Another New Translation

[DesiderioDomini]

i agree

I like your church! But I suspect it is a rare one to have so much of the budget go for a ministry doing Bible translations.

Ive never heard of one before, but its always good to hear from them when they come in and tell us about their work. We had one last month or so where they just finished a 24 year project to learn the language and translate the complete bible into it. I want to say it was somewhere in the Phillipines, but I cant remember.

Anywho, I guess those from our church have "earned" the right to use multiple translation? :laugh:

 

[John of Japan]

Understood. And I have checked it on this John. But I was once told by a Greek prof that "unique" or "one-and-only" was a bit too strong here.

Don't know your prof, of course, and he no doubt knows a lot more Greek than I do, but I just can't agree. The problem IMO is in how synonyms are treated. There are a lot of Greek scholars nowadays who seem to think that synonyms mean exactly the same thing, but IMO when two words are in the same semantic domain they have nuances that should usually be brought out in the translation.

Two Japanese words for "think" are kangaeru (consider a decision) and omou (pr. oh-moh-oo, current thinking). They have clear and distinct nuances, and are almost never complete synonyms. Usually they can be translated with "to think" into English, but often the nuance should be shown.

BGAD says first "only, as in an only son." This being the frst defn. it should have a greater priority. The question is regarding whether GENES has to do with GINNAW ("to be born") or GINOMAI ("to be, become") The earlier translations of "only begotten" assumed the former, but people these days say that it probably is from the latter - the idea of the only come into being.

As you know, usage is more important in determining meaning than etymology. In this case, monogenes occurs 9 times in the NT. 5 times are about Christ, but 4 times it occurs about other people as what, IMO, we would call in English "only child" (as opposed to just "only son," IMO). If you say "only son" you imply that there might be daughters, so I believe that "only son" is inadequate.

I guess I'm a traditionalist here and would go with "only begotten," bucking popular opinion. (You want to shoot me here, or take me home and shoot me? :tongue3: )

BGAD lists a context for it meaning "unique and alone." They say that "the meanings 'only, unique' may be quite adequate here" (For all uses in the NT)

But I have no problem with "unique," and BGAD does allow it, you're right there.

Anyway, your correction is accepted, though L & S does not agree, FWIW. So it seems that the lexicons are split on this one.

FA

So ultimately it is the translator's skill and judgment that must decide, right? :thumbs:

We head out on a trip tomorrow, so alas I probably won't be able to interact more about this till late in the week. Have a good one!

 

[John of Japan]

Ive never heard of one before, but its always good to hear from them when they come in and tell us about their work. We had one last month or so where they just finished a 24 year project to learn the language and translate the complete bible into it. I want to say it was somewhere in the Phillipines, but I cant remember.

I have great admiration for those who do this. It takes great dedication, skill, and lots of hard work.

I am reminded of Adoniram Judson (1788-1850), who went to Burma and had to find a teacher and write his own grammar, dictionary and tracts, and do his own Scripture translation. While in prison during the war with Britain, his pillow was his translation mss. He did such a good job that down at a bookstore in Tokyo once I found a reprint of his dictionary, still for sale after about 150 years!

Anywho, I guess those from our church have "earned" the right to use multiple translation? :laugh:

:laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Faith alone]

Don't know your prof, of course, and he no doubt knows a lot more Greek than I do, but I just can't agree. The problem IMO is in how synonyms are treated. There are a lot of Greek scholars nowadays who seem to think that synonyms mean exactly the same thing, but IMO when two words are in the same semantic domain they have nuances that should usually be brought out in the translation.

Agreed. Though a difference is not always intended, we should not ignore those nuances. That's why they make those "semantic domain" lexicons, right?

As you know, usage is more important in determining meaning than etymology. In this case, monogenes occurs 9 times in the NT. 5 times are about Christ, but 4 times it occurs about other people as what, IMO, we would call in English "only child" (as opposed to just "only son," IMO). If you say "only son" you imply that there might be daughters, so I believe that "only son" is inadequate.

I guess I'm a traditionalist here and would go with "only begotten," bucking popular opinion. (You want to shoot me here, or take me home and shoot me? :tongue3: )

Nope, not gonna do that. Though personally I am not going to assume that "begotten" was intended except to say that Jesus is the unique Son of God.

So ultimately it is the translator's skill and judgment that must decide, right? :thumbs:

We head out on a trip tomorrow, so alas I probably won't be able to interact more about this till late in the week. Have a good one!

Take care.

FA

 

[Eliyahu]

Good grief. How many more translations do we need?

Problem is that people try to produce another garbage without the just reasons.
For example, I quickly checked this translation and found that it is just one of many modern versions.

It omits many verses as all the other modern versions omit, such as Mt 23:14, Act 8:37, etc.

It omits some words in many verses, like 1 Col 1:14

in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

This omits "thru His blood"

in whom we have the redemption thru His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.

Johanine comma ( 1John 5:7) is omited.

Acts 12:4 states "after Passover" while KJV states " after Easter"

It's just a typical modern version.

 

[Faith alone]

Eliyahu,

Well, like I said before, usually those instances which people select as examples of some modern translation leaving out something or changing something are actually examples of the reverse...

Problem is that people try to produce another garbage without the just reasons.
For example, I quickly checked this translation and found that it is just one of many modern versions.

It omits many verses as all the other modern versions omit, such as Mt 23:14, Act 8:37, etc.

Regarding Matthew 23:14, you're right that it does not appear that it should have been omitted. I can see having brackets with footnotes. But the majority text is consistent about having this verse. But this is a matter of Greek text followed. The NKJV has a footnote that says that the critical text (NU) omits it, but it has very strong majority text support, so IMO the ISV erred here:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]F126: NU-Text omits this verse.[/FONT]

Score: ISV 0, KJV 1

Now regarding Acts 8:37, that is definitely a different matter! By adding this verse in, the KJV has caused great confusion regarding the gospel. Neither the critical text, not the majority text has this. IOW, only a handful of manuscripts have this verse. Hodges/Farstad's Greek Majority text and Robinson/Pierpont's Greek majority text do not have it either. The NKJV includes it, because it follows the TR, but it has the folliwng note:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]F44: NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.

IOW, this comes almost exclusively from the Latin text, not from the original Greek texts. Hurray for the ISV for not including this.

[/FONT]Score: ISV 1, KJV 1

It omits some words in many verses, like 1 Col 1:14

in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

This omits "thru His blood"

in whom we have the redemption thru His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.

Sorry, but again the KJV was in error to include it. Now we know that we have redemption through His blood, and scripture says that elsewhere. But it does not say it here, so let's not add those words. Again neither the majority texts of Hodges or Robinson have this verse. ONLY the TR has it. Again, the NKJV includes it because it followed the TR even when it knew it to be in error. But here's their footnote:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]F3: NU-Text and M-Text omit through His blood[/FONT]

Now this thought about redemption through His blood is found just a few verses later, and some textual critics think this was an accidental repeat of that phrase. Here's vs. 20 in all translations:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]and to reconcile everything to Himself through Him by making peace through the blood of His cross -- whether things on earth or things in heaven.[/FONT]

Score: ISV 2, KJV 1

Johanine comma ( 1John 5:7) is omited.

Ew! You really should not have listed this one!! No textual critic believes this to be original. Almost no manuscripts at all have it. It is found in only a handful of very recent manuscripts, and Erasmus himself did not include it until his 3rd version of the TR. Anyone who says that 1 John 5:8 should be there as in the KJV or the NKJV... well, I think they need to do a little research. Here's the NKJV footnote... and remember that "very late" means very recent. IOW, nothing very old at all has it... I think one manuscript before the 12th century has it... about 1000AD or so:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]FOOTNOTES:
F15: NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (1 John 5:7) through on earth (1 John 5:8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek. [/FONT]

Score: ISV 3, KJV 1

Acts 12:4 states "after Passover" while KJV states " after Easter"

It's just a typical modern version.

Here's the Greek - μετὰ τὸ πάσχα - After "Passover." The KJV has "Easter." It is not Easter. This is not a matter of a Greek textual difference, but just not the best translation by the KJV team. The textus receptus has πάσχα (PASCHA - "Passover") as do all families of Greek manuscripts. Even the NKJV corrected the KJV inaccuracy... it has "Passover."

Score: ISV 4, KJV 1

I do not care for the ISV personally, as I shared earlier, because of how they handle the tenses. Personally, I like how the NASB handles the tenses. But I don't like to see any translation put down in a manner that is not treating it fairly. Did you notice that I acknowledged that the ISV should not have omitted Matthew 23:14? Trying to be fair.

FA