Why Did The TR...

First of all, if the personal snipping continues I will close this thread like so many others. There is no need for it and it leads to more ugliness. Somebody needs to be man enough to just let it go.


Now, to the topic. There is no doubt that this is not a literal translation. Literal translation work, from I understand is not always feasible. For example, if we literally translated "I slept like a log" into another language it would be meaningless. In this case I am going agree with Salamander's contention that perhaps the best way to translate "may it never come to pass" is "God forbid." If God forbids it to come to pass it is sure not to come to pass.

 

I thought it meant, "May it never be" , not, "May it never come to pass" I know there is no real difference....

But why not just translate it the way God instructed Paul to write it..

"May it never be"... If the Holy Spirit instructed Paul to write it this way, why not just translate it that way?

BTW, I was always taught when asked a question, to not include the word, "God" in the answer, it was like swearing.

For instance... If mom asked me if I did something, and I said, "God no."
It was using God's name in vain.

 

But then again you were not born in 1600.

 

Good point! What was it like growing up back then???


:tongue3: Gotcha!

 

LOL - you got me.

Fair play

 

Salamander won't be replying anymore today, he passed out in the floor after reading this post!

 

I am not on either side of the issue Sal. I do my best to look at the issue from an unbiased viewpoint. I have said all along I love the KJV an prefer it in many places.

 

I realize many have talked about this. "God forbid!" is clearly a dynamic translation which today would certainly not be very accurate. I imagine that in those days "God forbid" was an expression that indicates a concern that such a thing never happen. For those who are concerned about modern translations being too free in their meaning-based translation, it is interesting to see that on ocassion Tyndale got fairly free in his translation as well.

Personally, I don't like "God forbid" since THEOS is not present, and people can get the wrong idea when reading such.

Personally, I'm glad to see such translation by the KJV because it helps us to recognize that translation is not simply a wooden word-for-word process.

Take care,

FA

 

Ignoring the personal snipping, I find this an interesting discussion. "God forbid" was an idiomatic expression of the 1600 hence the choice of the KJV translators (whom I greatly respect, their wisdom was beyond their time) was this phrase. However "may it never be" also accurately reflects the original structure and is some what idiomatic as well.

Interestingly the Reina Valera reads: De ninguna manera (of not any manner). The RVR was translated before the KJV and I have been told that the KJV translators consulted Reina's notes but I have not found a source yet to substantiate this claim (admittedly I have not really looked that heard either).

 

"May it never be" is a fairly word-for-word translation. The NASB expresses it as such. The idea is a very strong admonition that such a thing not come to pass. Even the NKJV has "Certainly not!" as does the Good News and HCSB. The NIV has "Not at all!" The Message has "Not on your life!" The NLT has "Of course not!" as does JB Phillips. The RSV and NRSV has "By no means!" which IMO is pretty accurate. I like the God's Word translation which has "That would be unthinkable!" - a fairly modern colloquialism. The NET has "Absolutely not!"

The basic idea is "May that never happen." I think the Message ("Not on your life!") and the God's Word translation ("That would be unthinkable!") well express it as we might say it today. "God forbid!" works as that was the common expression of the day. It isn't any longer. Hence the NKJV expressed it as "Certainly not!" Now "may it never be" is pretty accurate, but who talks like that today? I think there is more value in finding a modern expression which is commonly used, like those above, because we are not just concerned with accuracy, but with impact. And when you talk about "impact," the KJV got that right - for their time. You want it to have the same impact on today's readers as MH GENEITO did on the Greek readers of their day.

FA

 

What about Old Testament Hebrew? The Hebrew word chaliylah (sorry, like another poster, I cannot find how to copy Greek or Hebrew writing into my posts), which is Strong's 02486, is sometimes translated in the AV/KJV as "God forbid" and sometimes as "Far be it from thee."

Just an aside - I've seen two posts on this thread referring to "snipping". I had thought that, in the context of e-mails etc., this meant deleting part of the message to which you are replying, but that doesn't seem to fit. Surely we don't have to leave the whole text of the OP when we reply to it, especially if it's a long one? I'm wondering if it was a typo for "sniping", in the sense of pesonal verbal attacks back and forth?

 

Not a typo, just plain ole ignorance on my part . Sniping is what I meant .

 

So sorry, Roger, just me being pedantic again.

 

A more modern rendering would be, "No way!"

A slang rendering would be , "No way, Jose!"

A rendering that might be popular in certain cultures- "Get outta here!"

My dad would have said, "Ya gotta be kiddin' me!"

.... and I hasten to add that all of the above is written TIC.

 

:thumbs: Well, whether written with tongue firmly planted in said cheek or not, I do think that we tend to focus too much on accuracy at the expense of impact. Both are important. We want the same impact and understanding for readers today as the Greek had on readers then.

FA

 

The modern Greeks say, "O Theos na phylaxe" - literally "may God prevent!"...

 

Do you mean that that is a modern Greek idiom used in everyday speech, or that the bible in modern Greek translates the phrase in question that way?

 

"God forbid" is used from Chaucer's time (13th century at least, if not earlier); here are a few examples --

... But God forbid but men should believe far more than they have seen with their eyes! A man shall not deem all things false because he has not beheld them of long time. ... (from The Canterbury Tales, THE LEGEND OF GOOD WOMEN, in modern English)

...Truth is a thing that I will ever keep
Unto that day, at last, when I shall creep
Into my grave, or elsewise God forbid!
Trust this as surely as you trust your creed. ...(from The Canterbury Tales, THE CANON'S YEOMAN'S TALE, in modern English)

...This monk began, then, at the wife to stare,
And said: "Alas, my niece, may God forbid
That you, for any care or fear morbid,
Destroy yourself! But tell me of your grief;... (from The Canterbury Tales, THE SHIPMAN'S {a.k.a. SAILOR'S} TALE, in modern English)​

I think it is safe to say that "God forbid" was not even considered 'churchish language' or 'sacred speech', but rather common. We have seen several reports that the phrase is still in use, although this may well be because of the KJV influence (in English-speaking regions).

 

The Wyclif shows this best, I think. The original rendering of Wyclif was the common idiom, "God forbid!". The later Wyclif/Purvey rendering appears to be a slightly more literal "Far be it!" here. And, BTW, neither of these is rendered from what became known as the TR, for the TR did not yet exist, and would not exist for another one hundred thiry years.

Does "God forbid" covey the idea idiomatically? Of course, to the readers of that day.

Does "far be it" covey the same idea? Of course, as well. The latter is somewhat more accurate, literally.

But as some have mentioned, "Let it not be!" or "May it never be!" is even more accurate.

As to "Why?", one would still have to ask these (mostly) long deceased translators of these varied versions, such as Tyndale, Wesley, Weymouth, Farstad, Darby, and all the rest. (Yes, Darby did it, too.)

One might still be able to ask some of the translators of the NASB and NKJV, however. Has anyone tried to do just that?

Personally, I have nothing against the use of idioms. An example of this would be the rendering of "eis ton 'aiOn" (literally - "unto the ages") as "forever". (BTW, this rendering is an argument that was used by some in the 'ME' threads. And it has been used in other discussions, as well.)

But not at the expense of the text. And I simply see better renderings than to use an idiom that is neither required, nor demanded by either the text, or our understanding. "May it not be" or something very similar, is a much better rendering, IMO.

Ed