Featured Word Study G2673, katargeo

Yes, both "deactivate" and "make inactive" are equally absurd. That was my point.

 

Here you are clearly arguing for lexical concordance and not for contextual concordance. The two approaches are distinct.

 

Do you now agree with me, or do you wish to remain in the camp of the lexicon-driven?

 

Do you see my point now? Have you seen the light Van?

 

Do you agree or not Van? You said this whole post of mine contained nothing but fabrications. So if all that I have said here is not true : Then there is no such thing as a range of meaning. The meaning does not vary according to context.

Which is it Van? Yea or nay? You can't have it both ways. You constantly call my posts "absurd" and "nothing but fabrications." So put up or shut up.

Now for you to call the above a fabrication will be a natural for you since all objectivity will flee out of you here. But put yourself in the shoes who read your threads without joining in. Do they think that you don't force-down awkwardly worded phrases that are ill-fitting?

You have made it quite plain that you do not like English versions that use "a slew of words" as you have said for a particular word or phrase in the original. You have wanted to narrow-down the field to just a few options. Correct? But when you do that you will face difficulty trying to put a square peg in round hole --your choices are cumbersome. And that's not even mentioning your agenda.

You has specifically asked for examples and I gave you this among others. You had forgotten about it. However, when you first started to speak on this a few years ago you said instead of the 20 plus words used for logos you could reduce the "overlap" as you said, to five or six --later increasing it to eight. But you had a losing battle on your hands. Eight English word choices just won't do for the various contexts in which it is found.

Yes, the same principle applies here Van. There aren't quite as many as the English words for logos --but come on. To come up with "render inactive" is very poor on several fronts. You can't expect us to take you reseriously Van. The words that every single translation uses in the English market are far better than your pet phrase. It just doesn't cut the proverbail mustard Van.

Now are you going to wave your majestic hand and dismiss this post with "absurdities" ,"fabrications" or other unworthy invectives?

 

What in the world does the above mean? Depending on the context the meaning or nuance of mean is altered --it (the word of origin) does not have the exact meaning in every context. Logos is a very good example of that with more than 20 words being employed to fulfill the various meanings in a multitude of different contexts.

"We" --really? But you are not a translator. You pretend to divine the "fully God-intened meaning" and of course your mission is foolhardy. No authentic translator would dare to make such lofty claims that you do. You, who have no qualifications.

But you maintain that only your renderings are the correct God-intended meanings. Words that legit translators use are demeaned by you on a regular basis as being inferior and certainly not the full God-intended meaning.

"Make inactive" and render inactive" are not used in any translation for good reasons. Number # --they are incredibly awkward. And # 2 the choices real translators have made are much better and fit the context rather than your lexicon-driven minimalist approach.

 

Post 14

Meanings of words established upon the context in which they are found is "simply a liberal attck on scripture" according to Van.

 

Post 17

The Van man repeats his same old line over and over about how "liberal" it is do derive the meaning of a word from the context in which it is found. Incredible. Simply incredible.

 

Post 19

Van is on full-parrot mode saying the same ole' nonsense about me being liberal because I know the meaning of a word comes from the context in which it is found --not from a purely lexicon-driven approach that Van is into with a twist.

 

Post 21

Van thinks you might not have gotten his idea unless he repeats himself a bunch of times. Well, here I am jogging his memory. He derided me as a liberal because I know that the contextual meaning of a given word is more important than merely a lexicon-driven approach which Van constantly advances --with a Van-twist.

 

Post 23

It's really pathetic the way Van goes about promoting himself with his wild ideas. He calls me a liberal because I know that words must be translated according to their meaning in context. Van, you make it a habit of inverting meaning. For you "frequently" means happening 25% of the time or more. For you "elementary at best" means very advanced. And on and on I could go with Van's inversion of word meanings. so when he calls me a liberal --as he so often does --it means I am the true conservative and he is hanging out with the Hillary, Nancy &Co. of Bible translators.

 

Van is the consumate prevaricator. He calls me a liberal who attacks scripture repeatedly --then tells me I am fabricating what his own mouth has declared. Stop and examine yourself Van. You are inverting word meanings again. When you say I am fabricating and telling falsehoods that means in actuality I am the man of veracity. You have to come to grips with reality Van. And to come to grips with it you must be real and say real things. Do not say untrue things --admit when you have done so. Come clean. But don't put on a false front for the "folks" you often address.

 

You need to be disciplined --call it a bashing or whatever. You are in the habit of saying false things repeatedly and then want to go to higher ground after uttering your fleshly fibs. You are shameful. You call me a liberal just once more and you will rue the day.

 

The above addresses Van's problems.