Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated)

I am a bit concerned by how often I am seeing the term "God" arbitrarily replaced with "the Lord." (For example, "Kingdom of God" changed to "Truth of the Lord.") The two terms are not synonymous, and I feel the difference between θεος and κυριος should be retained. Also, in the Gospel of Luke, and elsewhere on the site, "Truth" used as a translation of several different words: Kingdom, Word, gospel. This is a big problem. You can't simply replace every complex term with "truth."

The distinction between 'Lord' and 'God', the substitution of 'Truth' for 'Word' is a matter for Bible Translation Issues. Specific problems with Luke 9-16 can be discussed here. JohnFraiser 10:22, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Translation of ευαγγελιον

Luke 9:6- I don't know if "spreading the Truth" is a very good translation here. Wouldn't a better translation of the Greek ευαγγελιζομενοι (euangelizomenoi) be "proclaiming the good news"? Or the more traditional "preaching the gospel"? I think it may be a bad idea to downplay the term "gospel" too much. After all, most conservatives should be pretty familiar with the term "gospel." --Cory Howell 15:48, 21 October 2009 (EDT)Cory Howell

Over at the Gospel of Mark, the decision was made to translate ευαγγελιον as "good news." It seems to me that the same convention should be followed here in Luke. Therefore, "spreading the Truth" in Luke 9:6 should be rendered either "proclaiming the good news" or "spreading the good news." "Proclaiming" would be more literal, and "spreading" would be a little more figurative, but would more clearly present the idea of the gospel spreading across the countryside.--Cory Howell 11:46, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the update, I think 'spreading' will be better. Is it a new Project Guideline to translate ευαγγελιον as 'good news'? JohnFraiser 11:56, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Over at Mark, it looks like they are consistently using "good news," and TerryH told me in an e-mail that it was supposed to be "good news." That's all the info I have currently.--Cory Howell 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

However, I glanced through Matthew, and it looks like the word gospel is currently still there. Perhaps we need some clarification on this issue.--Cory Howell 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Editing and creating quotations

Is it a good idea to edit existing quotes, or to create quotes where the existing work had none? The accuracy and authenticity of existing quotes may be questionable, but altered or fabricated quotes are guaranteed to be inaccurate.--Jason Samantha 20:54, 02 November 2009 (EDT)

The Lord's Prayer

I'm looking to restrict my changes to cleanup of spelling and grammar, but I have to raise a concern that troubles me. Can the text of the Lord's Prayer in 11:1-4 be left intact instead of trying to revise it into a more contemporary form? I'm a Catholic, and was taught the Lord's Prayer as a child using the form shown here in the KJV. Even though the text of the KJV is a translation itself, it has been accepted by English-speaking Christians for hundreds of years. I just don't see a need to "fix" what isn't broken in the Bible, especially when it's supposed to be a direct instruction from Jesus. --ChrisY 20:51, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Chris, you express a reasonable view, but honestly I can't say I agree. The English language changes over time. Not everyone can understand Shakespeare today, and this disconnect gets worse every new day. Precision is lost also. Who talks about others being "indebted" to us now? It's imprecise in 2009 English. On the positive side, powerful new words and concepts are constantly being discovered that were not available in 1611. Why ride in horse-and-buggy when Corvettes are available?--Andy Schlafly 22:58, 8 January 2010 (EST)

I can certainly understand your viewpoint, and agree with it in general. As I mentioned above, I learned the Lord's prayer as a child, and it took some time before I understood what "hallowed" meant. The translated text is not worse, although "holy is your name" seems to sound better than "your name is holy". My feeling is taht judgment can be used selectively to determine which parts of a Bible translation should be brought up to date (most, so it's understandable), and which should be left intact out of respect for tradition and the beauty of KJV-style prose that is lost in modern English (a small but important amount).

I appreciate you letting me express my thoughts. --ChrisY 10:08, 9 January 2010 (EST)

Chris, I understand your viewpoint and agree that the KJV rendition is majestic. There is certainly a time and a place for that, and perhaps for some people it is for every time and every place. But the market is speaking loudly and clearly: the KJV loses market share every day. Maybe that's unfortunate, but that trend is not likely to change. It's all well and good for older folks to cling to the translation of their youth, but that's not helping younger folks or people who are hearing it for the first time.--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 9 January 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the responses. I consider the question addressed, and will return to copy editing. --ChrisY 21:24, 10 January 2010 (EST)