Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 690:
Line 690: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:John 1-7 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 13:44, September 26, 2012
, 13:44, September 26, 2012→Addressing Aschlafly's points one by one
Therefore "For God so loved '''''you''''' that He gave His only Son" is not part of a valid translation, though it may have its value in a sermon. I change it back and I advice Aschlafly to read the whole of John 3 (and perhaps Rev 22) before editing this sentence again. Thank you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:29, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
Therefore "For God so loved '''''you''''' that He gave His only Son" is not part of a valid translation, though it may have its value in a sermon. I change it back and I advice Aschlafly to read the whole of John 3 (and perhaps Rev 22) before editing this sentence again. Thank you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:29, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
:Aschlafly, I see you changed John 3:16 to your version, again. That indicates that you have read neither John 3 nor Rev 22 in context. The [[KJV]] is valid since hundred of years and is still used by millions of men, as great scholars created it using wisdom and knowledge. Your version, filled by your insights which are not comprehensible by any outsider, will last for a couple of years at best and may be used in your household only. You are bending the God's word into the shape of your ''weltanschauung'', and the self-assuredness with which you are doing this can only be explained not by wisdom and knowledge, but the lack of them. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:36, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
:Aschlafly, I see you changed John 3:16 to your version, again. That indicates that you have read neither John 3 nor Rev 22 in context. The [[KJV]] is valid since hundred of years and is still used by millions of men, as great scholars created it using wisdom and knowledge. Your version, filled by your insights which are not comprehensible by any outsider, will last for a couple of years at best and may be used in your household only. You are bending the God's word into the shape of your ''weltanschauung'', and the self-assuredness with which you are doing this can only be explained not by wisdom and knowledge, but the lack of them. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:36, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
===Addressing Aschlafly's points one by one===
*''Your objection seems nitpicky.''
::This is a repeated critique for my objections - and I repeat my answer to it: We are dealing with the Holy Bible, so we should be painstakingly meticulous. Being ''nitpicky'' is certainly preferable over being reckless.
*''"God so loved us" captures the original meaning better, and more concisely, than "God so loved the world," or "God so loved the people of the world."
::If you know what ''us'' means (mankind), you are right. The problem here: it's not the way John phrases things: you are already in the realms of exegesis and have left the process of translating.
*''The KJV does not use quotation marks - because English hadn't developed them yet. Should we avoid it today? Of course not.
::At first I thought that this one of these spurious remarks like "do you deny that 2+2=4" which tend to make a compelling argument only in the mind of the questioner. Than I thought that this was a clever reflection on the context of the verse: it can be seen as part of a quotation. Your later comment made it clear that sadly I have to assume the first and not the second scenario.
*''John is clearly talking about "us", but the Greek style had not developed that improvement in writing style, to the point of using awkward constructs to avoid any first-person reference. Using "world" instead of "us" today adds too much distortion than can be justified
::Examples of the epistles - which were written previous to this gospel - show that this is untrue.
*''"κόσμον" is best translated today as the universal "us" - as proven by the extremely popular song, "we are the world."
::The ''we'' in the ''extremely popular song'' does make sense as this song is a kind of sing-along and presented generally by a choir: a totally different setting than in John 3!
*''κόσμος does mean "the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family" according to Strong's - the same thing that the modern "us" means. The Greek word for "us" in John's time would have been interpreted more narrowly than what he intended. John meant everyone, so he used κόσμος, which is what "us" means to listeners today.
::So now you are translating the translation? It supports the impression that the CBP is merely a paraphrasing of the KJB.
*''No word is a perfect expression of the intended meaning. In English today, "us" is closer to John's meaning than "world", which has an overly materialistic connotation today.
::But "us" has several different meanings which don'f fit here: the strongest that it tends to mean ''me and a couple of people around me''
*A translation approach of "same word, same translation" in every context would result in departures from original meaning. "Get" is not translated today into the same word every time in French (which lacks the same word). The translation depends on the real meaning of the word in English, which varies among "understand", "fetch", "receive", etc.
::There is a difference between the the grades of ambiguity of "get" and κόσμος! And while ''"same word, same translation"'' doesn't work '''''in every context''''', it helps to understand the usage and meaning of words to look up the way they are used in various occasions ''before'' you try to translate them!
*''"men" doesn't work for "κόσμον" in John 3:16, because "men" would exclude most of the world's population. Translating "κόσμον" as "the inhabitants of earth" is better, but is verbose and clumsy, and raises the false implication non-human inhabitants. "Us" conveys the original meaning best among the alternatives. As to your analogy, the expectation would be that God would love all His creation, but individuals as subjects would not carry that same expectation.
::What about ''mankind''?
*''In reply to AugustO, I never meant to suggest that John 3:16 was a quote. I was arguing in a general way against excessive rigidity in translating. Conveying original meaning most effectively should be the guide, and the modern use of quotation marks generally illustrates that preferred approach.
::See above.
*''In recognition of the comments above, and in deference to how John never used the first person, perhaps it should be translated as "God so loved you that he sent his only Son."
::There is a general shyness at Conservapedia to admit errors, and sysops seem to think that such an admission undermines their authority. But making errors is human and inevitable in such a great undertaking like a translation of the Bible. In fact it should be the advantage of this wiki-based procedure to have a process of trial and error. On one young sysop's page I read: ''"I believe in being bold, a habit I learned to cherish at Wikipedia. But I also believe in correcting my mistakes. "'' If this weren't just an empty claim, but a maxim of our actions, it would be very helpful. But until then, the slight change of "us" to "you" is quite an achievement.
*The "you" works even though Nicodemus is the audience. The remainder of John 3:16 makes clear that the "you" is broader than merely Nicodemus.
::But does it work well? I doubt it.
*''The bottom line is this: "For God so loved you that He gave His only Son" is obviously a more effective statement, and Jesus surely made the most effective statement possible.
::I'm cringing each times you are using the word ''obviously'': generally it is followed by some insight only you have and which is totally obscure to the rest of us. It may be effective - and perhaps the whole gospel would be more effective if it addressed the reader in each sentence, explaining what it meant in great detail. But that's not the way it was written. Jesus may not have followed your concepts of effectivity.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 26 September 2012 (EDT)