You and yours may continue to use the word brethren with understanding that it is an exclusive term. But in many regions and age groups within English speaking countries (including the UK) it has the connotation of just men.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
When is revision necessary?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
That's old. I have used it several times on the BB dating back a few years.
Verse 6: "Such purity characterizes the people who seek his favor, Jacob's descendants, who pray to him." (NET)
"Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek your face, God of Jacob." (NIV)
I believe I have answered your concerns by simply citing Scripture in context above.
The problem with people who don't like literal translations is they want to change the message of the Bible.
You won't answer my question of why the NIV prior to 2011 just says brothers. I explained why it matters more than once, but maybe it's above your head.
"Phebe our sister, which is a servant.": Your quoted song and dance (which is a nice way of saying your b......) to defend the translation of adelphos to sister is mocked and undercut by the very verse you refer to because it uses adelphe for sister.
Rippon, do you think there's a masculine form of "sister", which still means sister? You can't use a masculine form of sister because then it no longer means sister. Servant means servant, regardless gender. So, your analogy with servant is inapplicable.
If what you quoted is accurate, that Paul uses a masculine form of servant, then I conclude that the gender of servant in the verse in question has nothing to do with the sex of Phebe. Paul is referring to a position without regard to Phebe. Else, can you explain why Paul didn't use a feminine of servant, if such a thing was available and applicable?
NIV: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchraea."
Get it straight. It's adelphen, not adelphe.
Got it, it says sister, not brother.
The ν makes it αδελφη in the accusative case, singular, feminine. αδελφην. Same word, different part of speech.
Wow, there's been a lot of activity on this thread since I was able to post. Apparently I hit a nerve.
I just want to ask that we keep the thread on the OP, which is the necessity of revision. Thank you.
I just want to ask that we keep the thread on the OP, which is the necessity of revision. Thank you.
Yes, but "let" retains the meaning of "hinder" in that one, very limited context of tennis. I don't think that applies to Bible translation.But "let" even in contemporary Modern English can mean "prevent" or "hinder."
I was a tennis player when I was young. A "let" is when the served ball strikes the net but continues over to the other player's court. It means the net "hindered" or "prevented" the completion of a legal serve.
I agree about the KJV hindering such changes. It has had a huge impact on the English language. C. S. Lewis had a great little book about that, The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version.
That's my view, too.Every couple hundred years a modest revision would probably be sufficient for the major languages.
There is a good book about this very subject by Calvin George, The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible. From his first chapter, "Why it was Felt that the 1909 Revision Needed to be Revised," I would say that the Spanish language had some more serious changes in Biblical terminology than the English language of the same time period. However, since I don't speak Spanish I'll have to let it go at that.
But this brings up another reason some revisions take place. According to George, "There were some departures from the Textus Receptus in the 1960" (p. 120). Apparently the 1960 version did not depart sufficiently from the TR to be based on a critical Greek text, but still, oftentimes revisions are made which either depend somewhat or completely on a different text. The idea is that the TR or Byzantine is outmoded and needs to be corrected. IMO, such changes are usually unneeded and unnecessarily muddy the waters.
I'm not sure the junk would not have appeared. Most of the new versions are based on a critical text, and that is the reason given for the new translation. People just have to meddle!
It is not used in colloquial English, but does appear often in the commercial world and is widely understood. Just Google the word. There is a "Behold" furniture polish, a "Behold" visual image search engine (behold.cc), numerous book titles on Amazon with the word in the title, etc.
Good point. If you are referring to Stanley Porter's view of verbal aspect, most Greek profs feel he is too radical. However, there have been advances in that specific area. The most recent advances in this area have changed the way we teach Greek.
But those capable of understanding and using those advances remain few in number. Your point says to me not that new revisions are necessary, but that people who are poorly educated in the original languages are now fooled into thinking they can revise the Bible into their own understanding and do it right. Two examples of this idiocy are the Cepher Bible and the Preterist Bible.
The "broader audience" can only participate in Bible translation or revision if they are willing to put in the 1000s of hours necessary to learn the original languages. Most will not do that. So what we have now (including an occasional denizen of the BB--but not you
) are people who get a little knowledge (a dangerous thing) and then think they are experts on Bible translation. 
Nope, every two decades at least. If you consider Japanese and Chinese major languages --as you must -- waiting two hundred years is absurd.Every couple hundred years a modest revision would probably be sufficient for the major languages.
I have Rippon on ignore (which is possible to temporarily bypass in this software), but I see you have included his quote from Witherington, who is a leading scholar but not in Greek. At any rate, you have hit a homerun with this post.
(1) Witherington gets the word wrong. It is not diakon in that passage but diakonon, the accusative singular. (2) The word has no feminine form, as you have noted. (3) It is perfectly permissible in koine Greek to use a masculine noun form (but not an adj.) to refer to a female, as in "tentmakers" (Acts 18:3) referring to Aquila and Priscilla, or a feminine noun form to refer to a male, as in aparxe ("firstfruits") referring to a man in Rom. 16:5. This usage by no means changes the possible gender of the noun being referred to, as Witherington suggests.(4) The TNIV rendering of "brothers and sisters" is an effort to force modern values into an ancient text, a great error in literary translation.
Watch for Rippon, who has no Greek training whatsoever, now to excoriate me with his usual insults and personal attacks (something he does at the slightest hint that the TNIV is in error), which I will happily ignore.
Last edited:
I don't either. I was just being pedantic.
Just as a prof should be.I don't either. I was just being pedantic.
My son has corrected me in that Witherington has written exegetical commentaries and is thus expert in Greek. That fact, then, makes his Greek blunder the more strange.
I can remember typing an article on a type writer. If changes to improve it occurred to me (or were brought to my attention) I would be reluctant to type the whole thing over. But now with computers, we can delete, added, or change to our hearts content. Rather than less updates or revisions, we are going to see more.
I think it would be rather easy to radically improve all English translations by being as consistent as possible in translating each source language word meaning into one English word or phrase. Next, we could eliminate or limit to the extent possible, overlap where the same English word or phrase is used to translate different source language words. When the translations do this (for example use Hell for both Hades and Gehenna) we obliterate the distinction drawn in the inspired text.
Since the modern translations can be radically improved, why not do it? Why tolerate a lack of transparency and correspondence. Why hide the inspired word? Why not make full use of the digital revolution?
I think it would be rather easy to radically improve all English translations by being as consistent as possible in translating each source language word meaning into one English word or phrase. Next, we could eliminate or limit to the extent possible, overlap where the same English word or phrase is used to translate different source language words. When the translations do this (for example use Hell for both Hades and Gehenna) we obliterate the distinction drawn in the inspired text.
Since the modern translations can be radically improved, why not do it? Why tolerate a lack of transparency and correspondence. Why hide the inspired word? Why not make full use of the digital revolution?
Most would agree, revision is needed to correct mistakes. The problem is one person's mistake is another person's truth.
My view is all modern translations and the KJV are full of mistakes and need revision to improve correspondence and transparency.
Any bible based on the TR needs to be revised according to the MT. Thus the NKJV needs revision.
Monogenes means one of a kind, not begotten. Any bible translating monogenes as begotten needs revision. Thus the NASB needs revision.
We can find mistake after mistake in the NIV and ESV, , thus they both need revision.
Why is it that none of them translate the same source word meaning into one English word or phrase consistently. Examples of proper translation can be found, so the process is not beyond the translators ability in the digital age.
For the umpteenth time, every translation translates a given word differently in different places because no one English word has exactly the same meaning. Lets say a Greek word means destroy or render powerless. By looking at the context, we could use one English word or phrase to convey "destroy" when the context indicates that is the meaning intended, and we could use "rendered powerless" when the context indicates that is the intended meaning. So we have one Greek word with two meanings, and we have two English words or phrases to convey those two meanings.
In the case of the Greek word meaning selfish ambition, we have the same translation render it 3or 4 different ways, when the context pointed to the same meaning. Now "selfish ambition" may not be the best rendering, perhaps selfishness better captures the idea of someone pushing their own agenda rather than Christ's agenda. But there is no need to turn one meaning into several meanings such as rivalry or hostility or strife.
My view is all modern translations and the KJV are full of mistakes and need revision to improve correspondence and transparency.
Any bible based on the TR needs to be revised according to the MT. Thus the NKJV needs revision.
Monogenes means one of a kind, not begotten. Any bible translating monogenes as begotten needs revision. Thus the NASB needs revision.
We can find mistake after mistake in the NIV and ESV, , thus they both need revision.
Why is it that none of them translate the same source word meaning into one English word or phrase consistently. Examples of proper translation can be found, so the process is not beyond the translators ability in the digital age.
For the umpteenth time, every translation translates a given word differently in different places because no one English word has exactly the same meaning. Lets say a Greek word means destroy or render powerless. By looking at the context, we could use one English word or phrase to convey "destroy" when the context indicates that is the meaning intended, and we could use "rendered powerless" when the context indicates that is the intended meaning. So we have one Greek word with two meanings, and we have two English words or phrases to convey those two meanings.
In the case of the Greek word meaning selfish ambition, we have the same translation render it 3or 4 different ways, when the context pointed to the same meaning. Now "selfish ambition" may not be the best rendering, perhaps selfishness better captures the idea of someone pushing their own agenda rather than Christ's agenda. But there is no need to turn one meaning into several meanings such as rivalry or hostility or strife.
You haven't.
- Status