Hermeneutics and the goal of Concordance

So let me get this straight. You don't know Greek, you're not a linguist, you're not a translator. Yet when I object to your view of concordance as being inaccurate, you believe Im being "a tad judgmental," is that correct?

Since you don't consider me to be an authority, just so you know, here is a definition of concorance from an acknowleged expert: "verbal consistency, verbal concordance: quality resulting from the effort to translate a given word from the original consistently by a single word in the receptor language" (The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles R. Taber, p. 208). Get that? "a single word in the receptor language."

You, sir, are wrong and should admit it.

 

I've now provided a definition from an acknowledged authority in Bible translation, Eugene Nida. Will you now admit you are wrong? Or are you more of an authority than Eugene Nida?

On the contrary, I am a Bible translator who has translated the entire NT into Japanese, and tomorrow will continue with the 2nd draft with my Japanese partner. I regularly use six different software packages in three languages in my translation work, and am well aware of the benefits. In the near future we will be putting our Japanese NT on the web in imitation of the NET Bible.

But you, what have you translated of the Word of God? What foreign languages do you know? What books have you even read about translation? Convince me you know what you are talking about and I might consider this conversation worth continuing.

 

Want to thank all of you that have been attempting to answer van here on this OP...

All showed Christ like tones...

This is an area where it really does need one to be a "scholar/specialist" in order to even be able to discuss this topic!

Alas, if we can JUST carry on this good spirit unto the Theology board when cals and arms debate!

 

I agree with you here except that I would modify your statement to read "authoritatively discuss this topic".

I agree with you here about carry over into the Theology board!

 

However Van, you may want to investigate the Concordant Literal Version of the New Testament; I've read it and its not bad (you may not like its textual basis or its theological bent). Also, works such as the Basic Bible use a very limited vocabulary (about 800-1200 words) which by necessity would result in more concordance.

 

Because you seem to be headed in that direction when you bring passages in that translation then ask questions as to "why" a certain word is translated in the manner it is.

I have EXTENSIVELY answered you on this issue, but you simply do not like the response. If you are waiting for another response, you will likely be waiting for a REAL LONG TIME, as my response is the scholarly response.

Just to recapitulate my response in short form, there is NO one-to-one correspondence between translated words, rather "concepts" are translated as best as is possible in context with the idea carried forth in the original text. Additionally, English (or whichever language is being translated) synonyms are employed to operate within conventional grammar structures and also to offer various levels of readability, determined by the level that the translator wishes to put forth into the market, i.e., a 6th grade reading level, a 12th grade reading level, etc.

Because sometimes different words can have the same usage. I offered the English example "run" which has over 30 different usages.

Greek is similar, but you not having a grasp of Greek scholarship by your own admittance, would not understand that, hence your effort to try to make simple what is in fact rather complex.

No, in fact, this IS the problem. You can continue in your rampant ignorance and fail to even grasp that the problem is yours, or you can do as I and several others have suggested and go out to gain an education in Greek grammar.

Again, depending on context, and the conventions of GREEK grammar (you continually wish to employ a VERY SIMPLE, GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL, of English grammar as your guide) words like "ek" can have multiple usages as has been well explained in the posts above.

English, on a level above grade school, also has similar issues. One can use, but, therefore, and, an, the, a, so be it, however, is, was, were, etc., etc., etc., depending on context to carry on the thought of a particular sentence. You take for granted this practice, but you don't know that it is based on certain conventions of grammar that ARE NOT THE SAME in the Greek language.

What Paul is saying here is actually rather simple, and the term he uses is not "saved," but rather, "justified" (a legal term). He is saying that the means to salvation for the Jew (circumcised) and the Gentile (uncircumcised) is the same -- justification by faith BY God. In other words, God gives the justification and God gives the faith. Why do I say that both justification and faith are by God? The passage says "by God who will..." No mention of the actions of the individual. Even more, the gist of the passage is not circumcision or lack thereof, nor is it justification by faith, but it is actually the fact that in God's eyes Jew and Gentile are one and the same -- lost sinners in need of salvation (justification) and that God handles both the same, for he is one God, not separate gods for Jew and Gentile.

If we back up a couple of verses, we see that Paul is making an argument against a special dispensation for the Jews, who approach God as if their circumcision or covenant sets them apart as somehow special concerning justification. Paul is countering this argument and saying that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

The Jews made the claim that God was their God only, and they were wrong.

As I said above, you have been answered, and well. You just refuse the answer offered because it does not match your fundamentalistic and un-educated view of what the answer should be.

 

Van, I would suggest that you are hopelessly mired in your own ignorance. Take that as an attack... You always do anyway. It is a character flaw that I only pray God will work out of you one of these days.

 

I say this as respectfully as I can, when I am rebuked gently by 5 or 6 brothers in Christ concerning a matter, I take that as meaning that I am wrong, not them.

You would be wise to do likewise. Be blessed.

 

The first KJV word translated "by" in Romans 3:30 is ek, but the second is a different Greek word (dia).

Galatians 3 does not have 38 verses; but the phrase "by faith" occurs at Galatians 3:11, 22, 24 (all three ek), and 26 (dia).

 

Yeah, compared to the theology board, this one has been pretty benign lately. :flower::saint:

 

You don't understand. You are venturing into a specialized scholarly discipline, that of translation studies. You can't use the American Heritage Dictionary for that any more than you could use it for medical terminology. It just isn't there. You need a specialized dictionary for that.

I've given you a definition from a glossary in a book on Bible translation by a well-respected authority, Eugene Nida. By your refusal to accept that, you show that you consider yourself to be your own authority. That's sad.

 

No, I only see your lack of knowledge of Greek. This is a jumbled paragraph. It has no relation to a genuine knowledge of how to translate the passages you apparantly are referring to.

 

I've not insulted you, simply pointed out your lack of knowledge in the areas of Bible translation studies and Greek. If you are truly looking for insight, you'll humbly ask for help in understanding what translating by concordance is. So far you've not done that, but prefer to walk your own path, contrary to known experts in the field. Enjoy your solitary walk.