1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why Did The TR...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by TCGreek, Aug 27, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll tack on one more. Both Faith alone and Mexdeaf, tongue-in-cheek, or no, have given some good current language and culture idiomatic renderings of the phrase.

    But all these are still DE, as I noted in post #3, in the final analysis.

    "May it never be!" that our idioms trump the actual text. And that goes for the last seven centuries!

    Ed
     
  2. larryjf

    larryjf New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    "God forbid" is still used quite frequenly today. "May it never be" i have never heard come out of anyone's mouth.
     
  3. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have heard both occasionally, but neither of the two phrases are used as often today as in the past.
     
  4. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    The reason for that is people don't want God to forbid anything which they like to indulge.:wavey:
     
  5. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Since it is an idiom, how can any phrase that conveys the idea be "more accurate" than any another? If the idea has been conveyed by the translation, then the translation has been done accurately.

    Is the phrase 'Its raining Siamese and Poodles' more accurate than 'Its raining cats and dogs'?
     
  6. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question is whether or not the English idiom accurately coveys the Greek, here. I was not aware that the Greek wording of "μη γενοιτο" was an idiom, in this case.

    I really do have to get some sleep.

    Ed
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    No question about it, as has been stated in several posts, it is an idiom. The word-for-word rendering in English of "may it never be" has not been shown to be an idiom in English. Therefore, "may it never be" does not convey the same emotion or force of the original. The Greek idiom should be represented in the English with an equivalent idiom. "God forbid" is such an English idiom, from Chaucer to today. Even though "God forbid" is much less popular today, it has not changed meaning (that is, it is not archaic) and therefore is still a valid English idiom.

    Other equivalent idioms have arisen in English (some examples have been given in the thread), and those are acceptable as well. But none of these idiomatic phrases are better or more accurate than another; an idiomatic phrase is by definition NOT literal, that is, it is an expression that is grammatically unique and cannot be fully conveyed from the individual words. The literal meaning is to be preferred to the literal words.

    In other words, you must have been taught (externally from that text) the meaning of the expression to fully comprehend it. The phrase 'kick the bucket' can only mean one thing taken at face value, but idiomatically it is an American euphanism that cannot be extracted from just the three English words 'kick','the', and 'bucket' alone. To really 'get it' the reader must bring the meaning (including nuance) and apply it to the text, rather than the way words more commonly opperate (where we attempt to extract meaning from the text).

    For example, 'passed away' has a different connotation (possibly used with a person that knew the deceased personally), and 'gone to Glory' implies a profession of faith, than 'kicked the bucket' (inappropriate), although they all basically mean 'died'.
     
    #47 franklinmonroe, Sep 7, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2007
  8. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, but (even if we recognise "God forbid" as a current, rather than archaic, idiom), it could so easily be misunderstood as meaning that the people in Scripture uttering or writing the words thus translated in the AV/KJV (15 in the New Testament, 9 in the Old) were calling upon God to stop something happening. Yes, I know that when Paul writes (for example) "God forbid that I should boast", ultimately he needs God's help to stop him boasting, but that is not what he writes. Indeed, the equivalent Hebrew expression in the Old Testament is only translated as "God forbid" in 9 of the 19 times it occurs - I'm still talking only about the AV/KJV. In other places, that same version translates it as:

    That be far

    Be it far from me (3 times)

    Far be it from thee

    The Lord forbid (twice)

    Far be it (3 times)

    My God forbid it me

    Granted that in English, the phrase "God forbid" is, or at least was, an idiom. However, if that idiom was not really calling upon God to forbid something, it seem wrong to use "God" when we don't mean it, and if the idiom did mean that the speaker was calling upon God to forbid something, it cannot be a valid translation of a Greek or Hebrew phrase (idiomatic or not) that did not have that meaning.
     
  9. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think David has hit on the heart of the issue here. "God forbid" was apparently a common idiomatic expression denoting the strong desire that something not come to pass, and had been so for hundreds of years in English. That is the basic meaning of the expression we're concerned about here. But there are a couple of concerns with using such an expression today, and even with the usage in bygone days:
    1. "God forbid" is not at all a common expression today. It has been shown that there are many other more common as well as less-misunderstood expressions in use today which expresses the basic meaning of μὴ γένοιτο. Why insist on using "God forbid" unless someone feels that this expression in English was supernaturally chosen by God as the optimum way of expressing His heart... which makes no sense and is unsubstantiable from either the Bible or lexicons IMO.
    2. As David pointed out, this expression clearly appears to be calling upon God to stop something from occuring. That concept is simply not part of the gloss. So though both the strength of impact and the general meaning were communicated at the time with this expression, it also denotes some added meaning which is not part of the lexical boundaries of the gloss. And that is dangerous. That was true 400, 500 or 600 years ago as well. (Tyndale's translation of which the KJV NT is a revision - 1525 - had the expression [God forbyd], as well as did Wycliffe's [God forbede] - 1385 or so.) There were surely other expressions which could have been used which communicated the meaning with the intensity of impact.
    Now I do not have a big problem with the KJV's usage of the term, as some degree of idiomatic and colloquial expression is important IOT accurately translate. But to imply that it is the most "accurate" manner to translate MH GENOITO (μὴ γένοιτο) is quite a stretch.

    BTW, TCGREEK started this thread by asking...

    It is interesting that the first English translation, which was from the Latin Vulgate in about 1385 by Wycliffe, also translated μη γενοιτο as "God forbid" ("God forbede"). I wonder if that didn't influence Tyndale.


    FA
     
    #49 Faith alone, Sep 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2007
  10. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since so many demand the English to be easier read to be understood, you pick: Two words "God forbid" or "May it not be", four words?

    Then determine which is doctrinally perfect? The latter leaves it up to the reader to be subject to whoever the phrase refers to, while the former declares it is God who forbids.

    You keep jumping to other idioms as if that makes some sort of arguement against the KJB, that is an error.

    May I suggest you limit the discussion to the OP intent/ Or you should start a thread to discuss idioms?:thumbsup:
     
  11. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very good!:thumbsup: But since we are speaking as children of God, to say "God forbid", idiomatically or not, is to give Him honour and glory in that our dependence is solely upon Him for that help to avoid the pitfall.

    Whether it is a behaviour or activity with which we should abstain, God forbidding it remains for our good and His GLORY!
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    The answer is --
    • me ginoito is an idiom (in Greek)
    • "God forbid" was the long-established equivalent idiom in English
    But also established --
    • by definition, an idiom cannot be wholly conveyed by a word-for-word rendering
    • communication of the literal meaning is preferred to having equivalent words
    • translating for the meaning of an idiom is not dynamic equivalence
    • no truly equivalent idiom can be more "accurate" than any another
    • unfamilarity with an idiom can lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation
    • the idiom that would have the least negative consequences if misunderstood is the best choice
     
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't find the reduction of word count alone to be a compelling proof of easier reading.

    I totally agree with the above statement. I don't believe Paul would make such an exclaimation ambiguously. Paul frequently expresses God's sovereignty over everything, and I think his idiomatic speech would also reflect his belief.

    You are so misguided by your preconceptions that you don't even recognize when I am basically on the same side of the debate with you.
     
    #53 franklinmonroe, Sep 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2007
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Franklinmonroe:
    Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- Preach it!

    However, 'God Forbid' is considered by the
    lost agnostics as a BAD THING for a Christian
    to say. (I took a survey of nominal
    agnostics in about 1991, is twas like a 62% to 38% majority.
    I added the descriptor 'lost' having talked to
    the agnostics on bbs (buletin boards)
    Using 'God Forbid' violates the commandment
    (as phrased by some of the agnostics)
    :
    'You shall not use the name of the LORD in vain',

    one of the ten commandments.

    Therefore, out of consideration to those lost folks,
    I use a translation with them that doesn't
    have words like '<self edited, see 1 Sameul 25:22 >'
    and 'God forbid' in them.
     
    #54 Ed Edwards, Sep 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2007
  15. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess I just do not understand what the big deal about this is... As David pointed out, the understanding is that God is being asked to prevent something from happening, when that is not what the idiom means. The contexts in some instances might fit that some, but not in general.

    In addition "God forbid!" was an idiom that worked fairly well at the time... but as Ed has argued it doesn't at all work well for today.


    Both of those points seem pretty obvious to me. This is not a big deal... kinda making a mountain over a mole hill kind of thing, though. There are more serious translation issues to be investigated, IMO. Is anyone going to seriously reject the KJV because of this or reject other translations which do not translate it as "God forbid"? I don't imagine anyone with some background in the original languages would do such a thing.

    But I mentioned earlier, and no one commented on it, that this is not an issue of the TR (The Alexandrian and Byzantine texts agree here - this is not a textual variant), nor even of the first English translation from the Greek by Tyndale (since we know the KJV is a revision of his work)... Wycliffe over 200 years before the first edition of the KJV translated the Latin as "God forbede." IMO that influenced Tyndale's work. (We know that he did consider Wycliffe's work as well as Luther's German translation.)

    BD
     
  16. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I separated your quotes to point out their contradictions for even the casual observer.

    Idioms are very well understood, just as "God forbid' incorporates the fewest words to complete the intention to impress upon the thought implied by that idiom.

    Some people are just too educated for their own intelligence.
     
  17. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is getting scary, you just admitted agreeing with me, well, in so many words!:laugh:

    Does that qualify as an idiom?

    "God forbid" is still best
     
  18. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Works just fine for us dumb ol' ignoramouses.
     
  19. Faith alone

    Faith alone New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Salamander,

    I agree - works fine. But it is not the best... then or now, though definitely not now. But "it's OK." No biggie. :D

    FA
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    At Acts 10:14, Tyndale's and Matthew's Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV has "Not so." At Acts 11:8, Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1557 Whittingham's, and 1560 Geneva Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV again has "Not so."

    At 2 Samuel 20:20, the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have “God forbid” twice while the KJV changed or revised it to “Far be it”.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...