Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 553:
Line 553: − − − ::*''August, translations don't simply erase words.'' They most certainly do! Have a look at [http://alkitab.sabda.org/passage.php?passage=Mat%2026:47-56&tab=alt no. 9] of your google-search for ''ἰδού'' and ''at this moment'': ''' "The Greek word ἰδού (idou) at the beginning of this statement has not been translated."''' It's a very common procedure, as there are many words in Greek texts which feel superfluous to us. Partly, they make up for the missing punctuation: where the Greeks used ἰδού, we would perhaps insert just an exclamation mark... − ::*''What the [[KJV]] translates as "behold" can properly be translated as "at that moment" in modern English, depending on context.'' You keep repeating this conviction of yours. But besides from the entertaining Google search above (which I've shown to be absolutely unconvincing: please read the section above!), '''you have not given a single scholarly source which shows that there is any translator who shares your conviction.''' − ::*''And the context is crystal clear that the two events happened at the same time ... otherwise one would expect some description of a delay.'' A delay of a couple minutes could not have been spotted by the parties involved (i.e., the Roman nobleman and his servants)! So how could there be a description? − ::*''At one point someone asked you ''what the physical mechanism would be if there were a delay''. Could you answer that question?'' You seem to refer to BrandB's questions above, i.e., − :::::August, can you propose an alternative explanation for how the healing power of Jesus was transferred? One that is more likely than action at a distance? I don't understand how or why His power would necessarily need to "travel", per se. It may be precision not in the text itself, but one that is the most logical. − :::No, I don't know whether the Lord chose to act instantaneously, or whether there was a (short) delay. And I think that such a question should be answered ''after'' translating the verse, as we don't want to fit the translation to our explanations or expectations! − ::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:36, 2 May 2011 (EDT) − − == Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. == − − Read it aloud: That's pure beauty. Look at the parallel structure of Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος and then καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (which puts God and ''the beginning'' in the same place), while we have a chiasmus in the middle. − − The translated verse lacks these artistic qualities: − − ''In the beginning was the Truth; its Word was with God; its Perfection was God.'' − − At the very least it should be − − ''In the beginning was the Truth and its Word was with God and God was its Perfection.'' − − But both times God just seems to be an aspect of ''the Truth'', just a part of the beginning... − − Is there anybody besides the translator who thinks that the sentence above is at least as meaningful and beautiful as the verse: − − ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'' − − [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:20, 20 November 2011 (EST) − − == Strange change of perspective == − − ''For God so loved us that He gave His Only Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. '' − − In the gospel of John, the first person is used only in direct speech (see John 3:2 etc.). What you are doing is known as ''breaking the fourth wall'': suddenly you are including us, the reader, together with the narrator who otherwise tells the story. To do so in a ''translation'' seems to be wrong, that's something for an explanatory interpretation. − − [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:13, 22 September 2012 (EDT) − − == Strange change of perspective == − − ''For God so loved us that He gave His Only Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. '' − − In the gospel of John, the first person is used only in direct speech (see John 3:2 etc.). What you are doing is known as ''breaking the fourth wall'': suddenly you are including us, the reader, together with the narrator who otherwise tells the story. To do so in a ''translation'' seems to be wrong, that's something for an explanatory interpretation. − − [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:13, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
Talk:John 1-7 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 06:17, September 22, 2012
, 06:17, September 22, 2012Reverted edits by AugustO (talk) to last revision by Karajou
: At one point someone asked you ''what the physical mechanism would be if there were a delay''. Could you answer that question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
: At one point someone asked you ''what the physical mechanism would be if there were a delay''. Could you answer that question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:42, 30 April 2011 (EDT)