When is revision necessary?

[TCassidy]

Are you familiar with Greek aspect? Apparently not, since you are using the terms "past" and "present" in reference to Greek participles, where aspect trumps tense almost all the time.

The very first thing I learned in "bonehead Greek" well over 40 years ago was the non-temporal nature of Greek participles.

"The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and durative. (a) The Time Of The Present Participle Relative. The time comes from the principle verb. Thus in Ac. 4:34, 37 the time is past; in Mt. 6:27 the time is present; in Mt. 10:22, 6:18, 24:30 it is future.” Robertson, p. 891.

This is just more evidence that Smyth has little or no actual knowledge of Greek.

 

[Van]

Yes, I agree, you can insult me with impunity, because rules do not matter.
I have addressed using one English word or phrase for each Greek word meaning.
Your post makes my case, none of the modern translations provide transparency and correspondence.

Lets consider how easy it would be to cut back on the number of different English words or phrases to translate Logos in Matthew.

Matthew 5:32 logos rendered "reason."
Matthew 5:37 word could be used, as word, words, and Word for Christ are the most common translations.
Matthew 12:36 logos could be rendered "reason"
Matthew 15:12 logos could be rendered word
Matthew 18:23 logos is rendered account (s)
Matthew 19:11 logos could be rendered word
Matthew 19:22 logos could be rendered word
Matthew 21:24 logos could be rendered "question."
Matthew 22:15 logos could be rendered word
Matthew 25:19 logos rendered accounts
Matthew 26:44 logos could be rendered words
Matthew 28:15 logos could be rendered account

Thus in Matthew logos could be translated into just word(s), reason, account(s) and question. Four meanings, not seven.

 

[Smyth]

Your understanding of Greek is quite limited. Yes, there are some cases where the Greek article does not need to be translated, such as when they precede a name. This is not such a case. It is an adjectival participle. Darby's rendering is perfectly permissible.

You've provided no explanation for how Darby came up with words like "coming" and "about" in the verses I've already refereed to. And, you continue to defend changes (changes relative to the KJV) as "permissible" even though the changes are misleading to English readers (e.g. Darby creating the impression of future events for events that have passed). Sorry, complaining about my Greek and what is permissible doesn't work. As I noted JW saying Jesus was "a god" in their NWT is technically permissible if we disregard context.

For a second opinion, I checked Luke 24:21, in about three dozen English translation at Bible Gateway, where I have pointed that Darby changed the verse (relative to the KJV) to create the appearance of future immanency, Jesus the one "who is about to redeem Israel" (in reality, the verse is talking about the past). Only a very few translations use the word "about" in that verse, and none of them I would recommend to anyone. A couple of them I have soundly thrashed (MSG for extreme paraphrasing, HCSB for shameless Dispensational bias), but even these two don't say "is about", but rather "was about". Out of about three dozen English translations only one of them (YLT) agrees with Darby. (The YLT follows the style of present tense to a fault, but it's still a better translation than Darby's.)

 

[John of Japan]

You've provided no explanation for how Darby came up with words like "coming" and "about" in the verses I've already refereed to.

Yes I did, but I did it in technical language to see if you followed me. You didn't, thus proving you have little or no real knowledge of Greek--something you are apparently too proud to admit since you keep pontificated about it. (I hope there is another reason than pride that you persist in your pretense of Greek knowledge.)

As I noted JW saying Jesus was "a god" in their NWT is technically permissible if we disregard context.

No, the JW rendering is NOT technically permissible. I've said that and Doc said that. I dare you to come up with a single Greek scholar who says the JW rendering is okay.

 

[John of Japan]

You've provided no explanation for how Darby came up with words like "coming" and "about" in the verses I've already refereed to. And, you continue to defend changes (changes relative to the KJV) as "permissible" even though the changes are misleading to English readers (e.g. Darby creating the impression of future events for events that have passed). Sorry, complaining about my Greek and what is permissible doesn't work. As I noted JW saying Jesus was "a god" in their NWT is technically permissible if we disregard context.

For a second opinion, I checked Luke 24:21, in about three dozen English translation at Bible Gateway, where I have pointed that Darby changed the verse (relative to the KJV) to create the appearance of future immanency, Jesus the one "who is about to redeem Israel" (in reality, the verse is talking about the past). Only a very few translations use the word "about" in that verse, and none of them I would recommend to anyone. A couple of them I have soundly thrashed (MSG for extreme paraphrasing, HCSB for shameless Dispensational bias), but even these two don't say "is about", but rather "was about". Out of about three dozen English translations only one of them (YLT) agrees with Darby. (The YLT follows the style of present tense to a fault, but it's still a better translation than Darby's.)

The Greek word is mello, and "about to" is completely within the semantic range of the word. Darby's rendering is, once again, perfectly permissible.

Here is the Friberg lexicon's definition:

(1) predominately with an infinitive following; (a) with the future infinitive me,llein e;sesqai will certainly take place, will come to pass (AC 11.28); (b) with the aorist infinitive be on the point of, be about to [JoJ's emphasis] (RV 3.2); be destined to, be inevitable (GA 3.23); (c) with the present infinitive be about to, be going to, begin to (MK 13.4 ); as a future or as a periphrasis for settled futurity will, be going to (HE 10.27); denoting intended action have in mind to, intend to, want to (MT 2.13); denoting an action resulting from a divine decree be destined to, must, certainly will (AC 26.22); (2) the present participle used absolutely to denote what is coming future, to come, coming (HE 2.5); neuter participle as a substantive, for an unlimited extent of time to come the future (1T 6.19); (3) as extending time because of indecision ti, me,lleij; Why do you delay? What are you waiting for? (AC 22.16)

 

[Smyth]

No, the JW rendering is NOT technically permissible. I've said that and Doc said that. I dare you to come up with a single Greek scholar who says the JW rendering is okay.

There's a difference between a Greek scholar thinking something is correct or in correct, given the context vs. thinking something is permissible given the mechanics of the language. Mechanically, it permissible for an English translation to say Jesus was "a god" instead of "God." But, it's wrong to do that just as it's wrong for Darby to say Jesus "is about to redeem Israel." What's mechanically permissible isn't contextually permissible and so English translations overwhelmingly disagree with Darby.

You're not arguing just against me but also against the KJV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, NIV, HCSB, ESV, MSG, AMP, NRSV, etc.

 

[John of Japan]

There's a difference between a Greek scholar thinking something is correct or in correct, given the context vs. thinking something is permissible given the mechanics of the language. Mechanically, it permissible for an English translation to say Jesus was "a god" instead of "God." But, it's wrong to do that just as it's wrong for Darby to say Jesus "is about to redeem Israel."

I will happily interact with you on your layman's level concerning the Darby quotes if you will simply start another thread as I asked you to and stop hijacking mine.

What's mechanically permissible isn't contextually permissible and so English translations overwhelmingly disagree with Darby.

You're not arguing just against me but also against the KJV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, NIV, HCSB, ESV, MSG, AMP, NRSV, etc.

And you are arguing against the Modern King James, Young's, and I'm sure I could find others. That is a meaningless argument in cases such as this: "My translation can trump yours." What is important is what the original says.

 

[Smyth]

That is a meaningless argument in cases such as this: "My translation can trump yours." What is important is what the original says.

You challenged me "I dare you to come up with a single Greek scholar who says the JW rendering is okay." If appeal to authority is a compelling argument, by your own standards, then it's fair for me to argue that practically every English translation on the planet (except YLT) disagrees with Darby's translation of Luke 24:21.

The Greek word is mello, and "about to" is completely within the semantic range of the word. Darby's rendering is, once again, perfectly permissible.

I know what the word means. My argument is that while it might be mechanically permissible to say "is about...", not not contextually permissible, as nearly every English translation testifies. Then there's just basic reasoning that a reference to a possible past event is not, in English, correctly referred to with "is about [to happen]..."

 

[Van]

When is a revision unnecessary? When the translation is perfect for its time and place.

 

[Rippon]

No translation is perfect in any time or place.

 

[Van]

Spot on Mr. Rippon, every English translation needs revision.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

And how long would you say that these revisions would need to be revised?

Spot on Mr. Rippon, every English translation needs revision.

 

[Rippon]

And how long would you say that these revisions would need to be revised?

Hmm...well, William Tyndale put our a few editions before he was strangled. But let's start with his 1526 edition. Fthe next one next year.ollowing his work there was Coverdale's, Matthew's, Taverner's, Great Bible, Geneva and the Bishop's. All of them leaned heavily on Tyndale's original translation.

Of course Tyndale was dependent on Martin Luther's Bible. And in Luther's lifetime he revised it five times.

When it comes to one of the Japanese versions called Shin Kaiyaku was first published in 1970. Then it was revised again in 1978,2003 and another one is projected to be released next year.


There is a Korean translation that first came out in 1993 (NKSB). It had two more revisions in 2001 and 2004.

A Norwegian translation (No78) came out in 1978 with revisions in 1985 and 2011.

There is a Swedish translation called the Svenska Folkbibeln. It was originally published in 1998 and revised in 2014.

So, it is infantile for anyone to suggest that Bibles need only to be revised every two centuries. They are living in Never-never land.

 

[Smyth]

So, it is infantile for anyone to suggest that Bibles need only to be revised every two centuries. They are living in Never-never land.

A new translation will need a couple of quick revisions to correct mistakes. But, there's a difference between being revised and needing revised. It proves little about the need to point out the practice of revision.

The 2011 NIV revision did not need to be made. Most new translations do not need to be made. And, when I say not needed, I mean they shouldn't have been made.

 

[Van]

And how long would you say that these revisions would need to be revised?

A glib answer would be until the Lord returns. But seriously, there is a need for the body of Christ to have the same scriptures to study. For example I say John 6:29 teaches God requires us to believe, whereas others (Cals) would say that verse teaches God causes us to believe.

We have the lesson of the tower of Babel where language was confused. My view is if we translate with correspondence and transparency in English we will help unify rather than divide the body. It is a very important subject.

 

[Smyth]

A glib answer would be until the Lord returns. But seriously, there is a need for the body of Christ to have the same scriptures to study. For example I say John 6:29 teaches God requires us to believe, whereas others (Cals) would say that verse teaches God causes us to believe.

You bring up two different issues. 1) The need for a common coin, a shared translation so what we can all be on the same page, as it were, when we refer to the Bible. 2) The correct translation.

 

[Rippon]

The 2011 NIV revision did not need to be made. Most new translations do not need to be made. And, when I say not needed, I mean they shouldn't have been made.

Oh, so you were content with the TNIV. I like it too.

 

[Van]

Hi Smyth, the idea is that through revisions to improve transparency and correspondence we would fashion a more common coin.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Actually, I left out a word. My question is better worded as

And how long would you say before these revisions would need to be revised?

IOW, you have a translation that meets your criteria. How long of a period would elapse before you would say it also it needs revision?

A glib answer would be until the Lord returns. But seriously, there is a need for the body of Christ to have the same scriptures to study. For example I say John 6:29 teaches God requires us to believe, whereas others (Cals) would say that verse teaches God causes us to believe.

We have the lesson of the tower of Babel where language was confused. My view is if we translate with correspondence and transparency in English we will help unify rather than divide the body. It is a very important subject.

 

[Van]

Thanks for the clarification. Now if we constructed an English translation today that did a reasonably good job of translating the underlying text, say the CT, then two drivers for revision would exist. A significant revision of the underlying text, or as mentioned by others, a change in the meaning or usage of the words in the translation. For example begotten changed to fathered. I would guess, revision might be needed on average every 15 to 25 years. But if we discovered a blunder like in 1 John (the Comma) a revision would be needed right away.