Block, Automoderated users, edit
398
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + + + +
Talk:John 1-7 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 18:28, October 15, 2009
, 18:28, October 15, 2009no edit summary
: 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)
: 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)
== 1:16 ==
Translating "lambano" as "benefited" is certainly unusual, but can only be considered "appropriate" if our translation guidelines are "very, very loose paraphrase." This is, again, a discussion of whether or not our goal is to translate the Greek into something that "kind of relates the force and effect" of the Greek versus coming much closer to what the Greek actually SAYS. Lambano never has the meaning of "benefits" anywhere in the New Testament. Is the EFFECT of "receiving" beneficial? Absolutely. But the "effect" of the word and the "meaning" of the word are not the same thing. Even without having seen it explicitly explained, it is becoming very clear that this is some form of a paraphrase, not a strict translation . . . which is fine, as a good paraphrase does serve a purpose, but we need to be up front and clear about that right at the outset. This translation falls into the category of paraphrases currently occupied by such versions as "The Message" and "Good News for Modern Man" and "Today's New International Version" (we just have a different goal: the Conservative Paraphrase). It seems clear at this point that we are NOT attempting a strict "word for word" or even "phrase for phrase" translation, such as that found in the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, or any other version that attempts to stick strictly to what the Greek actually SAYS. Again, that is fine so long as that is what we really WANT.
== John 2:1 ==
== John 2:1 ==