Word-for-Word accuracy in English

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Dec 29, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Using the fair copyright rules, I quote a short section from "Today's Parallel Greek-English New Testament by "The Commission" Foreign missions Journal, SBC, Richmond Va. It uses the TR as its version of Greek.

    This quote should give an idea of how translation actually works and the impossibility of maintaining word-for-word concept:

    "The Interlinear Translation brings to view certain points of interest that no other translation has ever pretended to give. (wow, have they never heard of the KJV -- my comment.)

    Take for instance the word 'master.' This word 'master' is used in the Authorized Version to translate SIX different Greek words, all bearing different shades of meaning. The word 'judgment' in the Authorized Version stands for EIGHT different Greek words in the original; and so of many others. Of particles, 'but' represents TWELVE different words; 'by,' ELEVEN; 'for,' EIGHTEEN; 'in,' FIFTEEN; 'of,' THIRTEEN; and 'on,' NINE."

    So much for word-for-word translations. [​IMG]
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    In order to have a literal word for word translation, we would have to replace the word "Christ" with "Messiah", and most NT instances of the word "Lord" with "Master". We'd also have to relplace "Jesus" with "Joshua".

    OTOH, words like "love" in English translations fail to accurately convey the Greek words for love, and without studying the koine greek text, the intended scriptural meaning is lost.

    For comprehensive study of scripture, one can never rely on a translation alone. Not the KJV, NIV, NAS, or any other.
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I love my George Ricker-Berry Greek Interlinear and require my students of English Bible to have one. It truly helps clarify EVERY translation, especially for those who are in the KJV genre with lots of archaisms.

    It uses the poorer 1550 Stephens text, not the modern texts, but we overlook that. [​IMG]
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you mean to say that the Stephens text contains the Word-of-GOD? Oh, my goodness, all along these KJVo characters have been telling me that we all HATE the KJV. :rolleyes:
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Where is that tongue-in-cheek icon when we need it. [​IMG]

    I use the Stephans text almost exlusively so that I don't offend the onlies. I realize I take the opposite side on almost every issue; okay, EVERY issue. So using an acceptable text is a small concession.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The Scriptural languages, especially Hebrew, contain far fewer words than English does; therefore there are many words/phrases in those tongues that have multiple meanings in English. When context doesn't guide the translators, they must make an "educated guess", based upon their overview of Scripture in general. There may be as many definitions given as there are translators. But I believe GOD causes His word to appear as He wills.
     
  7. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm still waiting to see the first English translation render the phrase STOMA PROS STOMA (2Jn 1:12; 3Jn 1:14) literally in its main text. [​IMG]

    It's not as though John could not have written PROSWPON PROS PROSWPON had he wanted to; cf. 1Cor 13:12, which uses that very expression. But he didn't, and the *only* way we know that is by reading footnotes in various versions (including the original AV 1611).
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, great, Ziggy, now we're going to start some new doctrine. Instead of speaking with tongues we communicate by kissing. Actually, this doctrine is probably practiced more often than we know. . . :D
     
  9. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Proper exegesis of STOMA PROS STOMA in the context of 2Jn and 3Jn precludes kissing (although "greet one another with a holy kiss" is another issue that I don't want to address at this point).

    After all, didn't your mother teach you *not* to speak (LALHSAI, 2Jn 1:12) with your mouth full? [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...