Author Topic: Translations  (Read 12297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nerdneh

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1015
  • Manna: 0
  • Moderator
Translations
« Reply #35 on: Fri Jun 14, 2002 - 20:51:08 »
BH, you may enjoy some of the newer Greek grammars that are out. Wenham has one published by Cambridge Press, I believe and there is Fundamental Greek Grammar by James W. Voelz published by Concordia. A lot of study is going on in this area, and if you like languages they may interest you.

J9, your grandpa in law sounds interesting. I am surprised the Greek speaker could understand him since the NT is written in Koine Greek and modern Greek is very different, though if the Greek speaker understood the "pure" variety, which is mostly used in newspapers and scholarly books, they could have communicated. Modern Greek has gone through a process in which almost every vowel sound is like eee (as in eeek!) So, eta is not pronounced as the a in pay, but as ee, and so forth. Eu, the beginning of such words as eucharisto = I give thanks, is not pronounced as it was, but more like ef, and there are countless other vocabulary additions, Turkish additions (from the centuries of the Ottoman conquest, etc.). Plus some odd combinations from ancient Greek and the modern world, as atomikos bomb.

J. W. McGarvey, who wrote two commentaries on Acts, was an early RM scholar who longed to go to Greece. When he finally arrived in Athens, he climbed up to the Areopagus and recited, in Greek, Paul's speech: Andres Athenoi ktl.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Translations
« Reply #35 on: Fri Jun 14, 2002 - 20:51:08 »

Offline janine

  • Guardian-Patroller of Lee's Outer Darkness
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14001
  • Manna: 370
  • Gender: Female
  • Good Stuff
Translations
« Reply #36 on: Sun Jun 16, 2002 - 23:48:04 »
Yeah, so's my husband.  The more time passes the more I become convinced God gave him to me, as he's likely the only one who could put up with me. Mike's got a few key verses he checks out translations with, too.  Acts 2:38, Paul's accounts of his conversion, some OT ones.

Praise God for a good man.  

Happy Father's Day, y'all.   :)

Offline Arkstfan

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
  • Manna: 93
  • Moderator
Translations
« Reply #37 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 02:56:54 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Guest @ June 06 2002,2:22)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Anyone that just loves the NIV should click
right here![/quote]
Thanks for the link I am fascinated by the folks like Chick who try to bind the KJV version as the proper authorized translation and the only true word of God.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Translations
« Reply #37 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 02:56:54 »

Offline LOOSE CANNON

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Manna: 0
Translations
« Reply #38 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 20:14:18 »
Mike I wasn't saying KJV only  I am
curious though as to why my christian
friends are so bent on the NIV ???

LC

Christian Forums and Message Board

Translations
« Reply #38 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 20:14:18 »

Offline seekr

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
  • Manna: 171
  • Gender: Female
Translations
« Reply #39 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 23:13:20 »
Loose cannon--not being a coCer, I do not know about that scripture causing any rigid views. Can you tell me what it is that they gleaned from that?

seekr

Christian Forums and Message Board

Translations
« Reply #39 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 23:13:20 »



Offline Darryl

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
  • Manna: 0
Translations
« Reply #40 on: Sun Jun 09, 2002 - 05:40:29 »
Hello all:

Has anyone here checked out the English Standard Version?  It is essentially the old RSV that has been updated for language and has had the "liberalisms" corrected.  I like what I have seen so far.

Darryl

Christian Forums and Message Board

Translations
« Reply #40 on: Sun Jun 09, 2002 - 05:40:29 »

Offline janine

  • Guardian-Patroller of Lee's Outer Darkness
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14001
  • Manna: 370
  • Gender: Female
  • Good Stuff
Translations
« Reply #41 on: Tue Jun 11, 2002 - 22:25:18 »
Seekr, I've read some pretty neat posts from you in my short time here, but that may be the neatest.  Sums you up, it does... You see just as much hypocrisy in worshipping a set of behaviors as you do in worshipping a set of rules.

O.D. & B., good points. Maybe if we remembered we ARE of an "outside oversight" tradition, in a way...  That is, we have no earthly headquarters, we're independent; but we are overseen by our Head.

BTW, Oldie, we have a talented man teaching classes for us right now, with various degrees, a career social worker, able preacher, has preached full-time, does gospel meetings now & preaches occasionally just like some of the other men...

But, now that we need a preacher, since he teaches out of the dreaded NIV, he'll likely not be asked to step in to fill the position.  It's not that he doesn't use other versions, including the KJV, and concordances and lexicons and whatever else... just the fact that that ol' NIV gets read aloud will do him in.

Not that he wants the job.  He's said more than once he'll never put himself at the mercy of a church for his living again.  What a sad comment.

Offline Fate

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
  • Manna: 0
Translations
« Reply #42 on: Wed Jun 12, 2002 - 22:06:01 »
Old Dad,

Maybe "Outside oversite" churches don't split as much because they literally don't have the freedom too. ???  I could see it being a real issue if someone tried to break away from a group with a superimposed authority which all their churches were subject to. It seems it would be pretty hard.

Offline Beverly Nuckols (hocndoc)

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Manna: 1
Translations
« Reply #43 on: Sun Jun 16, 2002 - 09:04:05 »
My Daddy (since it's Father's Day, and others are talking about their Grandfathers) told me that he had one verse on which to base the validity of a translation, and I think it's as good as any other criteria I've heard.
He uses Isaiah 7:14. If the translation doesn't give the prophesy of a virgin birth, then it undermines the very identity of Christ.
My Daddy's smart.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Translations
« Reply #43 on: Sun Jun 16, 2002 - 09:04:05 »

Offline janine

  • Guardian-Patroller of Lee's Outer Darkness
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14001
  • Manna: 370
  • Gender: Female
  • Good Stuff
Translations
« Reply #44 on: Wed Jun 26, 2002 - 21:14:09 »
A single-word or short-phrase translation drawn from my Greek reference books, complete with the various tenses explained, helps me a lot, Bobby.  (Hey, I'm sure glad you're back!)

It's remarkable how helpful it is to be able to do at least that, when some brother even more ignorant that myself tries to teach or bind something he shouldn't, based on his incorrect understanding of a word or phrase.

Like the sweet associate minister I used to hear preach things like this: the word of God being "quick" (Old KJV) means it's speedy, it comes upon you quickly... not that it is living, alive, active, moving.  

Or the time an elder didn't like my family visiting two different congregations while we made up our minds which to settle into.  Maybe we were taking too long.

He went to Jesus' words (to the woman at the well, I believe) about the time now coming when all people would not have to go to a specific place to worship God, but would worship Him in spirit and in truth.  

That, to me, is a passage that lessens emphasis on some sort of holy, prefered place to worship, while placing more emphasis on the people and their place in the Lord.  (Calvary was coming, things would change, the world could again be turned toward God, etc.)

The brother used that passage, though, to say (a) that we needed to hurry up & pick one special place and always worship there, and (b)  we are not worshipping in truth -- we are being dishonest, we are lying -- when we don't 'place membership', fairly quickly.

To be a Greek & Hebrew scholar of the first water, to be like you & Bob & others, would be great (will be great in the future, Lord willing...), but even the basic looking-up-a-phrase I can do right now is plenty helpful in times like these I've mentioned.

The little I can do is enough to show that I'm not just pouting about a disagreement.  It's enough to get me what I need to have some Scripture to stand on when I disagree.

Offline Rocketman

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Manna: 2
  • Rocketman
Translations
« Reply #45 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 03:43:41 »
I asked the best bible scholar I've ever known once, which translation was best in his opinion, his reply: "whichever one you will read. None of them are any good if you don't read them."

Offline Mike Lewis

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Manna: 0
Translations
« Reply #46 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 20:06:33 »
It's funny to me that people give me a test of questions to answer from my NIV, when the KJV is the only translation which has those answers, because it was not in the earlier manuscripts which the KJV, must have added at a later time...you can see in more detail what I mean if you go and read the article "Choosing A Bible Translation" by Bob Williams in the achived articles on this Grace Centered Magazine website.

  • Guest
Translations
« Reply #47 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 23:33:19 »
Barb, you are off to a good start, but you forgot at least one: "divers diseases" in Mark 1:34.  You know, things like the bends, etc.  Those of us with underwater experience knw all about these things.

Offline OldDad

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6505
  • Manna: 253
  • Gender: Male
  • Ol' Skool
Translations
« Reply #48 on: Mon Jun 10, 2002 - 23:30:20 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Has anyone here checked out the English Standard Version?  It is essentially the old RSV that has been updated for language and has had the "liberalisms" corrected.  I like what I have seen so far.[/quote]
Just switched to the English Standard Version, after 20 years of using the NIV as my primary Bible.  The ESV is very good, very readable (and sounds good being read), and literal enough for study purposes.

Personally, I just got tired of the NIV, though I do have serious problems with their translation of "sarx" as "sinful nature" instead of "flesh".

I've always used more than one Bible for study.  Typically I'll have the NASB, Amplified, two or three contemporary translations, and an interlinear at hand when studying.

Oddly, I have never owned or used a KJV.  My mother was using the Revised Standard when I came along, and our ex-hippie youth minister gave me a Living Bible when I was baptised in 1971.  I used the NASB while in college, and switched to the NIV during my first ministry.  Maybe that's why I have zero understanding of, and even less tolerance for, KVJism

OD

Offline nerdneh

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1015
  • Manna: 0
  • Moderator
Translations
« Reply #49 on: Tue Jun 11, 2002 - 20:40:29 »
Seekr, terrific insight. God be praised! One of the most destructive persons I have encountered in the last few years was a dedicated collector of experiences. Yet, she could be a mean-spirited gossip without any limits on those whom she was willing to hurt. Yet, there was this pious smirk and the patronizing "when are you going to be as spiritual as I am?"

I pray the Lord will help her and encourage her.

Offline Kialani

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Manna: 0
Translations
« Reply #50 on: Thu Jun 13, 2002 - 00:37:19 »
As I was reading the many replies about translations I thought of John 1:1 where it says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.  To me, if His Word leads us to know Him more personally, to love Him more passionately, to obey Him more wholeheartedly, then who cares what translation God uses to touch the hearts of mankind?

Offline janine

  • Guardian-Patroller of Lee's Outer Darkness
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14001
  • Manna: 370
  • Gender: Female
  • Good Stuff
Translations
« Reply #51 on: Sat Jun 15, 2002 - 15:56:13 »
How unutterably cool, what McGarvey did!

I'm sure, at least for the first few hours they were together, Grandpa Sharpe and "Mr. Barber" spent time ironing out those differences between what they both learned in school & what the barber spoke on the street "back home".

Thanks for the tip re: the Gk grammar

Offline nerdneh

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1015
  • Manna: 0
  • Moderator
Translations
« Reply #52 on: Wed Jun 26, 2002 - 20:02:05 »
I can only tell anyone where I am in my study of sarx, and I can see how someone would see "sinful nature" as pointing to some locked-in inherited trait. I think Bobby has a valid point on the ambiguity of "flesh." Context is everything, as flesh and bones usually refers to the body.

Certainly Paul did not have a Hellenistic philosophical idea about flesh.

So, how can a translator do justice to the term without a parenthesis of five or six words? William Barclay, the old Scot, who wrote so many commentaries, even some of value, had an interesting spin. He liked to translate it "the beachhead of Satan." His thought was that every individual was like an island. Some of the approaches to the island are heavily defended and not accessible easily. However, there are some weak spots, some undefended beaches, as it were. This is the "sarx" where the Evil One can land easily and establish a beach head for later conquest. It might be pride in one person, sexual addictions in another, chemical addictions in a third, etc.

Yet, how could you convey this idea, which has some merit? You couldn't translate, "In my beach head of Satan nothing good resides..." could you? I have tried using the word "sensual" in the sense of a level of willfulness about getting our way (something like Old Dad suggests) and a subsequent yielding to evil that expands from this kernel of desire. So "sensual desire" could work, but again the reader will have to do some work to come to grips with this concept. No word is a capsule that automatically ensures the reader will get the meaning without some work.

Bobby, I am leaning to "the faithfulness of Jesus" at this time, but will need to go through this more than I have lately.

Offline Barb1957

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 488
  • Manna: 0
Translations
« Reply #53 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 03:53:17 »
I'll help our with some of these, no charge. (No, please, don't thank me.)

"Anon,"  Mark 1:30
  Someone who lives in anonnery.

"Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing." Ps. 5:6
  Don't kill your landlord.

*almug - coffee mug for guys named Al
*habergeon - a doctor who performs habergery
*kab - alternate spelling of cab
*ligure - something you wear on your legs
*wimples - more than one wimple, such as Wallace Wimple from Fibber McGee & Molly and Gilbert Wimple from Harry Potter
*ouches - yelling ouch! more than once
*purtenance - countenance of a "purty" girl
*bruit - what a guy named Al better do to his coffee before pouring it into his almug
*cracknels - people who frequent Cracker Barrel
*nusings - opposite of oldsings
*mufflers - people who think women should remain silent in the church
*sod - dirty word in British (!!)
*wot - Cockney slang, as in "Wot's that, guv'nor?"

How'd I do??  - Barb

Offline seekr

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
  • Manna: 171
  • Gender: Female
Translations
« Reply #54 on: Tue Jun 11, 2002 - 17:29:44 »
janine, I enjoy your posts a lot. i didn't realize the traditionalists might consider me new age or scientologist--Paul heard from God also--would he be considered too new age back then? Probably. He did receive a lot of flak for following Christ. I wonder if there's a thumb bigger than God's anyway.

seekr

Offline Kialani

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Manna: 0
Translations
« Reply #55 on: Thu Jun 13, 2002 - 00:38:23 »
As I was reading the many replies about translations I thought of John 1:1 where it says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.  To me, if His Word leads us to know Him more personally, to love Him more passionately, to obey Him more wholeheartedly, then who cares what translation God uses to touch the hearts of mankind?

Offline OldDad

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6505
  • Manna: 253
  • Gender: Male
  • Ol' Skool
Translations
« Reply #56 on: Wed Jun 26, 2002 - 19:37:46 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Paul is not talking about flesh, blood, bones or the body.  He is speaking about that part of us that is in rebellion to God.  Paul does not have the Platonic idea that the "flesh" itself is evil (he is a Jew and has a Hebraic anthropology) but that area that seems -- at times -- out of our control.  It is a difficult word to translate but I would argue that "sinful nature" has less against it than "flesh."  
[/quote]

bobbyV,

That would be me you're "a'disagreein" with!  Partially anyway...I agree that our physical bodies are not evil, they are just an "earthsuit" that houses our spirit and soul.

Further, I believe "flesh" is used in the New Testament to describe the techniques and strategies we develop and use to get our needs met and earn acceptance apart from God through Christ.  This certainly seems to be how the word is used by Paul in Philippians 3.  I don't believe Christ has made us spiritual siamese twins.  By that I mean I don't believe Christians have a sinful nature.  So, I believe the NIV translators made an unnecessary interpretational choice in rendering sarx as "sinful nature".

I had the opportunity to talk at length with one of the translators of the NIV, Dr. Lewis Foster of Cincinnati Bible Seminary, back in the 80's.  My OT professor grilled him over the use of "sinful nature" (which he objected to on the grounds that it was "calvinism".)  Foster admitted that a literal translation would have "probably been better" and in fact more consistent with the rest of the New Testament.

OD

Offline peck

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Manna: 165
  • Gender: Male
Translations
« Reply #57 on: Fri Jun 07, 2002 - 04:35:12 »
Barb,

 You did the best I ever seed.

Thanks for the humor,Charles

Offline janine

  • Guardian-Patroller of Lee's Outer Darkness
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14001
  • Manna: 370
  • Gender: Female
  • Good Stuff
Translations
« Reply #58 on: Tue Jun 11, 2002 - 12:25:41 »
One newer translation I'm VERY pleased with right now is the World Bible Translators' Easy to Read Verson.  We just ordered some of those, and the Tamil (Indian) version of the same, for use with some new brothers.

Unlike some publishers (as with some editions of both the NIV and KJV I've seen), the WBTs clearly mark in the EtRV any word or phrase inserted for clarity.  Also, the footnoted definitions of words likely unfamiliar have impressed me; they've been very clear and accurate so far as I've seen.

No translation is as good as the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, but I'm not likely to ever become a proficient speaker or even a reader of those.  It'll have to suffice that I've access to various sources to help me translate sticky passages for myself.

As for Seekr's comments... sure, to certain segments of the CoC folks, her focus on the Spirit letting the Bible reader in on what God really meant has got to sound threatening to order.  She probably sounds like a Scientologist or New Ager or something, to them.  But, well, "decently and in order" doesn't mean keeping people like Seekr under thumb.  Don't sweat it, Seekr-love.  "They" worry about keeping a lot of us in line.

No matter how you approach this issue, the Word is "living and active... sharper than any two-edged sword".  Neither will it come back void.  I've staked my life, both in the flesh and the eternal life, on the idea that the Creator has His hand on His Word, and that we will always be able to glean the essential truths He wants us to have from it, no matter how we have to translate it to make it understandable.  I have faith that His truth will shine through less-than-wonderful translations, and even through (gasp! eek!) paraphrases.

I'm grateful there are reasonably accurate translations available, without archaic language, but the folks who need it most won't switch from crusty ol' KJV.  (I wonder how they'd fare with the original 1611 Version?)  I heard a sermon once where the preacher told us that the Word was "quick", which he said meant it would come upon us/overtake us quickly.  Ooookaaaaay...

I don't fear for God's Word.  It will never be gotten rid of, not until the end, when all things will melt and burn away... and then, we won't need His written message, 'cause we'll see the Word face-to-face.

Offline janine

  • Guardian-Patroller of Lee's Outer Darkness
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14001
  • Manna: 370
  • Gender: Female
  • Good Stuff
Translations
« Reply #59 on: Thu Jun 13, 2002 - 04:56:24 »
Trust me, I'm not stuck on any one version of the Bible, except perhaps the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. :)

But, there do come times when it's handy to have at your disposal the most accurate translation you can find, that still suits the purpose you need it for.

If you're studying Scripture with a legalist with a real sacred cow/hobby horse he likes to ride, you want to be extremely meticulous and scrupulous about exact meanings in sticky passages where he wants to bind stuff that ain't already bound by God on people.

If you're getting into the Bible with someone who hasn't before, and who has a 3rd grade reading level to boot, you want something accurate, yes, but it needs to be like the World Bible Translators' Easy-to-Read version.

In any situation, you want to be able to sit back & let the Word speak to you and to the person with whom you're studying.  You never want anyone to depend on you to explain to him what some passage means, if he can possibly read it and understand it for himself.  Balance that with finding a decent translation that does no violence to the original texts, & you've got something!

Offline bobbyV

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
  • Manna: 0
Translations
« Reply #60 on: Wed Jun 26, 2002 - 17:01:28 »
A couple of observations (since this thread looks like it was started while I was gone).  A great intro level grammar for Greek is Cullen I K Story's Greek to Me.  I have seen nothing that will get you actually reading as fast as that work.  Second observation is this simply looking up a word in the lexicon does not qualify as evaluating a translation.  Actually grasping Greek syntax is necessary.  Third "literal" is not necessarily an equivalent to "accurate" in the receptor language.

As an example of the last statement I read above about "sarx" being rendered "sinful nature" in the NIV but more accurately as "flesh" in older versions.  I beg to differ with the person.  "Flesh" is certainly a literal rendering of the Greek but that is hardly accurate in Romans and Galatians.  The "sense" of the word is totally obliterated by the "literal" translation for what Paul "means" is totally lost in the journey from Greek to English.  Paul is not talking about flesh, blood, bones or the body.  He is speaking about that part of us that is in rebellion to God.  Paul does not have the Platonic idea that the "flesh" itself is evil (he is a Jew and has a Hebraic anthropology) but that area that seems -- at times -- out of our control.  It is a difficult word to translate but I would argue that "sinful nature" has less against it than "flesh."  

Bob, what is your view of the current debate over pistis Iesou Xpristou (as in Romans 3.22, etc) would this be subjective or objective.  Is it the faith OF Christ or faith IN Christ.  There has been a ton of ink spilt on this in the last 15 years.  

His Mark +
Bobby Valentine
[a href=\"mailto:bvalentine@dixie-net.com\"]bvalentine@dixie-net.com[/a]