Recently Published NT Translation

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for posting his notes Jerome.

I disagree with Hart's conclusion. The use of θεος shows the qualitave equivalence of the Son and the Father. An equative statment as well. Namely being Jesus and the Father are one being. I think "God" is superior to "god" here. Reading the little "g" to me implies Jesus is lesser in worth and value than the Father. If not a separate "god" all together. The use of the predicate nominative is the perfect way to express the equative and qualitve equivalncy in nature(being), yet sperate persons of Jesus and the Father.

I honestly have a hard time seeing how Hart can say the above and still see "god" as better than "God".


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

John seemed to be saying that whatever the Father is that makes Him God, Jesus has that same "stuff", and the 2 of them are both God, and not the same person though!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for posting his notes Jerome.

I disagree with Hart's conclusion. The use of θεος shows the qualitave equivalence of the Son and the Father. An equative statment as well. Namely being Jesus and the Father are one being. I think "God" is superior to "god" here. Reading the little "g" to me implies Jesus is lesser in worth and value than the Father. If not a separate "god" all together. The use of the predicate nominative is the perfect way to express the equative and qualitve equivalncy in nature(being), yet sperate persons of Jesus and the Father.

I honestly have a hard time seeing how Hart can say the above and still see "god" as better than "God".


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

yet other than the JW, no reputable Greek scholar calls Jesus a god!

 

[Van]

Bottom line, David Hart's translation seems less than sound. First, the premise that a concept cannot be translated is fiction. It might take more than a word or phrase, but no one should buy a pig in a poke, the bogus "trust me, only Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic readers can grasp the inspired message of God. Pure twaddle.

 

[Jerome]

Bottom line, David Hart's translation seems less than sound.

Wouldn't you say they all are though, in one place or another? I mean, except the Van Tran of course.

 

[Van]

Wouldn't you say they all are though, in one place or another? I mean, except the Van Tran of course.

No quote will be forthcoming, these posters of smears hinder any biblical discussion. Certainly questionable translation choices can be found in modern translations. But Mr. Hart alters the text to present his interpretation. And he should have rendered "god" as "God" then footnoted his view that this truth was not yet revealed, and so the inspired intent might have been "god." Utterly bogus but at least a footnote error would not call into question his whole effort.