?

 

[37818]

The word I see being disputed, occurs twice in this grammatical form.
First in John 19:28, secondly where Jesus speaks the word, John 19:30.

 

[Van]

LOL. The fact is that you objected to the fact that one of the meanings of teleo is 'pay' being mentioned in the margin of a Bible translation.

Yet another material false statement with no quote. This is all these provincials have folks, hurl one false charge after another. Martin claimed I wished to hid that Teleo has the meaning of "pay in post #14 after I had revealed the "fact" in post 3.

 

[Van]

LOL. So you always go with the most popular meanings when you make your suggestions on this forum?

I did not say I always go with the most popular meaning. Thus an assessment implying falsehood.
Ask yourselves why these posters do not address to topic of the thread? Comparisons have shown where translation versions can be improved.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I did not say I always go with the most popular meaning. Thus an assessment implying falsehood.

I know you don't; that was the point of my question. So why do you think I should?

If we compare the English translations on "Biblegateway," the vast majority go with Finished, Completed, or Consummated for John 19:30. Only two chose "accomplished, and none chose paid.

And this is the only argument that you can muster against me. Weren't you the chap who started a thread called 'Doubletalk'? Maybe I should start one on 'Double standard.'

 

[Van]

I know you don't; that was the point of my question. So why do you think I should?

And this is the only argument that you can muster against me. Weren't you the chap who started a thread called 'Doubletalk'? Maybe I should start one on 'Double standard.'

LOL, I am not making an argument "against me" (Martin). Still no effort to point out areas where version comparison reveals areas for improvement.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Do not be fooled Dr. Bob, RR knows the source as he posted on the prior thread which included the link. No, this interest in "source" is simply to deflect from the thread topic...

You did not supply the link Van. The source is significant Van. Consider the source.

 

[Van]

You did not supply the link Van. The source is significant Van. Consider the source.

Material false statement. All RR is trying to do is derail actual discussion of the topic. If a source was cited, he would say the source is not valid. His MO is well known.
The thread topic is improving our English translations by consistently rendering the original language word or phrase meanings. Something the NIV does more poorly than other English Translations.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Material false statement. All RR is trying to do is derail actual discussion of the topic. If a source was cited, he would say the source is not valid. His MO is well known.

Who is RR?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The thread topic is improving our English translations by consistently rendering the original language word or phrase meanings. Something the NIV does more poorly than other English Translations.

Are you about to regurgitate the same old spam you have been engaged in for a decade now?

 

[37818]

Are you about to regurgitate the same old spam you have been engaged in for a decade now?

Meaning what, regardind @Van ?

Re: From posting rules:

6. Do not attack the other poster; if you want to question the opinion, that's fine. But do so in a God honoring way. Don't attack the person; the goal is to build up and win for the truth's sake.

 

[Logos1560]

The thread topic is improving our English translations by consistently rendering the original language word or phrase meanings.

Sometimes consistently rendering the original-language word or phrase the same way may harm our English translations as in the cases where those words were used in a different sense or with a different meaning than the way the words may be usually translated.

A. E. Knoch tried what you seem to advocate in his 1966 Concordant Literal New Testament so do you consider it to have improved our English NT translations?

 

[37818]

. . . Concordant Literal New Testament . . . .

Read Concordant New Testament Online - Concordant Publishing Concern

 

[Van]

Sometimes consistently rendering the original-language word or phrase the same way may harm our English translations as in the cases where those words were used in a different sense or with a different meaning than the way the words may be usually translated.

A. E. Knoch tried what you seem to advocate in his 1966 Concordant Literal New Testament so do you consider it to have improved our English NT translations?

As I have stated over and over and over, the idea is translate the word or phrase MEANING consistently. Each time the word meaning is the same, when you translate the idea into English in one place, you can translate that same word meaning in every place.

I do not believe any translation I have evaluated does a very good job.

 

[37818]

I do not believe any translation I have evaluated does a very good job.

How would you rate:
Read Concordant New Testament Online - Concordant Publishing Concern

 

[Van]

How would you rate:
Read Concordant New Testament Online - Concordant Publishing Concern

Take a look at John 3:16. Monogenes is mistranslated as only begotten. Nuff said..

When the word is used referring of the Son of God, "uniquely divine" translates the meaning. One of a kind, while accurate, is more ambiguous than necessary. We know why Jesus is one of a kind, He is the Second Person of the Trinity!