Block, Automoderated users, edit
398
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: − − == 2:1 == − Would 2:1 be a little clearer if it were changed to something along the lines of 'A few days later...'? I took 'third day' to mean either the third day of the week or, possibly, the 3rd day after 1:51. − − : Your suggestion is a good one, but I'm reluctant to remove information that is in the Greek. But certainly the reference to the third day could be clarified in some way for the reader, and I encourage you to do so by editing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT) + + + + + + + +
Talk:John 1-7 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 18:12, October 15, 2009
, 18:12, October 15, 2009no edit summary
"Animates" is not a good translation of photidzo, but it is a marginally adequate paraphrase, if we are OK with the fact that it changes the flow of John's argument. Strictly speaking, in modern English "animates" references "giving life to" or "bringing to life." It could be argued that this is the effect of the light of God, making it a VERY loose paraphrase of what this verse is talking about, but it is a very poor word choice if the goal is a strict translation. The problem is that our translation takes the REVERSE meaning of verse four, which tells us that the real life He had within Him gave light to men. The current translation of this verse reverses that, and says the light from Him gives life. We could argue that this is still a true statement, but being a true statement, and being an accurate translation of the verse is not the same thing. Reversing the statement of verse four is NOT what the Greek is intending here. This verse is a follow up to the previous verses contrasting light with darkness, and photidzo specifically is "to enlighten, to bring into the light, to illuminate, to shine a light upon." The point of this verse is supposed to be that the true light brings us out of darkness, NOT that it gives us life. There is a difference between translating a verse into an English statement that just happens to be true, versus translating it into an English statement that actually relates what the verse SAYS, and is also true. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 1:55, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
"Animates" is not a good translation of photidzo, but it is a marginally adequate paraphrase, if we are OK with the fact that it changes the flow of John's argument. Strictly speaking, in modern English "animates" references "giving life to" or "bringing to life." It could be argued that this is the effect of the light of God, making it a VERY loose paraphrase of what this verse is talking about, but it is a very poor word choice if the goal is a strict translation. The problem is that our translation takes the REVERSE meaning of verse four, which tells us that the real life He had within Him gave light to men. The current translation of this verse reverses that, and says the light from Him gives life. We could argue that this is still a true statement, but being a true statement, and being an accurate translation of the verse is not the same thing. Reversing the statement of verse four is NOT what the Greek is intending here. This verse is a follow up to the previous verses contrasting light with darkness, and photidzo specifically is "to enlighten, to bring into the light, to illuminate, to shine a light upon." The point of this verse is supposed to be that the true light brings us out of darkness, NOT that it gives us life. There is a difference between translating a verse into an English statement that just happens to be true, versus translating it into an English statement that actually relates what the verse SAYS, and is also true. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 1:55, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
== 1:1 and 1:14 ==
== 1:1 and 1:14 ==
Using "Truth" for λογος in 1:1 but then "spirit" in 1:14 is not theologically sound. In the KJV, we have "the Word was God ... and the Word was made flesh" which indisputably places Jesus as being God. Changing from "Truth" to "spirit" breaks that link between the two and can mislead readers into a sub-Arian interpretation where Jesus is the son and messenger of God rather than being God Incarnate in human form.
Using "Truth" for λογος in 1:1 but then "spirit" in 1:14 is not theologically sound. In the KJV, we have "the Word was God ... and the Word was made flesh" which indisputably places Jesus as being God. Changing from "Truth" to "spirit" breaks that link between the two and can mislead readers into a sub-Arian interpretation where Jesus is the son and messenger of God rather than being God Incarnate in human form.
: I agree completely. Whatever word we use for "logos" in verse 1 HAS to be used here. John's phrasing in this verse is NOT just to make a vague comment about "the spirit" becoming flesh (which is actually a very liberal, new age way of looking at this verse), but rather, specifically that the logos of verse 1, who is both "with" God and "is" God, became flesh. It is my understanding that a conservative translation would emphasize the "incarnate God" aspect of Jesus' birth, as opposed to de-emphasizing it, which is what this translation currently does. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 2:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
== John 2:1 ==
== John 2:1 ==
Would 2:1 be a little clearer if it were changed to something along the lines of 'A few days later...'? I took 'third day' to mean either the third day of the week or, possibly, the 3rd day after 1:51.
: Your suggestion is a good one, but I'm reluctant to remove information that is in the Greek. But certainly the reference to the third day could be clarified in some way for the reader, and I encourage you to do so by editing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
:: I slid this down so it falls under the heading for 2:1, and fits more chronologically. I apologize if this is not allowed by a non-administrator. [[User:Mback|Mback]] 2:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
Doesn't "''the third day''" mean "'''two''' days later" instead of "'''three''' days later" because of the custom of counting inclusively?
Doesn't "''the third day''" mean "'''two''' days later" instead of "'''three''' days later" because of the custom of counting inclusively?