The major problem with modern English translations.

[Van]

There are major problems that still exist in our English translations, even the best modern ones, such as the NASB. The claim that using "you" to indicate either an individual or a group is much ado about nothing. What are the actual major problems?

Here are a few, in no particular order:

1. Needless ambiguity, such as translating "Kosmos" as "world" when "humanity" is the actual meaning.

2. Translating "pas" (all) as "all things" when only the things in contextual view are meant.

3. Translating faith in Christ and placement into Christ using the same phrase.

4. Adding words (with or without italics) that change the meaning of the verse such as "to be" at James 2:5

5. Changing the grammatical form of a word to alter the message to conform to man-made doctrine, such as "to be saved" rather than "for salvation" at 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

6. Translating faith in Christ and Christ's faithfulness with the same phrase.

 

[37818]

I don't think that this is an unreasonable point to make, although it's been made at least once before. All the modern translations fall down at this point.
John 3:7, NKJV. "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'you must be born again.'"
John 3:7, KJV. "Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again." 'Thee' is singular; 'ye' is plural. It is not only Nicodemus, but all his colleagues among the priests and Pharisees who need to be born again.

Luke 22:31-32. 'And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren."'
Luke 22:31-32. 'And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.' The 'you' is plural; the thee,' 'thou' and 'thy' are singular. Satan asked to sift all the Apostles, but our Lord prayed specifically for Peter.

However, rather than saddle future generations with archaic English which will become harder to understand as the years go by, there are two ways around the problem. Either we add the word 'all' to the plurals, and a name to all the singulars. For example, "Do not marvel that I said to you, Nicodemus, 'you must all be born again.'" Or we can do what William Hendriksen did in his commentaries and space out the words that are plural. "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'y o u must be born again.'"

The point Jesus made to Nicodemus was, everyone needs to be born again.

 

[David Lamb]

The point Jesus made to Nicodemus was, everyone needs to be born again.

I agree, but whether we use the same word for singular and plural or not, it would be difficult to understand the words of Jesus to Nicodemus as meaning that only Nicodemus and nobody else needed to be born again. We only have to compare the passage in John 3 with Peter's first epistle:

“Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,” (1Pe 1:22-23 NKJV)

"Your souls" and "one another" are phrases that show he is addressing a plurality.

 

[Van]

I agree, but whether we use the same word for singular and plural or not, it would be difficult to understand the words of Jesus to Nicodemus as meaning that only Nicodemus and nobody else needed to be born again. We only have to compare the passage in John 3 with Peter's first epistle:

“Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,” (1Pe 1:22-23 NKJV)

"Your souls" and "one another" are phrases that show he is addressing a plurality.

Yes, the idea that every verse must include the whole truth is a non-starter.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yes, the idea that every verse must include the whole truth is a non-starter.

I would wish that people who claimed to believe in God could also state they believe in the Bible.

 

[37818]

Without some.way to distinguish the singular pronouns in modern translation, it remains to be resolved.

 

[Van]

I would wish that people who claimed to believe in God could also state they believe in the Bible.

Yes, some folks believe in the God of the Bible, and others believe in the God of their selective acceptance of the Bible.

For example, some say if God's omniscience is not infinite, He is not God, never mind He can remember no more forever.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yes, some folks believe in the God of the Bible, and others believe in the God of their selective acceptance of the Bible.

For example, some say if God's omniscience is not infinite, He is not God, never mind He can remember no more forever.

This is a very confusing comment.

 

[Van]

This is a very confusing comment.

Really? I thought it was crystal. Some folks do not believe the God of the Bible can actually remember no more forever, because if true His omniscience would not be infinite!!!!!

 

[Hazelelponi]

Really? I thought it was crystal. Some folks do not believe the God of the Bible can actually remember no more forever, because if true His omniscience would not be infinite!!!!!

Would this be off topic? This seens to come from left field. I didn't think we were speaking of God's omnipotence.

 

[37818]

Would this be off topic? This seens to come from left field. I didn't think we were speaking of God's omnipotence.

With some on these discussions, side issues are issues!