Why translators have failed

Reply to John of Japan

I agree with this post and this post agrees with what I posted.

 

Hi John of Japan, if a word has a range of meanings, it means "a" usually, but can also mean "b" or "c", then we must look at the context to determine which of its meanings was apparently intended. However, like you said in post #21, I do not think translators should come up with another meaning, lets call it "d" based on what they think the idea of the usage is, and translate its meaning as "d" i.e. a whole new meaning created by the context. That is simply a rewrite altering the meaning of the word used.

I believe the "primary" meaning of the word is not again, as in repeating the "same" action, but means an action with a difference. It is a nuance. I had read and knew what NAS lexicon said:

Definition

1. from above, from a higher place
1. of things which come from heaven or God
2. from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
3. anew, over again

And my post matched this precisely.

"Just because the Greek has another word meaning "again" doesn't mean that anothen can't mean "again" with a different nuance." John of Japan, that is exactly what I said!!

"but he wanted the ambiguity and word play of a dual meaning that anothen gave him." And this is the exact opposite of what I believe. Born anew rather than born again, is the idea of John 3:3, and 3:7.

 

"Strike one" Give me a break, the NIV translates Rhema into more than 14 different words.
And did you not see that I selected synonyms that did not overlap the words used to translate logos, I illustrated how some would be used for logos and others for rhema so the same English word would not, to the degree possible, be used for two different Greek words. I used utter, utterance for rhema, and then said to change those verses where logos is translated as utterance, to message or statement or the like.

Here is the NAS lexicon saying Rhema was translated into about 10 different words, not five:
NAS Word Usage - Total: 67
charge 1, discourse 1, fact 2, matters 1, message 2, nothing* 1, remark 1, say 1, say say 1, saying 1, sayings 3, statement 6, thing 2, things 4, word 18, words 22

Let me close, by saying thanks for actually addressing the topic. Hopefully we both have grown in our understanding of our respective views. Van

 

Now lets see if it is rude to derail a thread.

 

Now you are cooking, Jesusfan! If we assume that God did not choose His words willy nilly, but chose the ones that would convey His message with clarity, then translators should endeavor to preserve that clarity.

So what is wrong with the KJV which translates "rhema" using only about 4 words? Because they are among the same words used to translate logos. Thus, whatever nuance rhema brought to the table in Greek is mostly obliterated by the KJV because it is almost just as if the HS used logos everywhere.

Here are the logos words in the KJV: AV — word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not tr 2, misc 32

And here are the rhema words in the KJV: AV — word 56, saying 9, thing 3, no thing + 3756 1, not tr 1

Note that in 66 cases out of possible 67, the KJV draws absolutely no distinction from logos.

To quote a famous movie line, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

 

What Van wrote in post #12:

"I do not agree with the idea of determining a word meaning my content. Words have meanings, and so the author chose that word to convey that meaning. Now when a word has more than one meaning, then content must be used to discern which of the accepted meanings appears to fit best. So, using your illustration of "well" we agree that several English words might be chosen to translate a Greek word with the range of meanings you illustrated with "well." "

What Van was trying to write in post #12:

I do not agree with the idea of determining the meaning of a word by context alone. Words have core meanings, or a range of meanings. So the author chose that word to convey that meaning. Now when a word has more than one meaning, then context must be used to discern which of the accepted meanings appears to fit best. So, using your illustration of "well" we agree that several English words might be chosen to translate a Greek word based on using one of the existing meanings as best fits the context. Translators should not invent a new meaning for a word, that is just a rewrite of the text to suit the translator.

 

One of the nifty stories of my youth concerned a King's New Clothes. He could not see them but all the experts who surrounded him said he looked marvelous. One day, when out among the peasants, a child said, but the King has no clothes.

So all these posts attempting to "put me in my place" rather than actually addressing the problem with modern translations, strike me as being from folks with a vested interest in keeping the problem a secret. And so it goes.

My position is that most Greek words are translated into far too many English words unnecessarily. Rhema is translated into about 20 different English words (counting alternate endings such as plurals), when six or so would seem to do the trick.

Until we face our problems we will not grow in Christ. God Bless.

 

Hi Martin, I see that most translations render the construction "anothem palin" as "over again." The point is palin which is always translated again is the primary adverb. Since one of the lexicon meanings is "over again" the construction over again again seems to emphase it as in "all over again."

There is no good reason to defend obliterating the actual underlying Greek. Born anew would be the best translation of John 3:3, and "all over again" works for Galatians 4:9.