Mitex said:
rsc2a said:
Mitex said:
Do you hold to Bunyan's position, namely that our standard English Bible is just as much a true copy of the original as the scholar's original?
Yes...but my guess is that my understanding for the purpose of Scripture is a bit different than yours. Personally, I don't think the words matter nearly as much as the concepts themselves.
The purpose of Scripture is
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2Tm 3:16-17 and
man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God Lk 4:4. I believe the meaning of words are important and not just general concepts.
A word's meaning is the concept the word carries. How else would you describe it?
[quote author=Mitex]However, I do believe some words will suffice just as well as others, so, I'm not bound to jot and tittle matches of every word. I agree with the translators of the Authorized Version who wrote long ago...[/quote]
[quote author=Mitex]The are a lot of nuance differences between "the wicked one", "Satan", and "the devil", yet each word was sufficient, true, honestly, accurately, impartially and completely translated. [/quote]
Not really.
[quote author=Mitex]
It is not supposition at all. I know of at least one clear place where every English translation I have ever seen mistranslates for the sake of the reader's sensibilities.
All the genuine scholars throughout English history got it wrong, but good ole rsc2a got it right. He won't tell us where some the greatest translators in English history blundered, I suppose because he too is worried about our sensibilities.[/quote]
They didn't "get it wrong". They intentionally "mistranslate[d] for the sake of the reader's sensibilities."
For your reading pleasure, peruse SoS 7:2-5. It's not his beloved's "navel" the author is waxing poetic about in that passage.
[quote author=Mitex]
[quote author=Mitex]Now, being a born again Christian who loves the truth, who am I supposed to believe in this particular discussion? The wanna-be-scholars on this board with their 8 semesters of Greek (some much less than that!)...
Of course, it's not like the people who study Greek and Hebrew for a living have ever made the same point we are making, is it? :
[/quote]
Those who study Greek and Hebrew for a living and are professional translators translated the two Greek words as love. I guess you missed that salient point. That is every standard version in English shouts out against the johnny-come-lately and the wanna-be-scholars who spend their time nitpicking our English Bible. [/quote]
They translated it love because it's the best English equivalent they have. They also make note in their commentaries and what-not how two different Greek words are used with different nuances. Odd that they would feel the need to point this out if it was insignificant. But what do they know? After all, they only study the languages for a living.
[quote author=Mitex]
[quote author=Mitex]...or the Standard Bible in English, Spanish, Polish, etc.?
And there is no "standard" Bible in any language unless you want to grant some ecclesiastical authority the right to determine which Bible is "correct". (I somehow doubt you're a fan of State churches.)[/quote]
Willful ignorance run a muck. There have been and continue to be Standard Bibles in every major language that I can think of. [/quote]
Pray tell....what is the standard Bible for English-speaking people?
[quote author=Mitex]
[quote author=Mitex]How does the plowboy go about deciding if their Bible is "flatter" than the original?
Because this plowboy knows basic facts about linguistics.[/quote]
And nothing about Greek and even less about Hebrew. Hence,
because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope, as the Westminster divines so ably stated.[/quote]
Were you attempting to address the point with this?
[quote author=Mitex]
Yes. I'm suggesting that the idea isn't really that difficult to allow for. Just like I sprinkle Spanish words, Latin words, and even the occasional French words in my conversations.
Wow! You have Jesus talking to Peter, supposedly in Aramaic, right up to the point where he asks the question then he gets out his word-shaker and sprinkles a couple of Greek words into the conversation! Something like this perhaps? Peter,
me amas? Peter,
me amas? Peter,
me quieres? And the translator is supposed to carefully take note of the nuances between the Spanish words
amor &
querer. They both mean "love" in this context. A translator would be wrong to translate all the nuances of the latter, Peter, do you want me?[/quote]
I know! Crazy, right? That Jesus would use borrow words, being in a cultural melting pot and all. Clearly it never happens in our lives. (Frankly, your argument would be like someone arguing that a native Texan never used borrow words from Spanish.)
Not only that, the argument about which was Jesus' native tongue (likely Aramaic with a significant amount of Hebrew/Greek) is irrelevant since the NT authors used Greek (with a historically possible exception for Matthew) and were writing under the inspiration of the Spirit. And, John in this case, under that inspiration thought it necessary to use a different Greek word at the end of that passage for some reason.
[quote author=Mitex]The translators of the Standard Bibles in any language accurately conveyed the meaning of John - nothing more is needed. They did so appropriately, impartially, and completely. I wonder about the partiality of those who cast doubt on the English Scriptures, especially when translators and commentators throughout history and language disagree with the critics of our English Bible. [/quote]
"Because I said so" is not a legitimate argument.
[quote author=Mitex]Good tactical divergence on your part. I bet you sing Silent Night quite well. Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise. I stated that the translators of the Standard Bibles in any language accurately conveyed the meaning of John - nothing more is needed. Those who contest the consensus reading of every standard version that I can think of are showing their partiality. [/quote]
I have no problem with the translation of either φιλία or ἀγάπη as love. Of course, I recognize that the English usage of love loses some of the meaning conveyed in the original Greek. After all, ἔρως is a lot different than either φιλία or ἀγάπη.
[quote author=Mitex]
[quote author=Mitex]
If someone says they "made love" to their wife, is the person saying they "banged some chick" saying the same thing since you could actually use the exact same language to describe it?
A five year old can understand John 21 without the sexual innuendo. Even a sexual pervert with all his prejudices would have a hard time interpreting the text under discussion by having Jesus ask Peter if he "banged him more than these". Surely you realize this. You wouldn't expect a person translating the English into some other language to include all the "nuances" of meaning in the English word love would you? Surely not!
Miss the point?[/quote]
Apparently you did. Translators do not have to translate every nuance of a given word, they are required to translate accurately the meaning of the given word in its context. The meaning of
agapao and
phileo in this context is love and not the nuanced "bang", "sexual passion", "desire' etc.[/quote]
So, yes, you missed the point.
[quote author=Mitex]
No. I believe the correct nuance is needed in translation. You have stated repeatedly you think the common nuance is needed, whether that nuance is the correct understanding or not. And, for the record, your question to clarify again makes my point.
Please take a breath and think through this carefully.
You stated previously "every nuance of the word must be translated" or something to that effect, but now here you state, "the correct nuance is needed". I disagree with the former, but hardily agree with the latter which has been my point from the beginning.You misunderstood me, I clearly stated repeatedly that the standard or common meaning (nuance) of the word
in context is required and that it must be
accurate, I quote: "A translator is only required to translate the generally excepted meaning of the word
in context. He is to do so
accurately, honestly, impartially and completely." No honest person wants an inaccurate translation.[/quote]
Prove it.
[quote author=Mitex]The translators of the Standard Bible in every language have translated the text of John 21 accurately without all the possible nuances - subtle differences - that you demand.[/quote]
Yet the acknowledge them. See also
this.
[quote author=Mitex]
No. It's simple science at this point. "Is this a valid data point?" is completely different than "What does this data point mean?"
No, the compilation of mss into one text is NOT a simple science.
If it were all genuine scholars would agree - they don't - and even they recognize that their work is an art. [/quote]
You aren't trained in the sciences, are you?
[quote author=Mitex]Let us be clear on this point - 1) I have no idea in what language the Apostles originally penned the New Testament. Most scholars believe that it was originally penned in Greek with some dissenters. It really doesn't matter to me either way, I can go with Greek. Why Latin wouldn't have been used in a letter to the Romans or Hebrew in a letter to the Hebrews causes me to pause, but that is neither here nor there. 2) It wasn't my intention to bring into this current thread a debate about the language of the original New Testament. It was my intent to point out that the SPOKEN words of Jesus were most likely NOT Greek and that whatever languages the Apostle John used to write the Gospel of John was itself a translation. This point most scholars agree. That is to say, much of the New Testament is a translation itself. [/quote]
1) Because Greek was the cultural language for education.
2) "Much of the NT is a translation itself..." done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...
[quote author=Mitex]I'm not interested in defending
KJVo-ism and it hasn't been the point of my contention. My point has been this: "Love" is an impartial, accurate, honest and true translation of the two Greek word agapao and fileo in the context of John 21 - there is nothing lacking in this translation. The English reader isn't missing out by reading and believing his English Bible nor is the Spaniard, Pole, Italian, Frenchman, Russian, etc. missing out when reading the word of God in their language. [/quote]
At least not near as much as some people make it out to be. But, to some degree, sure? Translations of any material with significant length always loses something in the process.
[quote author=Mitex]
[quote author=Mitex]Are there no old Latin scraps?
Not that old. Did you have any other questions?[/quote]
Why yes I do. Are there any Latin scraps older than Greek scraps - that is are all the Greek scraps older than the Latin scraps? While on this train of thought aren't there Greek scraps of the Old Testament older than Hebrew scraps of the Old Testament? Does this prove that the Old Testament was originally written in Greek? If so, please explain! Also, how does an old scrap prove that a non-extant original was originally written in the language found on the non-original old scrap?[/quote]
Any Latin scraps older than Greek? No.
Any Greek OT scraps older than Hebrew? No.
(Of course, this simplistic test shows a lack of understanding about how historians evaluate the past...)
[quote author=Mitex]
By the way, was my last paragraph an original? A copy of an English original? A translation from the original Polish? A translation from the original Spanish? Or a combination of all the above? Please explain how you reached that conclusion - this is a test.
Huh?
You found an old scrap with jots and tittles scribbled into Greek characters and presume that its exemplar must have been written in Greek. I call that presumption without further proof. I gave you a short paragraph in English as an example, an example with more words (more data from which to work with) than your ancient scrap of John's Gospel. Now get out your axioms of textual critical theory and tell us readers, What was the language or languages of the original paragraph above? Was it a copy of an original draft? A correction of an original draft in English? A translation of the original draft in Polish or Spanish? A combination of all the above? You don't know and the axioms of textual theory can't help you - you are left with presumption, unless I, the original author, choose to tell you. [/quote]
Great! You provided one snippet of one sentence with no surrounding material to consider. Now, if you consider the surrounding material with the fragment of John....
(Remember how I said you don't understand how historians evaluate the past?)
[quote author=Mitex]I prefer Scriptural support. You make a valid point that certain parts of the Gospels were most likely NOT written in Aramaic. Again, this also points out the likelihood that our Lord was speaking Aramaic to the disciples and not Greek.[/quote]
I've got no problem with the idea that Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic. It's also clear that, under the inspiration of the Spirit, the authors wrote their respective texts in Greek.
[quote author=Mitex]Completeness and impartially are great in principle, but impossible in practice.
[/quote]
I disagree. What would it take to persuade you otherwise? Most translations are complete and impartial translations of their source text.[/quote]
All Scriptural translations are partial. The translators may try to minimize it, but it is inevitable. And, it is impossible to provide a complete translation into another language of a text of this size and capture everything the original authors was saying accurately. If nothing else, the idiomatic expressions alone would make no sense to anyone not familiar with the culture and language and losing the idiom itself as a way to make it understandable changes the literary structure of the particular passage.
8)