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!

 

[Van]

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

Sir, your post is a deflection. Item #4 of the OP addressing adding to scripture to change the meaning, such as interpreting "knows all" as knows all about everything imaginable, rather than knows all about whatever is contextually in view. In post #27 I used omniscience to illustrate selective belief in the bible, as demonstrated by claiming God cannot remember no more forever because He knows everything imaginable.

Here again is your statement: "I would wish that people who claimed to believe in God could also state they believe in the Bible." obviously the topic is our belief in God as actually based on the bible, rather than selective verses.

 

[37818]

The objective of this thread is most modern English Bibles do not attempt to identify when the written word of God uses singular pronouns.

 

[Logos1560]

Does the KJV preserve and keep all the distinctions concerning pronouns that are found in the Hebrew OT or in the Greek NT?

Alan Macgregor asserted: “Hebrew makes a gender distinction for second and third person pronouns (singular and plural) as it does also with singular demonstrative pronouns. The Greek has feminine third person plural pronouns, and feminine reflexive and reciprocal pronouns. However, the English language is incapable of effectively translating these” (400 Years On, p. 254).

William Mounce noted: “In English all imperatives are second person; in Greek there are second and third person imperatives” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 194).

Concerning Matthew 5:13 [“if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted”], Alister McGrath asserted: “To modern English readers, ‘salt’ appears to be treated as a masculine noun in the second phrase, and a neuter noun in the third” (In the Beginning, pp. 274-275).

In the parallel passages presenting the parable of the fig tree in the gospel of Matthew and in the gospel of Mark, is it easier to understand the KJV referring to the same branch as “his branch” (Matt. 24:32) and “her branch” (Mark 13:28)? The NKJV has “its branch” at both verses.

Are the pronouns in the KJV or the NKJV clearer or easier to understand at 1 Kings 13:27?
The KJV translated this verse as follows: “And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the a ss. And they saddled him.”
The NKJV rendered it using one more word: “And he spoke to his sons, saying, ‘Saddle the donkey for me.’ So they saddled it.”

 

[37818]

Does the KJV preserve and keep all the distinctions concerning pronouns that are found in the Hebrew OT or in the Greek NT?

Alan Macgregor asserted: “Hebrew makes a gender distinction for second and third person pronouns (singular and plural) as it does also with singular demonstrative pronouns. The Greek has feminine third person plural pronouns, and feminine reflexive and reciprocal pronouns. However, the English language is incapable of effectively translating these” (400 Years On, p. 254).

William Mounce noted: “In English all imperatives are second person; in Greek there are second and third person imperatives” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 194).

Concerning Matthew 5:13 [“if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted”], Alister McGrath asserted: “To modern English readers, ‘salt’ appears to be treated as a masculine noun in the second phrase, and a neuter noun in the third” (In the Beginning, pp. 274-275).

In the parallel passages presenting the parable of the fig tree in the gospel of Matthew and in the gospel of Mark, is it easier to understand the KJV referring to the same branch as “his branch” (Matt. 24:32) and “her branch” (Mark 13:28)? The NKJV has “its branch” at both verses.

Are the pronouns in the KJV or the NKJV clearer or easier to understand at 1 Kings 13:27?
The KJV translated this verse as follows: “And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the a ss. And they saddled him.”
The NKJV rendered it using one more word: “And he spoke to his sons, saying, ‘Saddle the donkey for me.’ So they saddled it.”

The modern English does not have singular pronouns distinct from the plural.

 

[Logos1560]

The modern English does not have singular pronouns distinct from the plural.

Modern English has first person singular pronoun I.
Modern English has third person singular pronouns: he, she, and it.

Do you oppose English Bible translations being in present-day standard English instead of 1500's archaic English?

 

[37818]

Modern English has first person singular pronoun I.
Modern English has third person singular pronouns: he, she, and it.

Do you oppose English Bible translations being in present-day standard English instead of 1500's archaic English?

What replaced, the second person thee, thy, thou or thine?

 

[Logos1560]

The 2nd person pronoun you can be either singular or plural. "You" is the 2nd person singular pronoun in modern English.

 

[37818]

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

"In modern English, the second-person pronoun, regardless of whether singular or plural, is "you," and its possessive form is "your". While "thou" and its related forms were once used for the second-person singular, they are now considered archaic." In otherwords modern English is now broken.

 

[Logos1560]

In otherwords modern English is now broken.

That is your opinion.

Do you find it necessary to use thou, thee, thine, thy, and thyself in your everyday speech and in your writing?