Featured Should Χριστος be translated "Messiah" or transliterated "Christ" in the NT?

I would tend to agree with Messiah, for I too believe that is the better TITLE to pass on, and it is not mistaken for a name as is Christ.

Edit: I should probably stipulate that I am not backing down from my earlier contention that the best translation of Christ is not "annointed one." That IS the best equivalent. But I do think that using the term Messiah is adequate and better as a positional title than is Christ, which most seem to think (now) is merely a last name. I cannot even begin to recount the number of times I have heard people take the name of our Lord in vain with something along the lines of "Jesus H. Christ." May God have mercy on their souls! He IS Messiah, Annointed by God, Creator, King!

 

Not so rare. The NET Bible,ISV,NAB,NIV have all done the same. To a certain extent as I read the CEB they are going along that route as well.

With all of your boasting about knowing the members of the HCSB team personally and congratulating them for excellent work --your praise rings hollow. The same can be said for the NIV team --but you'd rather denigrate them instead.

 

Oil sometimes is used metaphorically to refer to the Holy Spirit, thus Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power.

Contrary to the claims, Messiah and Christ have no meaning other than what was created by tranliterating the Hebrew and Greek for annointed one.

We should correct the error and move forward, not cling to the mistakes of the past. We should establish a set of rules for translation, and then have a quality assurance group audit the modern translations against the translation rules and bring the bible into the modern age.

 

Time for this...

Bite me Rippon! :wavey:

 

Van, by what authority can you come and make the claims that you make. You are not versed in the languages and have difficulty in proper exegesis, and here again you show up to try to take the translators to task. Is there no end to your inflated ego?

 

was he one of the translators on either the Niv/HCSB?

 

Van cannot even translate John 3:16 without looking up the words in a concordance, and even then he would get it wrong. We've been down these roads before...

 

I haven't posted here in years but after reading this thread I felt compelled to re-post this:


http://av1611bible.com/articles/modernbiblestudy.htm

Have a nice day. :wavey:

 

Hi Glfredrick, arguments from authority are logical fallacies. Why don't you demonstrate an intelligence to match your assertions. Anyone so blind as to not be able to see the flaws in our modern translations is blind as a bat.

I have documented my views of modern translations, the lip service to concordance, the poor translation of passage after passage. And all you do is question my qualifications and character.

The premise that only experts can provide feedback is silly, an argument from arrogance.

And notice this, not one idea came forward to address the view I expressed.

Oil sometimes is used metaphorically to refer to the Holy Spirit, thus Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power.

Contrary to the claims, Messiah and Christ have no meaning other than what was created by transliterating the Hebrew and Greek for anointed one.

We should correct the error and move forward, not cling to the mistakes of the past. We should establish a set of rules for translation, and then have a quality assurance group audit the modern translations against the translation rules and bring the bible into the modern age.

God's instruction manual deserves to be translated consistently using the same rules so we do not end up with the same Greek word being translated into 20 to 30 English words. What we need is a little applied computer science, not holier than thou experts attempting to protect their precious turf.

 

Van, the problem is that you take others to task for making arguments from authority, but you do likewise, and as we have PROVEN earlier in a lenghy discussion, you have ZERO training in any language translation, which makes it doubly problematic for you to make the statements you are making.

You cannot correct error for you cannot discern error, save that something that someone else has done is seen BY YOU as error.

 

Glfredrick appears to be only able to disparage others, he charges me with making an argument from authority when I have said I claim not expertise. You did not prove I have little training in language translation, I provided that information from the very start. But I do use the Bible and study passages using various translations, i.e. the NASB, the ESV, the HCSB, the NIV and the NKJV.

Folks, software companies produce new versions of their software all the time. They set the scope of the changes, establish guidelines, have the revisions and modifications produced, and then have the draft product audited by quality assurance to verify the targets were addressed. Then they beta test it and based on feedback from end users, they fix the user interface issues and go with a new rev 2.0.

Glfredrick and his fellow troglodytes need to get out more.

 

Both are foreign words. More people know the word Christ than Messiah. Personally, I find all the uses of Messiah for Christ in the HCSB a little annoying since I'm so used to the term Christ! If the term Messiah was used frequently in the OT then that might justify its use in the NT, but it's not, so quite frankly you're substituting a lesser known foreign term for a well known foreign term. Believe me, in other languages the transliterated Christ is usually recognized even by the lost whereas the transliterated term Messiah is sometimes not even known by the saved!

 

Change management deals with the cultural comfort level, how far to push the envelope, when and where to stick with the past, and when and where and how far to move forward. It is not like using Anointed One needs to replace Messiah and Christ with no explanation. For example the first usage in each book could read Jesus the anointed one (Christ). Subsequent usages would not need the parenthetical addition.

The ISV decision appears to be a carefully thought through effort at change management, but my feedback is it is too timid.

 

What is the ISV? is it out on shelfs to buy?

 

nO problem in quoting and using in your replies "scholars/authorities", but unless you are one yourself, forced to yield to them or the discussion points being made, NOT able to go on from there with your own understand of what they were referring to!

 

Handling titles, such as the Anointed One, as referring to God's chosen Deliverer needs to be thought through. Sometimes those translating according to dynamic thought for thought principles, translate and alter idioms in one place but not in all places degrading scriptural coherence.

Lets consider Daniel 7:13 and the reference to the Deliverer as like a son of man. Frequently, when this phrase refers to Jesus in the New Testament, it is rendered Son of Man as a title for our Savior. So far, so good. But what would argue against the next step of a thought for thought translation, saying the connotative meaning needs to be translated directly and thus rendering Son of Man as Anointed One everywhere it is capitalized in the New Testament with a footnote saying "Lit. son of man."

See for example these possibilities: Matthew 8:17, 8:20, 9:6, 10:23, 11:19,12:8, 12:32, 12:40, 13:37, 13:41, 16:13, 16:27, 16:28, 17:9, 17:12, 17:22, 18:11, 19:28, 20:18, 20:28, 24:27, 24:30, 24:37, 24:39, 24:44, 25:31, 26:2, 26:24, 26:45, 26:64.

 

Should "Word of God" when its connotative meaning is God the Son, be rendered God Incarnate?

What rule governs the translation of connotative meanings over and above literal meanings?

 

are we back to van 'schooling' us as to why sometimes translators made bad decisions for the English equivalent renderings chosen?