Hermeneutics and the goal of Concordance

What does "age" mean? I don't see your point. I often speak of "another age" which simply goes back before me in time.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Languages change over time, and words that meant something at an earlier time often mean something else (as usage changes) later. I used the term "age" to denote this period of time, which may be short or long.

Bad, for instance used to be used to denote, well, "bad." Now, saying something is "bad" often means that it is in fact very "good."

Cool used to mean that an item was chillier than the surrounding environment, Now, it typically means that, but also it is a term used to give the impression that something is "good" or "in style."

Getting into the text of Scripture, the KJV used a term, "pecular" to describe the people of God. The word in the usage of 1611 meant "set apart," but now it is generally used to denote people who are "weird" or otherwise not in keeping with societal norms, still (almost) the concept of "set apart" but with a very negative conotation instead of a very positive one.

Here is a partial list of words found in the KJV that either have gone out of common use or do not mean today what they meant in an earlier age:

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths [not to get clean,] bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty, borne, breach, brandished, bray, bristling, buffet, buckler, bulrush, burnished, butress, calamus, caldron, capital, carcasses, carnally, carrion, cassia, caulkers, centurion, chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste, chasten, chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern, citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven, commission, commonwealth [not shared money,] compound, concede, compulsory, conciliation, concubine, congealed, contemptuously, confederacy, contingents, corban, coriander, countenance, couriers covert, crags, crescents, crest, cropped, cubit, custodian [not the one who cleans the school halls,] curds, dainties, dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed, deride, despoiled, diadem, diffuses, dilapidation, dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner, docile, dragnet, dregs, drachmas, dropsy, dross, dryshod, eczema, edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails, envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise, expiration, faction, fallow, famish, fare, fatlings, feigned festal, fetched, fidelity, figurehead, filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers, fuller furlongs, gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew, homers, hoopoe, immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy, jubilation, kors, laden, lamentations, laud, lusty, mail [not a letter,] mammon, matrix [other than the movie,] mattock, mercenaries, mina [not a type of bird,] mite [not a bed bug,] moorings, nativity, offal, offscouring, omnipotent, oracle, pangs, papyrus [not a fruit,] paramours, parapet, penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins [not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot,] pinions [not a type of nut,] plaited [not dishes,] platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice, Praetorium, prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators, propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver, rampart ravenous, ravished, raze [not to lift up,] reconciliation, recount, rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled [does not have to do with guns,] rivulets, rogue, salute [ does not have to do with the army,] satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle [not a type of bus or spaceship,] siegeworks, sistrums [not an affectionate term for your sisters,] skiff, soothsayer, spelt straits, superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng, timbrel, tittle, tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton, warp, wend, wield, winebibber, woof, wrought.

 

It seems your problem you have is that English isn't Greek.

Man, that can't be helped. That's not a translation issue--it's a language issue.

 

I'm going to start by saying that you could not have chosen a worse word to make your point with than the preposition ek (ek, ex; before a vowel). You seem to think that it only has a very few meanings, but nothing could be further than the truth. You say it means "'out of', 'from' or 'away from', and 'by'." But look at what just a mid range lexicon has for it, the Anlex by the Fribergs:

The large BAGD lexicon has much more, over five columns (2 1/2 large pages). I could add detailed analysis of its usage, but here's the thing. You freely admit you don't know Greek. So you would not understand my analysis, and it would be a waste of my time. You should just admit at this point that you are out of your depth with this word, and forget trying to make your point with it. Use a different word to make your point.

This example does not prove your point either. Your thread is about translating by concordance, but then your argument on Luke 11:13 is more about how to translate. And by the way, you are reading your English understanding back into the Bible when you say that "heavenly" is "an attribute of behavior." It's not the same in the Greek.

 

Here you are actually making an argument from translation theory, the age old question of free vs. literal, and you do somewhat better. I agree with you here. But it doesn't prove your point.

 

Once again, you are not proving your point. You've come across a Greek idiom. This particular idiom only occurs here in the NT and the LXX combined (though Gal. 1:4 has the same phrase with two more words, making it a different meaning), and it means just what the NASB translated it as, "since the beginning of time."

How to translate an idioms is not the same thing as whether or not to translate by concordance. If you wanted to make an argument from concordance, you would say that this Greek idiom should always be translated exactly the same--hard to do since it only occurs this once.

 

This word occurs 56 times in the NT. It's linguistically simplistic to think that these three English words will always translate it properly. 2 Cor. 8:21 has it in the plural (good things), something the English doesn't do. 2 Tim. 1:14 is similar in that usage but singular (a good thing). And "honest" is a perfectly legitimate rendering.

Once again you are not proving your point. To translate by concordance means to use the same word every time, but now you are allowing three meanings. That's not translating by concordance. And by the way, as is, it does not mean "better." That would be the comparative form of it, which is kallion (kallion).

 

This is so true. Once I learned Spanish it gave me a whole new appreciation for the difficulties one faces in learning English grammar. I use the principle of root+prefix+suffix to teach English to my Developmental English students. It is a very helpful concept.

(Sorry for the hijack- carry on. Not literally- you're not really carrying anything on to anything, and I haven't really stolen anything, but you know what I mean. I hope.:smilewinkgrin

 

Because those words may not always fit the context of the "concept" of "good". You are asking for black and white tangible, when at times the text requires more nuance than that.

I highly recommend that you take some time out to study Greek grammar so that you at least have a rudimentary grasp of why words are translated as they are. You are hung up on the fact that words have a precise meaning, even after I have shown you repeatedly that this is not the case. The only cure for what ails you is scholarship, rightly applied, to the subject matter, in this case, Greek grammar.

About Matthew 15:26, is "right" not also "good?" But, using the word "good" in that sentence reduces the English grammar to a 3rd grade level. i.e., I'm gooder than you," instead of the more proper, "I am right."

If you truly desire a translation that only uses a handful of words, I recommend the New International Readers Version, which has a reading grade level of 2.9 (just under a 3rd grade reading level).

http://www.biblica.com/nirv/

Also, here, for reference is a nice site with charts that show the various Bible translations and how they fall along a continuum from most literal to most dynamic:

http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

 

You have "shown" nothing of the sort. What you have "shown" is your own bias toward the work of biblical translation, and that without any semblance of formal training by your own admission.

Perhaps it is time to set aside this argument (as I have been saying all along) until you gain more education on the matter. You are the blind leading the blind in this matter. And, yes, if you wish to take this as a personal attack, go right ahead. I have been rather gracious to work with you (again) in this thread so as to attempt to demonstrate just why your proposition is not accurate. In that you continually resist my and other's efforts to bring you up to speed on this issue, you demonstrate your willing ignorance and can rightly feel attacked unless or until you concede that you need to do some more study in the area of languages and grammar.

 

I found your OP somewhat confusing, Van. (Sorry about that! ) Here are some of the things that confused me:

1. You started your post saying that you believe all modern translations have all utter failed to faithfully translate the Bible, but near the end, you say: "I believe the translators of old, mistakenly have taken a shotgun to the text."

2. You use as an example the Greek word ek. You say that it is translated into 25 (different) words in the New American Standard bible. That may be so - I don't have the NASB to look. But the KJV translates the Greek "ek" as: of, out of, from, among, by, for, on, with, beyond, with, over, in, unto, and possibly others. Not as many as the 25 you mentioned for the different ways ek is translated in the NASB, but 13 plus is enough to show that this isn't something that only happens in modern versions.

3. You said: "Apparently the word appears over 900 times in the KJV text, but only 61 times in the NAS text." Which word? The Greek word "ek"? Surely not. The English word "of"? That seems to occur 4062 times in the New Testament. The English word "of" as a translation of the Greek "ek"? I may be wrong, but even including "out of", I only made it 465 - not 900.

Like you, I am no Greek scholar, but I do know that translation from one language to another is by no means straightforward. The English word "of" occurs several times in the following, with many different meanings:

The head teacher of the school ruled with a rod of iron. With her mug of coffee and slice of cake on her desk, she bellowed at the boy of 11 in front of her. "I'm accusing you of the greatest laziness! You are a sloth of a student, and the work you do produce is of poor quality.
​

Now suppose for some reason, I wanted to translate that into German. (Yes, I know! Why ever should I want to translate such nonsense? :laugh: But just suppose I did). Suppose also that I already know that the German word "von" means "of". So I go ahead with my translation, and every time I come to the English word "of" I translate it into German as "von". That would certainly be consistent, but it wouldn't make much sense in German!

 

The basic problem, Van, is that YOU DO NOT KNOW THE GREEK, so you are in no place to even begin to instruct those who do know Greek how they have missed the point. :wavey:

 

Could all of this bea good reason why it isimpossible to really have a totally 'literally" english translation of the Bible? That htere will be times for a more 'dynamic" rendering in order to it to make sense to the reader of the Bible?

 

The word you keep using as "pallet" is more properly spelled "palette". Thanks.

 

Think that at times there are NO "really fully known" what original documents truely said as parts in the texts would be "not all there" , other times good valid reasons to use different words from same text source in traslating, and at times better to traslate say Bible Idioms more in a dynamic fashion thatn strickly literal sense!