SkipCaptcha
35
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − == Translation issues ==+ − − :If you had read anything about the project instead of just believing what the liberal blogs and talk shows told you it was, you'd know that we are doing precisely that. Our translated gospel pages are littered with Greek words and description of their meanings, and using context to figure the meaning of ambiguous words is strewn about the talk pages of the various chapters of the New Testament on this project. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 11:25, 9 October 2009 (EDT) − − Please do not presume to suppose what I have read and not read. In point of fact I went over the materials on a few of your descriptive pages and that is what gave me pause. I guess you follow liberal blogs more than I because I have no idea that they are talking about this project. − − You apology is accepted. − − There is a broader question though. When I read something like this: − <blockquote> − The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7] − − Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." − − Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible. − − </blockquote> − − I see an assumption of meaning with no reference to the textual support for that criticism. Now, my KJV gives this verse as − − Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. − − Is the suggestion that this 17th c. version is the result of liberals? Why would anyone suggest that this is a modern day liberal corruption? I would love to see the textual evidence.<small>unsigned by Clarence</small> − − − :I don't think anybody is saying that modern day liberals are time travelling to put lies into the KJV and you know very well nobody is saying that. But when it comes to identifying what modern day liberals ARE saying, your rude tone ''(apology is accepted?)'', straw-man arguments, and refusal to actually examine the evidence gives you away. − :Just because the passage in question is in the KJV, doesn't mean it was in the original text - just see the adulteress story if you need any proof of that. − :You are welcome to stay here and contribute in a positive way, but if you continue to start arguments just to push your agenda, we know how to deal with that too. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:17, 9 October 2009 (EDT) − − :Clarence, in addition to Jacob's comments, note that no one said the insertion of the "for they know not what they do" phrase is a "modern day liberal corruption." But liberals insist on keeping this fabricated phrase in the Bible because they like it so much. Virtually all scholars acknowledge that the phrase is not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:22, 9 October 2009 (EDT) Line 81:
Line 52: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Bible Translation Issues (view source)
Revision as of 21:24, September 2, 2021
, 21:24, September 2, 2021no edit summary
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19
I think that we are putting the cart before the horse here. It isn't a question of simply changing words to be more acceptable, it is an issue of going back to the sources and, from their context and comparison to other sources, determining their meaning. If you simply take existing texts and make them PC, the result will be an object of scorn. ''(This comment added by [[User:Clarence]])''
== Taking command ==
== Taking command ==
: Your point is well-taken, except note that this is not a strict word-for-word translation. Rather, this seeks the original intent. It seems possible that one could use θεος intending the concept of "Lord". Perhaps more discussion and analysis of this would be helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
: Your point is well-taken, except note that this is not a strict word-for-word translation. Rather, this seeks the original intent. It seems possible that one could use θεος intending the concept of "Lord". Perhaps more discussion and analysis of this would be helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
::I can see your point as well, Mr. Sclafly. However, I think it would be good to approach each case with a good amount of sensitivity. It can be exceptionally difficult to discern "original intent," when it comes to the inspired Scripture. I am open to the idea that "God" could somehow convey the deeper sense of "Lord" in the right context, but at the same time, when you come to a statement like Thomas's "My Lord and my God!" it would be completely misleading to simply translate it either "My Lord!" or "My God!" "Kyrios" has more of the sense of a supreme Master, to whom allegiance is owed, whereas "Theos" is a very specific noun for God, the creator of the universe. I'm not familiar off the top of my head with any place in the New Testament where "Lord" would actually convey the full sense of Godhood. But there may be such a usage somewhere!--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:24, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
:::It is important for the Word of God to be understandable today, however if the Bible is God's word, and has been faithfully preserved, to alter or abolish words, even if done for the best intentions, is to set a horrible precedent for future readers and translators, which indeed, the "Message" bible has done so and wrecked great abuse on the Bible. its word of choice was "master" in place of "Lord" .[[User:americana83|Michael Wolfe]] 23:27, 7 December 2009 (EDT)
== Gospel or Good News? Translation of ευαγγελιον ==
There has been a bit of confusion on the Talk page for Luke 1-9 about how to translate the Greek word ευαγγελιον. There were several verses where it had been rendered as Truth, which doesn't seem to be very accurate to me. TerryH indicated that "good news" would be better, and that seems to be how it stands right now in Mark. But I saw several places in Matthew where it is still "gospel." Have we come to any consensus on this? My own feeling is that "good news" is a more descriptive phrase to translate the Greek, but "gospel" is certainly a term with some rich heritage. Has any official decision been made on this one?--[[User:Caspianrex|Cory Howell]] 12:06, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
== Preservation of "grape juice" ==
One commentator has questioned whether grape juice could be preserved by the ancients as wine could be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:07, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
== General question about this article ==
Do we raise issues on the main article page but discuss them here, or also include concise responses on the main page as well. I'll move my recent comment regarding "master" here if it was put in the wrong place. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 19:00, 20 February 2010 (EST)
:We're flexible, but perhaps it would work best if the extended talk occurred here? Of course, feel free to include concise counterpoint in the entry also. I'll try to do that now for your and Alex's comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 20 February 2010 (EST)
== Issue of "master" or "teacher" or ... "lord" ==
Because this is supposed to be a modern conservative translation, and the term "lord" doesn't really have any valence beyond the divine in modern times. House of Lords? Please, outdated nonsense. "Master" reeks of something with no relevance to the contemporary reader and evokes slavery and other relationships that are decidedly non-conservative in nature--today, we might use the term "boss," but if that's too colloquial, and if "supervisor" is too clumsy, "patron" perhaps? (Alex)
:Agreed that "Lord" can be confusing when not referring to God, as in the passage "a man cannot serve two masters". The word "master" actually works better than almost any synonym in most contexts; "patron" means something different, and "superior" is clumsy. (Chris)
::I prefer master, except where you can clearly use "employer." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:25, 20 February 2010 (EST)
:::I don't know the best answer, but "master" seems archaic today to me. I rarely hear anyone use it in speech now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 20 February 2010 (EST)
::::I'd think there are two litmus tests for these types of questions: <br/>
::::*First, is the replacement word clear and intuitive to the modern-day reader?
::::*Second, does the word properly capture the original meaning ''in the context of the Biblical setting(s) it's being used in''?
::::The use of 'master' is definitely archaic today, but that's because the social structures between people have changed as well. If we were describing the lord/serf relationship of feudal times, it would be hard to convey that using only contemporary terms, because we're describing a system that doesn't exist today.<br/>
::::In working with the four Gospels of the New Testament, we're looking at descriptions of what happened in the places Jesus passed through at that point in history. Preserving the original intent and messages means that we may need to rely on the frequent use of terms that seem archaic, but really aren't if they are the best way to describe things that don't exist today. My two cents, anyway. -[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:31, 21 February 2010 (EST)
:::::I agree in principle, but wonder if "master" was ''ever'' used in the manner proposed by many Bible translations. I think it works with the expression "a man cannot serve two masters," but it does not seem to best convey the original intent in today's language in many other contexts. Use of the term "lord" is also imperfect, but has had widespread usage in English throughout history and conveys an image of both employer and master. Do you agree that the same Greek term can and should be translated differently for different contexts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 21 February 2010 (EST)
::::::I agree with you - having a richer vocabulary at our command today allows a new version of the Bible to be improved by using various different words to convey the original meaning of a single ancient word that was repeated many times. They key is that the meaning is preserved, and in just about every instance in this project that's what's being done, leaving very few ambiguous cases. I'm not qualified to answer your question about translating Greek, so I'll have to defer to someone like TerryH, who is. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 14:04, 21 February 2010 (EST)
Remember than many memorize verses from the KJV - 'masters' as in 'a man cannot serve two masters' is usually what one thinks of.
== ἰδού ==
It could be preserved. Or 'observe', pay attention to, perceive, discern (which liberals cannot do) and discern would help with 'he who has ears'
Still no scholarly source for a translation of ἰδού as "at this moment" is presented. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
:There is no need for one, it is easily translated. The word means Look/behold. Ιδου is the Koine Greek interjection meaning: look / behold. Koine is Greek for 'Common' as in the commonly spoken dialect of Greek. It would make sense that Koine Greek is used as the Gospel was written most likely by Matthew's student who would not be educated in the more uncommon Greek dialect. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
::Words -- and particularly a word indicative of emphasis like "ἰδού" -- should not be translated in isolation from their context. In English it is impossible to explain what the word "get" means unless its context is also analyzed. Sometimes it means "understand"; in other contexts it means "fetch" or "retrieve".
::If words could be translated without reference to context, then computer translations would be perfect. Instead, they are typically terrible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
:::First off, 'Get' is a poor choice of a word. It has only two meanings as a verb. Come to have or hold (something); receive or Experience, suffer, or be afflicted with (something bad). Ether way, 'Get' means to acquire something in some manner. Secondly, we have the context and the word only has TWO possibles meanings. Look or Behold. Both of which in this part of the scripture has the same meaning. "This is important! Take Notice!" What problem is there?
::::The problem is that it is all important, so translating the word merely as "this is important" is no better than simply ignoring the word altogether. And ignoring words is not a favored approach to translation, or interpretation either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::"this is important" is something else than "at this moment". You are taking liberties in the same way as the modern liberal translations do.
:::::I agree with MHarris that "behold" is an adequate translation of ἰδού, IMO possibly the best one. It shows how words were stressed before punctuation (and text-formatting) was common place.
:::::I didn't propose "wow" as a translation of ἰδού, I just wanted to illustrate that both words fulfilled the same function in speech.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:12, 12 June 2011 (EDT)