Hermeneutics and the goal of Concordance

Hi David, you made the following charge:

But in many of your following posts, you make statements that seem to presuppose that you are an expert in translation, and that you do know NT Greek. Indeed, in many of your posts, you haved disagreed with people who are expert translators and know Greek.

However, you provided no quote to support your false witness. (1) I am no expert and have never, not once said or suggested that I am. For you to charge me with this absurdity without a quote is slander.

I did disagree with "experts" who said I should not use a word as the dictionary defines it. Go figure. That does not make me an expert in translation or Greek.

I can read English, and so can read Greek experts who say the Greek grammar allows this or that, and offer a view, supported by experts, that differs from those who claim expertise and post on this board. That does not suggest I think I am an expert.

David, you have slandered me.

 

As we have seen, any Exhaustive Concordance, demonstrates beyond question that our modern translations are loose because they use the same English word to translate different Greek words and thus blur the distinction between the Greek word meanings.

No one has offered a reason for this, so lack of scholarship appears to be the only possiblity.

 

Hi Mexdeaf, you have no clue as to the actual topic of this thead, do you?

I was reading about software that appears intended to provide the edit service I am talking about, something called "translation memory managment." Apparently the software became somewhat viable in the late 1990's so should be available for use now.

 

Did I move it or did you misplace it?

I have provided examples of a half dozen Greek words, where modern translations needless vary the English word used to translate them. "Ek" was translated into over 20 English words, when about 8 or combinations thereof, would work. While that might reflect more variance than average, it appears many Greek words could be translated with four or less English words. Yes, the translation would not replace more liberal translations, like the ESV or NIV, but something like the NASB-95 which aspires to be more of a literal translation could be greatly improved, in my (non-expert) opinion.

 

Hi Glfredrick, my exhaustive concordance of the NIV provides a list of every word used in the Bible. And by using the numbering index, a list of every usage of every Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek word used in the Bible. So I can see that a Greek word is translated into dozens of English words. Even with my thick shull, I was able to see needless variation for no good reason.

An Exhaustive concordance is a very important Bible Study tool, and if you do not know this, then you Sir are not trained in Word Study methodogy.

Context is important, but words have meaning. You cannot change the meaning of the words used to change the message and say "but the context" required it. The people who do that gave us the JW bible.

 

You did not know how to use an exhaustive concordance, saying it is just a list, and now expect others to accept you as an expert. LOL

I am not trying to alter scripture, those like yourself, who change the meaning of the text by redefining of the meaning of words, and then claim "but the context required it" are the corruptors of the text.

Why make charges and insinuations, Glfredrick. If truth is your enemy, you are on the wrong side.

 

Hi David, thanks for clarifying your view that my posts seemed to come from someone who is an expert, rather than someone who thinks he is an expert or claims to be an expert, when I know darn well I am no expert.

 

Yup, you knew personally every authority in history and they all agreed with you.

However, I am addressing the YLT and NASB-95 authorities, and saying they blew it because of a lack of concordance, as defined in the dictionary. I have provided about a half dozen examples and not one of them has been refuted, but only disparaged.

It would seem there is not much interest in actual bible study concerning better utilization of computure search and sort ability to bring the word of God into focus.
Odd.

 

Below is an excerpt which describes the process needed to improve modern translation. The effort described was completed before computer software existed to allow an objective, as opposed to an ends driven, effort. But the issue has been recognized for about 100 years and now we have the technology to address it.

"With the use of the Concordant method of translation the CPC endeavored to recognize the importance of the vocabulary of Scripture, keeping distinct the words used in the original languages by giving each Greek word—as far as is possible—its own unique and consistent English equivalent.[3] While acknowledging that absolute consistency cannot be achieved in the making of an idiomatic English version, the introduction to the Sixth edition of the Concordant Literal New Testament states that the CLNT, by being harmonious with the original texts, keeps to a minimum the confusion resulting from translating different Greek words with the same English word, or one Greek word with many English words. It is this principle of consistent or "concordant" translation which was also employed...."

 

Many of the so-called experts told me I was using the word incorrectly, yet the excerpt in post #117 uses the word as I used it. So all those posts were drivel.

And to claim a translation cannot be made more concordant is drivel.

And to claim it cannot be made more concordant because of stuff beyond my understanding is drivel.

Translation is the art of "matching up" one language to another. I certainly agree no one can do it perfectly, but the issue is can we go to school on the efforts of the past and improve the translation efforts by making them more concordant and I say yes.

I expect if a real expert posted on this thread, he or she would agree with me and perhaps tell me of on going efforts in this direction.