Changes

== 1:4 ==

== 1:4 ==

I guess I need to know if we are doing a paraphrase or a strict translation, because this verse as it stands is a paraphrase. "He was the source of life" works in terms of relating what the Greek means (paraphrase), but that is NOT what the Greek actually says (strict translation). As a paraphrase, I don't see any reason why we can't do a better job of distinguishing between "dzoe" and "bios." How about something like, "He was the source of real life..." or "Real life was found only in Him, and ..."? [[user:Mback|Michael Back]] 12:43, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't see any reason why we can't do a better job of distinguishing between "dzoe" and "bios." How about something like, "He was the source of real life..." or "Real life was found only in Him, and ..."? [[user:Mback|Michael Back]] 12:43, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:5 ==

== 1:5 ==

== 1:9 ==

== 1:9 ==

"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|Michael Back]] 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." 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|Michael Back]] 1:55, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:1 and 1:14 ==

== 1:1 and 1:14 ==

== 1:16 ==

== 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. [[User:Mback|Michael Back]] 2:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Translating "lambano" as "benefited" is certainly unusual, but can only be considered "appropriate" if our translation guidelines are "very, very loose paraphrase." 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. [[User:Mback|Michael Back]] 2:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== 1:18 ==

== 1:18 ==