Word Study G2673, katargeo

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Van, Sep 6, 2014.

  1. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    This compound word appears in about 26 verses in the NASB, and literally means to make “thoroughly inactive” and has three basic meanings:

    1) to render powerless and inoperative.
    2) to destroy, abolish, nullify
    3) to separate, sever, or set aside

    Luke 13:7, “… Why does it render inactive the ground?”
    Romans 3:3, “… their unbelief will not render inactive the faithfulness of God.”
    Romans 3:31, “Do we then render inactive the Law through faith?..”
    Romans 4:14, “…faith is made void and the promise rendered inactive.”
    Romans 6:6, “…so that our body of sin might be rendered inactive, so…”
    Romans 7:2, “…she is severed from the Law...”
    Romans 7:6, “…but now we have been severed from the Law…”
    1 Cor. 1:28, “…so that He may render inactive the things that are. “
    1 Cor. 2:6, “…who are being rendered inactive.
    1 Cor. 6:13, “…God will render inactive both of them.”
    1 Cor. 13:8, “…gifts of prophecy, they will be rendered inactive, and if tongues, they will cease, and if knowledge, it will be rendered inactive.
    1 Cor. 13:10, “…the partial will be rendered inactive.
    1 Cor. 13:11, “…when I became a man, I rendered inactive the childish things.”
    1 Cor. 15:24, “…when He has rendered inactive all rule, and all authority and power.”
    1 Cor. 15:26, “…the last enemy that will be rendered inactive is death.”
    2 Cor. 3:7, “…the brightness of his face was being rendered inactive.”
    2 Cor. 3:11, “…if that which is being rendered inactive came with glory…”
    2 Cor. 3:13, “…look intently at what was being rendered inactive.”
    2 Cor. 3:14, “…because it is rendered inactive in Christ.”
    Gal. 3:17, “…so as to render inactive the promise.”
    Gal. 5:4, “…you have been severed from Christ….”
    Gal. 5:11, “…the stumbling block of the cross has been rendered inactive.
    Eph. 2:15, “…by rendering inactive, in His flesh, the enmity….”
    2 Thess. 2:8, “…and will render inactive by the splendor of His coming.”
    2 Tim. 1:10, “…who rendered inactive death, and….”
    Hebrews 2:14, “…that through His death, He might render inactive him who had the power of death, that is the devil.”
     
  2. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    The phrase, "a two way street" points out that going with one goal, sometimes means going against another goal. So if we try to translate transparently and concordantly, we use as few target language words or phrase as possible to convey each source language word meaning as identified contextually.

    Here we have chosen "rendered inactive" in various tenses, and severed for the whole gamut of scriptural usages of our word katargeo. In some cases, other words seem to work better, but at a cost. If we use the shotgun approach, and present our word using say a dozen different English words, then transparency and concordance are lost.

    Clearly, modern translations have sacrificed the goals of transparency and concordance, by going overboard with more than a dozen choices.

    We can find: (1) use up, (2) waste, (3) deplete, (4) nullify, (5) cancel, (6) make without effect, (7) overthrow, (8) make void, (9) make of no effect, (10) brought to nothing, (11) abolished, (12) discharged, (13) delivered, (14) set aside, (15) severed, (16) perishing, (17) fading away, (18) destroy, (19) removed, and (20) render powerless.
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Van, have you ever heard of semantic domain? If so, you have only given it lip service. There is a range of meaning that varies according to context. But you, quite unnaturally, try to force your pet words and phrases into places that are awkward at best, and absurdly ill-fitting most of the time. When you try to place restrictions by using only a few forms of words in a multitude of passages with differing contexts you are going to encounter trouble. Perhaps you will remember in the past when you tried to narrow-down English wordings for logos. Logos doesn't have a literal meaning --but a range of meanings or senses. It can't be translated with only a few English expressions. You're doing the same ole' thing with your "rendered inactive" phrase used in widely different contexts --rendering your pet phrase ineffective.
     
  4. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Yet another post by someone who seems not to know how to even do a word study, asserting nonsense. Here he claims the goals of transparency and concordance are not worth pursuing, a view not shared with many translators.

    I think I narrowed down the meaning of "logos" to "that which accomplishes God's purpose." And of course "logos" can be translated with a few English words or phrases, resulting in improved transparency and concordance.

    Now to return to the actual topic, G2673 - katargeo, I provided three differing shades of meaning. But based on context, severing or making thoroughly inactive covers the whole gamut.
     
    #4 Van, Sep 7, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2014
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Van, post 3 is a sane, reasonable treatment of things. Not many BB'ers participate in these threads of yours, but if a survey was conducted I think a majority would agree with my post and they would disagree with your agenda.
    I have told you that it's better to place more emphasis on contextual meaning rather on a lexicon-driven approach. Being transparent means being clear and accurate to me. I am all for that. Mere concordance of words should be less of a priority than you have insisted upon.
    Oh, so now you want to side with translators you regularly castigate?

    Let me quote you for your view of Bible translators.

    7/24/13 : "...no reason for all this lazy ignorant translation practice by folks who think of themselves as translators."

    7/26/13 : "I regard all modern translations as deeply flawed because of the willy nilly translation of Greek words and phrases...to allow needless ambiquity is lazy and flawed."

    7/27/13 : "...the work of lazy, ignorant translators."

    That's what you think of Bible translators. So don't enlist their help now. Somehow it doesn't ring true.
    But that's not what logos means. It means various things according to context. The core meaning for it is word. There is no "literal" meaning. But it can have various senses such as : reason, statement, thing, question, story, news, matter, message, report, accounting, saying, speaker, complaint, exhortation, encouragement, grievance, truth and so forth.
    You would have concordance, but little else. The result would be awkward -to unintelligible.

    Remember how you thought Matthew 21:24 should be translated?
    Van's Version : Jesus replied, I will also ask you one maxim. If you answer me, I will tell you by by what authority I am doing these things.
    ____________________________________________________________
    That is an example of poor English. One doesn't "ask" a maxim.

    And then you said "maxim works even better contextually" in Mark 11:29:
    Van Version : Jesus replied, I will ask you one maxim. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things.
    _____________________________________________________
    Naw, that does not work at all Van.
     
  6. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Yet another "bash Van" hate speech post, selectively quoting me out of context to provide disinformation.

    The majority of translators give lip service to the goals of transparency and concordance.

    You have no clue as to the meaning of logos, in my opinion. Since you seem not able to even do a word study on logos, your knowledge of the subject is "highly questionable."

    Bottom line, Rippon is simply attacking me personally, attempting to change the subject, and creating a smoke screen to derail the thread.

    Does a Greek word that appears less than 30 times in scripture, need to be rendered over 20 different ways? I think not. Words have meanings and the meanings have merit.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    In context Van, in context. You're the one that runs from context time and time again.
    Yet another bashing of true translators by a guy who thinks he and his particular renderings are superior to that of actual translators.
    Van, in post #4 you said that the word logos means :"that which God accomplishes." And that novel definition is certainly not the meaning of logos found in the New Testament.
    Sure, if need be. Words have meaning and logos has to be translated differently according to the various contexts in which it is found.
     
  8. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Yet again, Rippon simply says the translation goals of fidelity and concordance should be ignored.

    Words have meanings and those meanings should be translated concordantly. rather than be rendered inactive by shotgun obliteration.
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Yet again, Van intentionally misrepresernts my position though I have clearly stated it time and timer again. Whenever you use the phrase "Rippon simply says" --you put words in my mouth. You should not engage in that practice as a Christian Van.
    As I have told you repeatedly -- that's not realistic. Logos, for example, has to be translated with many different renderings according to the various contexts in which it is found. It is impossible to be translated with one word or even a handful of words.

    Fidelity does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with concordance. Fidelity to the original is found when an equivalent expression in English is translated according to the meaning in context.

    Your completely novel phrase, render inacctive (and variations thereof) occurs in absolutely no English translation. It is awkward in the extreme and completely unnecessary. It sounds very mechanical and stilted to say the least.
     
  10. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    For a person who seems not to even know how to do a word study, Rippon sure likes to make claims like translating concordantly is "not realistic."

    Then we get the subject change effort, totally off topic.

    Render inactive is simply a literal rendition of one of the meanings of the Greek word katargeo.

    In my view, the goals of fidelity and concordance are important and help present the actual and full message of God to those who read translations and study word meanings translation choices in context.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Yes, indeed. Words need to be translated according to their meaning in a given context, not according to a lexicon.
    That is a typical Vanism. But, again, it is not true. I am totally on topic. You insist that a slew of passages are better translated with some form of render inactive. You have discussed it in half of the posts in this thread. How can discussion of your unique phraseology be off-topic?
    And anyone other than you would recognize that "render inactive" is a pitiful attempt. It "simply" will not do Van. I hate to break it to you. It is quite cumbersome. You are hung up on literal readings when many times that will be a distraction from a common sense approach.
    Fidelity and concordance are not joined at the hip. Fidelity and contextual meaning are tandem partners.

    Your "full message of God" mantra needs to cease. You do not possess, and actual translators do not possess the ability to translate "the full message of God." Translations are approximations and are hampered by constraints of mortals. There can be no exactitude in translation. But the message of God is substantially present in most translations. You continually pat yourself on the back with your self-proclaimed "full message of God" lingo.
     
  12. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Folks, here is a statement reflecting complete and total lack of any understanding whatsoever concerning word study.

    Nothing further needs to be added.
     
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    How true the words above are. Lexical concordance is not a primary need for translation. A translation of the original needs to be governed by its meaning in the context in which it is found.

    Wise words. ;-)
     
  14. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Folks, Words have meanings and those meanings have merit.

    Consider this, if the meanings of words comes from the context, how do you derive the context. Remember, according to Rippon, none of the words have a meaning unless you know the context. What is the context of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? Did you understand it to say word meanings are inherent? You supplied the context to decide what it said. This approach to bible study, words get their meanings from the context, is simply a liberal attack on scripture, decide what you want it to say, and claim it says it because of "context." Twaddle
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Yeah, but your word choices leave a lot to be desired Van. Your meanings are strained much of the time.
    What I have been addressing is your choice of words. The context in which the meaning is found cannot be tortured so that your ill-advised choices fit.
    Thus speaketh Van, the twaddlemaster.

    Van, my approach is certainly not liberal by any stretch. You run from the context and just want to ram in your odd words and phrases regardless of the consequences. Thank the Lord you have no input with real translations. You are into word replacement, but I am into meaningfull (intentional misspelling)equivalents of the original. You isolate a word chunk to the detriment of a clause, sentence or passage.
     
  16. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    So why make a big deal out of using just two options instead of the other choices? You seem to have tunnel-vision Van.
    Can you grasp the fact that the above sounds awkward? It's unwieldy. Perhaps you are tone-deaf.

    NIV : Why should it use up the soil?
    ESV : Why should it use up the ground?
    NASB : Why does it even use up the ground?
    HCSB : Why should it even waste the soil?
    NET : Why should it continue to deplete the soil?
    WEB : Why does it waste the soil?

    The NIV wins this round.

    Why not use more natural English Van?

    NIV : Will their unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness?
    ESV : Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
    NASB : their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?
    HCSB : will their unbelief cancel God's faithfulness?
    NET : does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?
    WEB : Will their lack of faith nullify the faithfulness of God?

    And nullify is the winner!
    Who talks like that?

    NIV,NASB,NET,WEB : nullify the law
    ESV : overthrow the law
    HCSB : cancel the law

    Nullify the law is the clear winner.


    "Rendered inactive" is as stilted as they come. Are you going to use activate, activation, deactivate, deactivation, reactivate, reactivation and so forth for other "word studies" of yours in the future? If so, loud groanings may be heard.

    NIV : the promise is worthless
    NLT : the promise is pointless
    ESV : the promise is void
    NASB, NET : the promise is nullified
    HCSB : the promise is cancelled
    WEB : the promise counts for nothing

    Let's go with the NASB and NET on this one --your favorites.

    You make it sound like you're speaking of machines instead of people.

    NIV, NASB, WEB : done away with
    ESV : brought to nothing
    NET : no longer dominate us
    Weymouth : deprived of its power

    Looks like the NIV & Co. walk away with this one.

    You make it sound like a rolling head after a guillotine did its job.

    NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NET : realeased from the law
    WEB : discharged from the law

    Both choices are fine. The word "severed' just doesn't measure up.
    Again, your preference is the odd-man out.

    NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NET "released from the law"
    WEB : discharged from the law

    Majority rules Van.
     
  17. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    If the goal is fidelity and concordance, rendered inactive wins hands down.

    Folks, Words have meanings and those meanings have merit.

    Consider this, if the meanings of words comes from the context, how do you derive the context. Remember, according to Rippon, none of the words have a meaning unless you know the context. What is the context of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? Did you understand it to say word meanings are inherent? You supplied the context to decide what it said. This approach to bible study, words get their meanings from the context, is simply a liberal attack on scripture, decide what you want it to say, and claim it says it because of "context." Twaddle

    God chose the Greek word that means "render inactive" but somehow translating it as "rendered inactive" is flawed based on liberalism. No sale.
     
    #17 Van, Sep 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 13, 2014
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You tell em' Van.
     
  19. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    If the goal is fidelity and concordance, rendered inactive wins hands down.

    Folks, Words have meanings and those meanings have merit.

    Consider this, if the meanings of words comes from the context, how do you derive the context. Remember, according to Rippon, none of the words have a meaning unless you know the context. What is the context of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? Did you understand it to say word meanings are inherent? You supplied the context to decide what it said. This approach to bible study, words get their meanings from the context, is simply a liberal attack on scripture, decide what you want it to say, and claim it says it because of "context." Twaddle

    God chose the Greek word that means "render inactive" but somehow translating it as "rendered inactive" is flawed based on liberalism. No sale.
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    It Must Be Bill Murray's Ground Hog's Day

    You tell em' Van.
     

Share This Page

Loading...