When is revision necessary?

[Rob_BW]

I always see the Dead Sea Scroll mentioned when editors are justifying their new translations/revisions.

In the esteemed opinion of my baptistboard brethern and cisterns p), was that discovery and the publishing/release of its contents a big enough deal to justify a new revision of the current versions?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.

What makes you think monogenes means one of a kind? The two root words that make it up are mono:meaning one and the second one is Ginomai You need to study the second root word of monogenes. Ginomai does not mean kind or
type. Just looking at how Ginomai is translated in the other places of the KJV gives a good sense of the word. You are wrong.

 

[Smyth]

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.

If someone wants to promote the particular view (Cepher Bible, Covenant Fulfilled Bible, etc.), they should keep it in the notes of a respected translation (KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV is the short list), and not create a lousy translation to promote that particular view. Likewise, non-literal Politically Correct views, like "brothers and sister" for brothers, should also be kept in the notes.

People like John Darby and Joseph Smith who create their own translations to promote their views, I have serious doubts about the integrity of such people who wold do such a thing. It's no surprise that their doctrines are corrupt (and their translations are otherwise so bad no one uses them, not even their followers).

 

[Van]

Hi Smyth, did I establish the translation goals of transparency and correspondence? So most translators pay lip service to what could be done rather easily. I have specified mistakes, such as translating the same meaning into several different English words or phrases.

You need to decide what the word means, such as selfish ambition or hostility, selfishness, and when the context indicates that is the intended meaning, use that translation choice consistently.

Did you see where in some of the passages another Greek word was also being translated as "strife." Do you think a translation that listed strife twice would be a mistake?

 

[Van]

Hi Jordan, I provided the NET footnote to document the basis of "one of a kind." If you disagree with Dr. Dan Wallace, fine. But I suspect he has studied this translation choice.

 

[Smyth]

Hi Smyth, did I establish the translation goals of transparency and correspondence? So most translators pay lip service to what could be done rather easily. I have specified mistakes, such as translating the same meaning into several different English words or phrases.

These translations -- all translations -- which translate one Greek word differently in different verse are not making mistakes. A mistake is something you do unintentionally. What they do is intentional, hopefully for the sake of accurately conveying information.

Suppose a word means "to cause strife and hostility through selfish ambition", if you put that whole thing in the text, it becomes too cumbersome. And, because no biblical Greek and English word means the same thing, you'd use many English words for each Greek word, and the result becomes overwhelming and unreadable. It would be better not to make a translation in the first place and just expect people to learn Greek. Seriously.

So, the translator might look at context and see what's more relevant, strife or selfishness, and just use one word here and the other word there.

 

[Van]

No lexicon supports your supposition. Decide what the word means in each of the seven usages. Explain the basis for rivalry here, hostility there, selfish ambition somewhere else. There is no basis, it is just willy nilly translation that provides little or no correspondence or transparency.
The ESV changed rivalry to self ambition, so the basis of rivalry was a mistake, or it is a mistake now.

 

[TCassidy]

In the esteemed opinion of my baptistboard brethern and cisterns p), was that discovery and the publishing/release of its contents a big enough deal to justify a new revision of the current versions?

No, I don't think so. The DSS only contained manuscripts of the OT. The previously oldest manuscripts were dated around 1000 AD and the DSS were around 1000 years older.

But the two most respected OT manuscripts, prior to the DSS, only differed in about 8 places that would affect translation and even then the differences are minor.

The discovery of the DSS had two important results.

First it established how exact the scribes were in their copying of OT manuscripts. With 1000 years between them the Isaiah scroll found in the Qumran caves and the Isaiah of the Leningrad Codex, B19a, dating to 1000 AD, the only difference was one word of three letters making a word for "light" (אוֹר) and you can put it in or take it out and it makes no difference to the meaning of the passage.

The second thing the find did was to give greater credibility to the LXX. There was a Hebrew text found that differed from the Masoretic Text in that it agreed with the LXX readings. It was initially called "The Septuagint Type Text." It is now called "The Vorlage Text" from a German word meaning "before" in the sense of "prototype." But LXX type readings have never been considered superior to Masoretic readings, so it is largely moot.

99% of late 19th and 20th century translation efforts were aimed at the NT.

 

[Smyth]

No lexicon supports your supposition. Decide what the word means in each of the seven usages. Explain the basis for rivalry here, hostility there, selfish ambition somewhere else. There is no basis, it is just willy nilly translation that provides little or no correspondence or transparency.
The ESV changed rivalry to self ambition, so the basis of rivalry was a mistake, or it is a mistake now.

ἐριθεία in ESV:

James 3:16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.

Romans 2:8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

Galatians 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,

Philemon 1:17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment.

Philippians 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.

James 3:14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.

Two verses don't directly convey the concept of selfish ambition. The ESV could have used "selfish ambition" in these two verses, and maybe they should have. But, the word doesn't exactly mean "selfish ambition". The consensus seems to be that the word derived from the concept of "electioneering or intriguing for office." That means plotting to gain power. Selfish-ambition is only a motive behind ἐριθεία.

Consider:

James 3:16ish, Where people are plotting to gain power, there will be disorder and every vile practice.

Phillipians 2:3ish, Do not plot to gain power, but count others as more significant than yourselves.

Every word loses a something in translation. There's no credit for consistency, if every consistent choice consistently falls short. The only ESV choice I don't like is 2 Corinthians 12:20 because "hostility" is such a generic term.

There's a wonderful thing about inconsistent translation, it alerts the reader to a deeper meaning of the word in question.

 

[Rippon]

If s

People like John Darby and Joseph Smith who create their own translations to promote their views, I have serious doubts about the integrity of such people who wold [sic] do such a thing.

You are entirely mistaken regarding Darby's New Testament. (By the way, he translated it into a number of languages) One cannot find dispensationalism there or any other unique doctrinal slants. I have my mother's copy of a 1904 edition. I know whereof I speak.

Joseph Smith certainly imposed his particular and peculiar views into the "Inspired Version Of The Holy Scriptures" --it was just odd. A Mormon can't find Mormonism there. Doctrines and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price is where they base their doctrine. At least they used to. Mormonism is changing. They would like to erase their early history.

 

[Smyth]

You are entirely mistaken regarding Darby's New Testament. (By the way, he translated it into a number of languages) One cannot find dispensationalism there or any other unique doctrinal slants. I have my mother's copy of a 1904 edition. I know whereof I speak.

In numerous of verses, Darby made slight changes to promote his doctrines.

2John 7:7

Darby: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, they who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh—this is the deceiver and the antichrist.

KJV: For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

In this one verse there are two examples in one verse of Darby changing the Bible to promote his false doctrine. He changes the definition of antichrist to one who denies Christ is coming. This is part of Darby's pattern of changing verses to put emphases on the return of Christ, with the imminent rapture in mind. This also allows the Jews to escape condemnation as antichrists because their denial that Christ has come in the flesh is no longer the definition of antichrist.

Darby inserts the definite article 'the' in front of antichrist. This promotes the hyper-futurism of Dispensationalism by requiring the Antichrist to be a future individual rather than, say, an office like the papacy. This also lets Jews escape condemnation as antichrists because the Antichrist is now an individual and not the plurality of people who deny Christ has come in the flesh (but, he didn't change the verse enough to hide that antichrist really does mean a plurality of people).

Darby changes this one verse to promote these doctrines of Dispensationalism:
1) The current special standing with God of people who follow neo-Judaism, Jews.
2) The imminent rapture .
3) The future Antichrist individual.
.

 

[John of Japan]

In numerous of verses, Darby made slight changes to promote his doctrines.

2John 7:7

Darby: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, they who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh—this is the deceiver and the antichrist.

KJV: For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

In this one verse there are two examples in one verse of Darby changing the Bible to promote his false doctrine. He changes the definition of antichrist to one who denies Christ is coming. This is part of Darby's pattern of changing verses to put emphases on the return of Christ, with the imminent rapture in mind. This also allows the Jews to escape condemnation as antichrists because their denial that Christ has come in the flesh is no longer the definition of antichrist.

Darby inserts the definite article 'the' in front of antichrist. This promotes the hyper-futurism of Dispensationalism by requiring the Antichrist to be a future individual rather than, say, an office like the papacy. This also lets Jews escape condemnation as antichrists because the Antichrist is now an individual and not the plurality of people who deny Christ has come in the flesh (but, he didn't change the verse enough to hide that antichrist really does mean a plurality of people).

Darby changes this one verse to promote these doctrines of Dispensationalism:
1) The current special standing with God of people who follow neo-Judaism, Jews.
2) The imminent rapture .
3) The future Antichrist individual.
.

But you see, Darby's renderings are precisely in line with the Greek original. Firsts of all, the verb he translated "have gone out" is εἰσῆλθον (eiselthon), an aorist 3rd plural, and "have gone out" is just fine for that form. The NASB (and you know how literal that is) also has "have gone out." Secondly, the original has the definite (there is no Greek indefinite) article ὁ in front of both "deceiver" and "antichrist." So Darby is spot on with that rendering. He did not change Scripture at all, but just translated literally.

 

[John of Japan]

If someone wants to promote the particular view (Cepher Bible, Covenant Fulfilled Bible, etc.), they should keep it in the notes of a respected translation (KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV is the short list), and not create a lousy translation to promote that particular view. Likewise, non-literal Politically Correct views, like "brothers and sister" for brothers, should also be kept in the notes.

People like John Darby and Joseph Smith who create their own translations to promote their views, I have serious doubts about the integrity of such people who wold do such a thing. It's no surprise that their doctrines are corrupt (and their translations are otherwise so bad no one uses them, not even their followers).

The thing is, unlike Smith and the characters I mentioned, Darby was a brilliant linguist and knew the original languages. He did versions not only in English, but in German and French.

Oppose dispensationalism if you wish, but anyone who tries to find dispensational or premillenial bias in Darby's translation will be hard put to do so.

 

[John of Japan]

What makes you think monogenes means one of a kind? The two root words that make it up are mono:meaning one and the second one is Ginomai You need to study the second root word of monogenes. Ginomai does not mean kind or
type. Just looking at how Ginomai is translated in the other places of the KJV gives a good sense of the word. You are wrong.

Jordan, I feel your pain about monogenes meaning "begotten" but "unique" is certainly a valid meaning. Here is the Friberg definition (and yes, the Fribergs are born again believers and have done a good job on their lexicon):

μονογενῆs, e,j of what is the only one of its kind of class unique; (1) an only child born to human parents one and only (LU 7.12; 8.42); substantivally only child (LU 9.38); (2) as a child born in a unique way; (a) used of God's Son Jesus only, only begotten; substantivally (JN 1.14); (b) used of Abraham's son Isaac only; substantivally o` m. his only true son (HE 11.17)

 

[Van]

ἐριθεία in ESV:

James 3:16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.

Romans 2:8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

Galatians 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,

Philemon 1:17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment.

Philippians 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.

James 3:14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.

Two verses don't directly convey the concept of selfish ambition. The ESV could have used "selfish ambition" in these two verses, and maybe they should have. But, the word doesn't exactly mean "selfish ambition". The consensus seems to be that the word derived from the concept of "electioneering or intriguing for office." That means plotting to gain power. Selfish-ambition is only a motive behind ἐριθεία.

Consider:

James 3:16ish, Where people are plotting to gain power, there will be disorder and every vile practice.

Phillipians 2:3ish, Do not plot to gain power, but count others as more significant than yourselves.

Every word loses a something in translation. There's no credit for consistency, if every consistent choice consistently falls short. The only ESV choice I don't like is 2 Corinthians 12:20 because "hostility" is such a generic term.

There's a wonderful thing about inconsistent translation, it alerts the reader to a deeper meaning of the word in question.

Thanks, Smyth, for your excellent, thoughtful, post that shows you understand my view, even though you still disagree with it. Try plugging in "self centeredness" in at all seven locations.

There is absolutely no value in a lack of correspondence and transparency.

 

[Smyth]

Oppose dispensationalism if you wish, but anyone who tries to find dispensational or premillenial bias in Darby's translation will be hard put to do so.

It's easy, I just gave two changes to one verse that promotes several Dispensationalist doctrines. I could point out numerous verses that Darby changed to support his false doctrine. You need to get past your denial.

[Edited] Darby Luke 24:21 But *we* had hoped that *he* was [the one] who is about to redeem Israel. But then, besides all these things, it is now, to-day, the third day since these things took place.

This verse is one of a number of verses where Darby inserts the word "about" to create a Dispensionalist impression of future imminence. They had hoped Jesus was the one to redeem Israel, not that is was about to redeem Israel.

 

[Smyth]

But you see, Darby's renderings are precisely in line with the Greek original. Firsts of all, the verb he translated "have gone out" is εἰσῆλθον (eiselthon), an aorist 3rd plural, and "have gone out" is just fine for that form. The NASB (and you know how literal that is) also has "have gone out." Secondly, the original has the definite (there is no Greek indefinite) article ὁ in front of both "deceiver" and "antichrist." So Darby is spot on with that rendering. He did not change Scripture at all, but just translated literally.

Darby's translation is based on the KJV, so any changes from the KJV are meaningful and deliberate. I didn't object to "have gone out", but to changing "[has] come" to "[is] coming" in regard's to Christ. As far as "the Antichrist" goes, the use of "the" can be defended as allowed by Greek (but, JWs also defend the NWT referring to Jesus as "a god" as allowed by Greek), but the context supports the KJV's indefinite article.

 

[John of Japan]

It's easy, I just gave two changes to one verse that promotes several Dispensationalist doctrines. I could point out numerous verses that Darby changed to support his false doctrine. You need to get past your denial.

"Changes to one verse..."??? There were no "changes" to the verse unless you are King James Only. I showed you clearly that Darby translated the verse accurately.

So, my "denial"? There is no denial. I'm a Greek teacher, I teach students to translate correctly. Darby translated correctly.

You obviously are not conversant in Greek. Please admit this, then we can go on with your guesses.

Dirty Darby Luke 24:21 But *we* had hoped that *he* was [the one] who is about to redeem Israel. But then, besides all these things, it is now, to-day, the third day since these things took place.

What Darby translates "the one about to" is the present active participle of the Greek ὁ μέλλων. The same word in the same present active participle form is translated "about to" in Acts 3:3 and 20:1, and Heb. 8:5, all in the KJV, which certainly has no dispensational bias. Darby translated correctly.

You are allowing your anti-dispensationalist presuppositions to color your opinion of Darby's translation. "Judge righteous judgment."

This verse is one of a number of verses where Darby inserts the word "about" to create a Dispensionalist impression of future imminence. They had hoped Jesus was the one to redeem Israel, not that is was about to redeem Israel.

Look, we could do this all day, but lest we derail this thread (about revisions), please start another thread.

 

[John of Japan]

Darby's translation is based on the KJV, so any changes from the KJV are meaningful and deliberate. I didn't object to "have gone out", but to changing "[has] come" to "[is] coming" in regard's to Christ. As far as "the Antichrist" goes, the use of "the" can be defended as allowed by Greek (but, JWs also defend the NWT referring to Jesus as "a god" as allowed by Greek), but the context supports the KJV's indefinite article.

Sorry, you are speaking of apples and oranges. Since the Greek has no indefinite article, any discussion about the JW error in John 1:1 must be approached from other syntactical elements, not the use of the article in English. Their error is in not understanding Greek syntax. But as you admit, Darby does not err in his translation (though the JWs do) since his is supportable from the Greek (theirs is not).

 

[John of Japan]

Darby's translation is based on the KJV, so any changes from the KJV are meaningful and deliberate. I didn't object to "have gone out", but to changing "[has] come" to "[is] coming" in regard's to Christ. As far as "the Antichrist" goes, the use of "the" can be defended as allowed by Greek (but, JWs also defend the NWT referring to Jesus as "a god" as allowed by Greek), but the context supports the KJV's indefinite article.

Fine, let's look at ἐρχόμενον, which is "coming" in Darby, not "is coming" as you mistakenly assert. It is a present deponent participle. The aspect of the present participle is continual. There is no article before the participle, so Darby's translation is not in error in that way, nor is he in error about the aspect of the verb. You're howling at the moon.