Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 442:
Line 442: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:John 1-7 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 17:08, March 26, 2011
, 17:08, March 26, 2011→Issue with translation of John 4:53
:::::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:50, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:50, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::And that justifies you adding a word which subtly changes the meaning of the verse? A word that's not even there? A word that you ''think'' should be there? NO. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::And that justifies you adding a word which subtly changes the meaning of the verse? A word that's not even there? A word that you ''think'' should be there? NO. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the unblock.
:::::::::::''And that justifies you adding a word which subtly changes the meaning of the verse? ''
:::::::::::Often, there is no one-to-one correspondence of words when doing a translation. Have a look at a French translation of an English text: the word count will be considerably increased
:::::::::::But I deny that this word (''about'') ''subtly changes the meaning of the verse'': until today - and with the CBP as perhaps the only exception - the antic time specification of ''the n-th hour'' is understood to describe a period of time, not a point in time.
:::::::::::The eminent scholars who contributed to the King James Bible had no problem with this concept, at it was still in use in their time. For them, the phrase ''o'clock'' was a quite recent invention.
:::::::::::The idea of two events of infinitesimal duration happening at the same point in time is a new notion, introduced by the CBP. IMO, it's a mistaken idea - and I will try to elaborate my thoughts on this matter.
:::::::::::I hope we'll engage in a salutary discussion
:::::::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:08, 26 March 2011 (EDT)