Featured For benefit or reason

Endless drivel, pointless posts, except perhaps to add pages to hasten closure.

 

Did this effort address that "sake" is ambiguous and could mean "because of" or "for the benefit of?" Nope
Did RR address the issue of translating at least 6 different Greek words as if they were the same word?
All RR did was cite various versions with the same ambiguous and thus flawed choices. As if a flawed choice was justified because several chose the flawed choice. Endless drivel, pointless posts, except perhaps to add pages to hasten closure.

Why do you suppose so many translations chose the ambiguous choice, rather than the one with clarity? Why translate "Heneka" as "for the sake of" when "because of" makes clear what the intended meaning was? Were they copying from a prior translation because they did not know the actual meaning of "heneka?" Or were they afraid of deviating from the accepted traditional way of translating the verse? Or were they motivated by the fear they might be charged with a "quirky." "odd" or "unconventional" translation?

Should we just read "because of" every time we seek "sake" in the text? Nope. We can read "because of" every time "dia" or "heneka" is translated using sake, but what about the remaining words on the list:

Of the four remaining, only G5228 "hyper" might be translated using "sake" but since "for the benefit of" accurately presents one of the word's meanings, there seems to be no need to use "sake!"

 

Why do you suppose so many translations chose the ambiguous choice, rather than the one with clarity? Why translate "Heneka" as "for the sake of" when "because of" makes clear what the intended meaning was? Were they copying from a prior translation because they did not know the actual meaning of "heneka?" Or were they afraid of deviating from the accepted traditional way of translating the verse? Or were they motivated by the fear they might be charged with a "quirky." "odd" or "unconventional" translation?

Should we just read "because of" every time we seek "sake" in the text? Nope. We can read "because of" every time "dia" or "heneka" is translated using sake, but what about the remaining words on the list:

Of the four remaining, only G5228 "hyper" might be translated using "sake" but since "for the benefit of" accurately presents one of the word's meanings, there seems to be no need to use "sake!"

 

Yes, translating "dia" when used to show instrumentality by using "by" is much better than sake.

 

Did I say the use of "sake" is a grave error? Nope - so RR misrepresents truth.
Is using a word that means two or more things, one correct and one or more incorrect a flawed translation? Yes if words or phrases are available to present the one correct meaning are available.
Yes the NIV is deeply flawed, and I have listed more than 50 examples in the NT alone.
Yes, any effort to enlighten you is wasted energy, and such effort if futile. This thread was an effort to enlighten others.
Only the infantile mind of a naysayer would claim to have the measure of my "ego." The mind reader strikes again!

 

Note to Readers, when someone claims to dictate "how" things should be said, the person is trying to avoid the substance of what was said.

 

Over the years you have posted claims that a wrong is not wrong if more than one translation contains the flaw. Utter nonsense.
I do word studies and post the results. RR does not seem to do word studies but posts "taint so" nevertheless. The concept that modern translation could be improved is one I hold.

 

Totally off topic drivel.

 

Yet another taint so post. This person does not do word studies and seems incapable of adding anything to biblical discussions concerning the best choice of English words or phrases to translate accurately the intended message of God.

All our high selling English translations (including NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, and LEB) can be improved by reducing the usage of words with ambiguous meanings, such as "sake."