1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Needlessly Loose Translation Choices

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Van, Dec 20, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    74
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You accpet the hyperbole translation then? Seems so. On what grounds do you translate it as such? You have yet to even justify μισέω rendered as "love less" here. Is ἠγάπησεν really "love less" from the same passage? If this passage is hyperbole, what keeps one from rendering it as such. You refuse to address ANYTHING that causes you a problem. Pretending that no one asked it does not make it go away.

    How does Van know when John is exaggerating or being straight forward? You have to have grounds for rendering μισέω as love less. That is not the natural meaning.

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
  2. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yet another taint so post, but providing no scripture to support it.

    Let's review:

    1) Many examples were provided where modern translations did not minimize the number of different English words or phrases used to translate one source language word meaning. And some of these choices deviated from the historical word meaning being supposedly translated. One poster referred to this practice as a "full on paraphrase."

    2) Many examples were provided where modern translations used the same English word or phrase to translate several different source language words. It appears little or no effort was made to minimize this issue.

    3) A few examples were provided where modern translations used ambiguous words or phrases which allow mistaken doctrine to creep in unnoticed.

    4) A few examples were provided where modern translations did not minimize the scope of a statement, allowing an expansionist view to add to scripture.

    The case is closed, modern translations contain needlessly loose translation choices. And those defending the loose translations have provided no evidence (thus an empty sack) for the necessity of those loose translations.
     
  3. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    74
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hahahaha

    And you are no exegete

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
  4. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    On the contrary, my translation choice does not employ hyperbole. Yours does.
    How do I know my choice is more accurate? Because it does not conflict with scripture, whereas your loose translation does!
     
  5. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,629
    Likes Received:
    429
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here is a post which ones interpretation of Matthew 23:13 obliges other Scripture to be modified.

    Yet, if one takes the balance as valid, then Matthew 23:13 is really not inconsistent in the slightest.

    It is the design one has assigned to Matthew 23:13 and not Matthew 23:13 that is the error and why that design demands the conformity of other Scriptures.

    The design, the interpretation, has become the enemy of the truth of Scriptures.
     
  6. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    74
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ......dude.

    Then μισέω cannot mean "love less". If it is not hyperbole then you admit you have miss translated the word horribly.

    You obviously don't know what hyperbole is. I am sticking to the literal meanings here. You are altering based on hyperbole principles, but acknowledge it is not hyperbole.

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
  7. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yet another bogus claim, Matthew 23:13 does not require any other scripture to be modified. Fallen people were entering the kingdom. So they had some spiritual ability. Case closed. No scripture indicates all men have no spiritual ability from conception, that is a bogus view.
     
  8. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    74
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your choice as zero scriptural support. You have not been able to offer one verse that supports sinners loving Jesus, but choosing darkness because they love it more. Not one.

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
  9. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,807
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nearly 60 English Bibles, every one, from Wycliffe to Holman's CSB, have translated it "hate":

    John 3:20 - Bible Gateway
     
  10. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry but my translation choice was not hyperbole, yours was.
     
  11. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your choice is bogus doctrine, Dude. Words have meaning. Are we to love Jesus more than our parents? Of course!!
     
  12. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And your point? Group think?
     
  13. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let's review:

    1) Many examples were provided where modern translations did not minimize the number of different English words or phrases used to translate one source language word meaning. And some of these choices deviated from the historical word meaning being supposedly translated. One poster referred to this practice as a "full on paraphrase."

    2) Many examples were provided where modern translations used the same English word or phrase to translate several different source language words. It appears little or no effort was made to minimize this issue.

    3) A few examples were provided where modern translations used ambiguous words or phrases which allow mistaken doctrine to creep in unnoticed.

    4) A few examples were provided where modern translations did not minimize the scope of a statement, allowing an expansionist view to add to scripture.

    The case is closed, modern translations contain needlessly loose translation choices. And those defending the loose translations have provided no evidence (thus an empty sack) for the necessity of those loose translations.
     
  14. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    74
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Luke is hyperbole. That is why we take it as "love less". John is not hyperbole. There for it must mean hate.
    Words do have meaning and you are trying to change them for your theology to make sense. ....oh see that....we both can say that. Expect one of use has every major translation on his side.The other has.....well, nothing but his theology.

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
  15. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    74
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Maybe you should define for us. You clearly don't understand the concept

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
  16. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,629
    Likes Received:
    429
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I respond only so the casual reader is not mislead.

    Van’s statement presents a partial truth because not a single person enters God’s kingdom that were not “fallen” and redeemed.

    However, what Van fails to maintain is that the fallen cannot enter by their own strength nor even be awaken to the need of Christ outside of the direct purposed work of God.

    Felix is an example. Felix could show an intellectual interest in what Paul presented, even request that Paul share at another time.

    But that is a reflection of the response of one who is shallow soil. There is no life sustaining nutrient soil. The Word is nothing more then a curiosity, or a tool used to persuade, but their is no substance. So when the Word as all good seed of its own strength germinates, it springs up and dies, for their is nothing to sustain life but thatvwhich the seed brings.

    Van must bolster and proclaim his statements as authoritative because as one might find written in the margins of a poor preachers notes, “Shout loudly! Gesture grandly! Weak and unsupported!”

    Then that poor preacher gestures grandly and shouts loudly, “Yet another bogus claim!” and in that obstinacy declares, “Case closed!”
     
  17. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
  18. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    11,196
    Likes Received:
    914
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This thread is closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...