Some Comparisons of our English Translations.

Do not be fooled Dr. Bob, RR knows the source as he posted on the prior thread which included the link. No, this interest in "source" is simply to deflect from the thread topic, which is improving our English translations by consistently rendering the original language word or phrase meanings.

 

The issue is not that one of the usages in scripture is "Pay." The issue is what meaning (finished, performed, paid) is God's intended message in this verse. Finished is the choice of most scholars. To claim God is using ambiguity, intending multiple meanings, is simply ludicrous.

 

If we compare the English translations on "Biblegateway," the vast majority go with Finished, Completed, or Consummated for John 19:30. Only two chose "accomplished, and none chose paid.

 

LOL. The fact is that you objected to the fact that one of the meanings of teleo is 'pay' being mentioned in the margin of a Bible translation.

 

LOL. So you always go with the most popular meanings when you make your suggestions on this forum?

 

The word I see being disputed, occurs twice in this grammatical form.
First in John 19:28, secondly where Jesus speaks the word, John 19:30.

 

Yet another material false statement with no quote. This is all these provincials have folks, hurl one false charge after another. Martin claimed I wished to hid that Teleo has the meaning of "pay in post #14 after I had revealed the "fact" in post 3.

 

I did not say I always go with the most popular meaning. Thus an assessment implying falsehood.
Ask yourselves why these posters do not address to topic of the thread? Comparisons have shown where translation versions can be improved.

 

:rolleyes: I know you don't; that was the point of my question. So why do you think I should?

And this is the only argument that you can muster against me. Weren't you the chap who started a thread called 'Doubletalk'? Maybe I should start one on 'Double standard.'

 

LOL, I am not making an argument "against me" (Martin). Still no effort to point out areas where version comparison reveals areas for improvement.

 

You did not supply the link Van. The source is significant Van. Consider the source.

 

Material false statement. All RR is trying to do is derail actual discussion of the topic. If a source was cited, he would say the source is not valid. His MO is well known.
The thread topic is improving our English translations by consistently rendering the original language word or phrase meanings. Something the NIV does more poorly than other English Translations.

 

Who is RR?

 

Are you about to regurgitate the same old spam you have been engaged in for a decade now?

 

Meaning what, regardind @Van ?

Re: From posting rules:

 

Sometimes consistently rendering the original-language word or phrase the same way may harm our English translations as in the cases where those words were used in a different sense or with a different meaning than the way the words may be usually translated.

A. E. Knoch tried what you seem to advocate in his 1966 Concordant Literal New Testament so do you consider it to have improved our English NT translations?

 

Read Concordant New Testament Online - Concordant Publishing Concern

 

As I have stated over and over and over, the idea is translate the word or phrase MEANING consistently. Each time the word meaning is the same, when you translate the idea into English in one place, you can translate that same word meaning in every place.

I do not believe any translation I have evaluated does a very good job.

 

How would you rate:
Read Concordant New Testament Online - Concordant Publishing Concern

 

Take a look at John 3:16. Monogenes is mistranslated as only begotten. Nuff said..

When the word is used referring of the Son of God, "uniquely divine" translates the meaning. One of a kind, while accurate, is more ambiguous than necessary. We know why Jesus is one of a kind, He is the Second Person of the Trinity!