Block, Automoderated users, edit
398
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 89:
Line 89: + + + + + +
Talk:John 1-7 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 02:17, October 16, 2009
, 02:17, October 16, 2009no edit summary
Also, in contrast with eido, phaneroo is more "revealed, unveiled, made publicly known," so translating both words with the same English word kind of misses what is going on here. The second half of this sentence is a purpose clause, showing the REASON that John came baptizing. This entire intent of this sentence is more like this: "I did not know who he was, but despite that, I have come to baptize people with water so that He could be revealed to Israel" (and yes, reversing the order of the clauses in this kind of purpose clause for clarity is completely legitimate).
Also, in contrast with eido, phaneroo is more "revealed, unveiled, made publicly known," so translating both words with the same English word kind of misses what is going on here. The second half of this sentence is a purpose clause, showing the REASON that John came baptizing. This entire intent of this sentence is more like this: "I did not know who he was, but despite that, I have come to baptize people with water so that He could be revealed to Israel" (and yes, reversing the order of the clauses in this kind of purpose clause for clarity is completely legitimate).
[[User:Mback|Mback]] 9:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
[[User:Mback|Mback]] 9:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
== 1:33 ==
Same tense and construction as 1:31, but here translated in the correct tense (I did not know...). Eido used in this context really does mean "I did not know '''who''' he was..." as opposed to "I did not know him personally...", and that subtle distinction should probably be preserved in the translation. After all, John knew Jesus, His God and creator, in His spirit, which is why he recognized God in the flesh standing before him. What John did not know was the identity of the man who was God in the flesh.
Redefining the Holy Spirit as the Divine Guardian is a questionable move for several reasons. First, the Greek '''literally''' says "Holy Spirit," and I find the idea of renaming a member of the Trinity completely distasteful. Second, Holy Spirit is NOT a title that has been largely redefined by our culture, so there is no need to redefine it - everyone knows that one part of the Trinity is called the "Holy Spirit." Third, it places a narrow description (guardian) upon the Holy Spirit that simply fails to even come close to all that the Holy Spirit does. Finally, it is a phrase that sounds VERY new age, and would be gladly and wholeheartedly welcomed by the eastern religion/new age element of our culture. We should not be trying to make Christianity easier to ignore because it uses new age terminology (and thus is just "another" way to god), but rather, more distinct and separate from the ideas and titles of false religions. Calling the Holy Spirit by a different name because we are not happy with what the Bible actually says is NOT a conservative thing to do; that simply smacks of liberalism in the extreme.[[User:Mback|Mback]] 10:16, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
== John 2:1 ==
== John 2:1 ==