Why translators have failed

[John of Japan]

Thanks Martin for actually addressing the topic, and I appreciate your comments.

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."

Please explain what you mean here. In your first sentence, did you mean "context" instead of "content"? You seem in this paragraph to be saying both that context determines meaning and that it does not.

Now lets consider John 3:3 and the accepted translation "born again." The Greek word does not mean again so it is a mistranslation in my opinion. According to the lexicons I have available to me, the word can mean from above, or higher, from the beginning, or anew. So either born from above, or born anew might fit the context. As Thayer points out since Nick did not ask how a person could be born from heaven, born anew wins the debate. If we look at John 3:7, again we see that born anew fits the context. And if we look at the related idea in 1 Peter 1:3 and 1:23 we see born anew also fits. So why did the translators pull off the meaning "anew" and create a new meaning for the word?

Where in the world do you get that the Greek word anothen does not mean "again"? All of my lexicons give "again" as a possible meaning. Even Thayer's does, so look back at the Blue Letter Bible, look at Thayer's, and learn.

Notice that if John had wanted to say again, he would have used "palin" which is translated 142 times as again! For example, see John 4:3.

Just because the Greek has another word meaning "again" doesn't mean that anothen can't mean "again" with a different nuance. Greek has synonyms too, you know. If John had meant the normal meaning of "again: he would have used palin, but he wanted the ambiguity and word play of a dual meaning that anothen gave him.

 

[John of Japan]

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, when six or so would seem to do the trick.

Where are you getting this? I just checked, and rhma occurs 67 times in the TR NT. The KJV translates it with just five words (discounting plurals): word, saying, manner, nothing (with pan for "no-") and thing. And actually, it could be argued that "nothing" and "thing" are the same rendering.

So really the KJV (and I suspect other versions) exceeds your expectations, having only 5, or arguably 4 different renderings for rhma. You wanted it down to 6.

Strike one!

 

[Van]

Reply to John of Japan

I promised Van if he started this thread I would interact with him. So I'm going to do so cautiously, waiting to see what Van's attitude is. I may or may not continue interacting with Van, depending on several factors.

To begin with, there are several linguistic concepts that are vital to a discussion of the difference between logos and rhma that Van wants to discuss. Van will show his understanding of the issues by how he reacts to these concepts.

1. Most words have a core meaning. Some linguists disagree with this, saying that context can force a changed meaning on a word. However, I believe this view is based on existentialism. I believe the Chinese written language proves conclusively that words can have a core meaning.

2. Secondly, one word can mean more than one thing. In linguistics this is called polysemy.

3. Thirdly, when the core meaning is not meant, a secondary meaning is possible (which usually has a direct connection to the core meaning). This secondary meaning is determined from context. Interestingly enough, there are two Japanese words for context which might help Americans understand this concept: zengokankei, or "before and after connection," and bunmyaku, meaning "the pulse of the sentence."

4. Because of 3, in determining the meaning of a word in writing a dictionary or lexicon, or in translating, it is vital to examine how the word is used in the contemporary society which speaks the language. This is called contemporary usage. So to see how to translate a NT word you must sometimes check not only its usage in the NT, but in other 1st century koine documents.

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

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

"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

 

[JesusFan]

The core meaning of rhma (rhma) is "the spoken word." Context will determine which of these meanings should be translated. Sometimes the English should be "saying," or "teaching," etc. This word has a secondary meaning as a Hebraism of "thing, object, matter, event" (BAGD, P. 735).

The core meaning of (logoV) is simply "word." However, the Greek logos has a very wide range of meaning, even more so than the English word. My BAGD lexicon has almost six columns on this word. For the meaning in another language of logos, it is absolutely imperative to look at the context. You simply can't translate this word by concordance, or even by only a couple of words. It may mean word, saying, message, communication, sentence, etc., etc. We have to translate logos on a case by case basis, depending on the context.

To sum up, both Greek words mean "word" in a way, but with different nuances. But rhma has the nuance of having been spoken, and logos has a much wider range of meaning than rhma.

just curious, did you ever buy and use the BDAG? Think thats what the third edition of the baur lexicon now called...

before I bought it when it came out, read some reviews by Evangelicals who were not thrilled with fact went heavily into "inclusive" language in new edition!

 

[Van]

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

 

[JesusFan]

Please explain what you mean here. In your first sentence, did you mean "context" instead of "content"? You seem in this paragraph to be saying both that context determines meaning and that it does not.

Where in the world do you get that the Greek word anothen does not mean "again"? All of my lexicons give "again" as a possible meaning. Even Thayer's does, so look back at the Blue Letter Bible, look at Thayer's, and learn.
Just because the Greek has another word meaning "again" doesn't mean that anothen can't mean "again" with a different nuance. Greek has synonyms too, you know. If John had meant the normal meaning of "again: he would have used palin, but he wanted the ambiguity and word play of a dual meaning that anothen gave him.

isn't it also a truth that based upon the doctrine of inspiration that in the Ultimate sense it was the Holy spirit Himself who placed the exact verbage God wanted to be recorded down into sacred text?

that God determined just what was placed in there, word usuage, graamer, syntex, construction etc!

 

[Van]

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."

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Mexdeaf]

isn't it also a truth that based upon the doctrine of inspiration that in the Ultimate sense it was the Holy spirit Himself who placed the exact verbage God wanted to be recorded down into sacred text?

that God determined just what was placed in there, word usuage, graamer, syntex, construction etc!

That is true but the fact that is missing is that language changes. The meanings of words change, grammar usages change, and syntax changes. If not then we wouldn't need translators, nor revisions of translations.

 

[JesusFan]

That is true but the fact that is missing is that language changes. The meanings of words change, grammar usages change, and syntax changes. If not then we wouldn't need translators, nor revisions of translations.

True!

based upon the fact that we know SO MUCH more about all that you described since the time of the originals just in past say 50-100 years, wouldn;t modern versions by default have higher accuracy rate regardless of texts used as bias of the translation?

That Modern versions should be inheritelt more accurant than KJV and other older versions?

 

[sag38]

Since Van is such an expert on translation why does he not produce the Van translation of the Bible to show all the failed translators how it really should be done?

 

[JesusFan]

Since Van is such an expert on translation why does he not produce the Van translation of the Bible to show all the failed translators how it really should be done?

might been written in sacred "Tongue of the Holy Spirit" language and need proper interpretation of it!

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Mexdeaf]

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.

There are no "secrets" here, contrary to your misguided opinions.

And only God or you can "put you in your place". Trust me when I say this- it is better if you do it yourself because when He does it it generally hurts.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

I did not mean to suggest that the context is the sole method of determining the meaning of a word. That would be ridiculous. Context is, however, the most important. I quote from Berkhoff, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Page 74.

In the study of the separate words, the most important question is not that of their etymological meaning, not even that of the various significations which they gradually acquired. The essential point is that of their particular sense in the connection in which they occur.

With further reference to anothen, John 3 is not the only place in the N.T. where it appears to mean 'again.' Have a look at Galatians 4:9. Whilst 'anew' is a fair translation in John 3:3 (though no better than 'again' IMO), I don't think it works in Gal 4:9.

Biblical translation and exegesis are jolly difficult to do well.

Steve

 

[preachinjesus]

Since Greek to English translation is, apparently, so simple....I'd love to hear a recommendation by the OP about how we are to "easily" translate a second aorist passive participle. Like the one in Hebrews 6:4, φωτισθέντας particularly when used in apposition to an aorist middle participle, γευσαμένους.

Since this is an easy task I'm fascinated to hear how easily they should be understood.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

"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!!

Apparently you don't even know what you said. What you actually said verbatim was, "Now lets consider John 3:3 and the accepted translation 'born again.' The Greek word does not mean again so it is a mistranslation in my opinion."

"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.

So, no possibility that we are born "from above"?