WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
No it is not how you said it was and trying to redact your statement is disingenuous.
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
No it is not how you said it was and trying to redact your statement is disingenuous.
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Good! I like this; "Can we become a little more nuanced in our discussion, recognizing that accuracy has to do with meaning." if only some here could be honest enough they might then begin to think about being more nuanced.
Where did I try to change or redact anything? It is what I said it was: a site-wide translation uploaded into the side-bar. Check the main page if you absolutely cannot believe such a simple fact just because it came from me. It is right there at the top of the main page: do you know what the AV or "Authorized Version" is? There is a much more common name for it: you might have even seen it here in this thread. :chuckle:
Zenn
New member
Ahh.... but which words?
Modern English has more words in it than modern French, modern Spanish, and modern German, combined !! (- The Story of English, PBS special, 1986, Robert Macneil).
And therein lies the translator's dilemma. With such an extensive vocabulary in today's English, a word for word translation demands that the original Koine word carry all the nuances and emotional shading found in the English word selected. It just doesn't.
Let me give an example:
(Joh 16:1 KJV) These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
(Joh 16:1 ASV) These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be caused to stumble.
(Joh 16:1 Greek NT TR) ταυτα λελαληκα υμιν ινα μη σκανδαλισθητε
σκανδαλισθητε - From: G4624 σκανδαλίζω skandalizō
One can even see from the Greek letters (σκανδαλίζ - skandaliz) that this passage addresses a scandal and that the purpose of these words are to provide encouragement and support for when one is made a scandal, or scandalized, over one's beliefs. Given this, the word "shamed" might be a better selection than "offended" or "stumble". Better yet, from my translation, "... that ye might not be scandalized." The word 'offended' hardly carries the same meaning as 'shamed' or 'stumble' or 'scandalized,' and I hold the opinion that, in this case, instead of "word for word," the application of "letter for letter" helps to clarify this verse.
But Hebrew is even worse. One may encounter a list of 60 to 70 different English synonyms (words that can be selected for any "word for word" translation) for a particular Hebrew word, and the selection process often imputes English connotation that would Not have been anywhere near the original intent of the Hebrew. Just because of this, I tend to stay away from Hebrew if at all possible, and pine for the time when I could just walk down the hall into the Semitic Languages department.
Allow me to provide another example for consideration:
(Joh 1:1 KJV) In the beginning was the Word,
Unfortunately, that's not what was written. This, is what was written...
εν αρχη ην ο λογος
And given the era, the style of the text, and a sufficient understanding of the philosophical archetypes of these words, one may read in English (and this is Just as valid a reading)...
"The pattern was effused throughout the cosmic protoplasm."
A "word" is predicated upon language itself, and the selection of words for any kind of translation requires that one understand the source and destination modalities of both cultures.
Just yesterday I had watched a documentary in French where subtitles in English were provided. Quite a number of the people interviewed spoke in English, whereupon their words were translated into spoken French, and the French was then translated into English subtitles. In these instances one can hear the English being spoken and compare it to the subtitles. And a good three or four times the subtitles were just botched.
To be blunt, rocket science is easier than translation. A long time ago I had designed weapon systems for RCA Missile and Surface Radar, so I can make such an assertion with confidence.
There are many instances where a word for word translation into English is just Not possible, and I will end with the German example - Gemütlichkeit. The concept can be well understood, there's just Not a "word for word" translation. It just doesn't exist.
Schöne Grüße,
Zenn
PS: Watchman, how would you translate 'Schöne Grüße'?
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
From your post #1526: "You really do have a reading comprehension problem just as your new found friends: the version you quote now in this post is from the side-bar in your interlinear, (correct?), but even that text is not in agreement with the Hebrew interlinear text right there on the page next to it! Can you not see that?"
My post #1530: "You are obvious new to the interlinear word for word translation. The paraphrased right hand column is not meant to match the word for word translation on the left. That would be silly and serve no purpose. It is meant to help the read understand the non-grammatical word for translation. It is an aid but like all translations (that you are used to, like the KJV) they detract from the pure meaning the text and therefore loose some of the original meaning."
Your post #1539: "Nope, I went and checked on the main page after I said that: it is exactly what I said it was."
My post #1541: "No it is not how you said it was and trying to redact your statement is disingenuous."
You really do have a reading comprehension problem. :chuckle:
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Ahh.... but which words?
Modern English has more words in it than modern French, modern Spanish, and modern German, combined !! (- The Story of English, PBS special, 1986, Robert Macneil).
And therein lies the translator's dilemma. With such an extensive vocabulary in today's English, a word for word translation demands that the original Koine word carry all the nuances and emotional shading found in the English word selected. It just doesn't.
Let me give an example:
(Joh 16:1 KJV) These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
(Joh 16:1 ASV) These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be caused to stumble.
(Joh 16:1 Greek NT TR) ταυτα λελαληκα υμιν ινα μη σκανδαλισθητε
σκανδαλισθητε - From: G4624 σκανδαλίζω skandalizō
One can even see from the Greek letters (σκανδαλίζ - skandaliz) that this passage addresses a scandal and that the purpose of these words are to provide encouragement and support for when one is made a scandal, or scandalized, over one's beliefs. Given this, the word "shamed" might be a better selection than "offended" or "stumble". Better yet, from my translation, "... that ye might not be scandalized." The word 'offended' hardly carries the same meaning as 'shamed' or 'stumble' or 'scandalized,' and I hold the opinion that, in this case, instead of "word for word," the application of "letter for letter" helps to clarify this verse.
But Hebrew is even worse. One may encounter a list of 60 to 70 different English synonyms (words that can be selected for any "word for word" translation) for a particular Hebrew word, and the selection process often imputes English connotation that would Not have been anywhere near the original intent of the Hebrew. Just because of this, I tend to stay away from Hebrew if at all possible, and pine for the time when I could just walk down the hall into the Semitic Languages department.
Allow me to provide another example for consideration:
(Joh 1:1 KJV) In the beginning was the Word,
Unfortunately, that's not what was written. This, is what was written...
εν αρχη ην ο λογος
And given the era, the style of the text, and a sufficient understanding of the philosophical archetypes of these words, one may read in English (and this is Just as valid a reading)...
"The pattern was effused throughout the cosmic protoplasm."
A "word" is predicated upon language itself, and the selection of words for any kind of translation requires that one understand the source and destination modalities of both cultures.
Just yesterday I had watched a documentary in French where subtitles in English were provided. Quite a number of the people interviewed spoke in English, whereupon their words were translated into spoken French, and the French was then translated into English subtitles. In these instances one can hear the English being spoken and compare it to the subtitles. And a good three or four times the subtitles were just botched.
To be blunt, rocket science is easier than translation. A long time ago I had designed weapon systems for RCA Missile and Surface Radar, so I can make such an assertion with confidence.
There are many instances where a word for word translation into English is just Not possible, and I will end with the German example - Gemütlichkeit. The concept can be well understood, there's just Not a "word for word" translation. It just doesn't exist.
Schöne Grüße,
Zenn
PS: Watchman, how would you translate 'Schöne Grüße'?
At last a decent comment here. Yes I quiet agree and that is where Strongs comes in:
John 16:1
4624 [e]
skandalisthēte
σκανδαλισθῆτε .
you might fall away
V-ASP-2P
4624. skandalizó ►
Strong's Concordance
skandalizó: to put a snare (in the way), hence to cause to stumble, to give offense
Original Word: σκανδαλίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: skandalizó
Phonetic Spelling: (skan-dal-id'-zo)
Short Definition: I cause to stumble
Definition: I cause to stumble, cause to sin, cause to become indignant, shock, offend.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4624.htm
Zenn
New member
I see the beginning of wisdom. ;^) :cheers:
Now all you need to do is discover 'logos' and 'rhema'.
Zenn
PS: Unless of course you already know.
Another one who falsifies and misrepresents other peoples words.
This was and remains right under the post you quoted:
Why did you not use the quote function this time?
And why did you not quote the above post if you went back to copy all that you did?
Never mind: I have no reason to believe anything else you have to say.
You and yours give the Father and His Son a bad name.
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Zenn
New member
Well it would seem he started using the word 'esteemed'. So where on the spectrum...
esteem, venerate, worship ?
:idunno:
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
It's quicker.
Because it made no difference, you still stated that the right hand column did not match the word for word translation:
From your post #1526: "You really do have a reading comprehension problem just as your new found friends: the version you quote now in this post is from the side-bar in your interlinear, (correct?), but even that text is not in agreement with the Hebrew interlinear text right there on the page next to it! Can you not see that?"
Then I posted:
My post #1530: "You are obvious new to the interlinear word for word translation. The paraphrased right hand column is not meant to match the word for word translation on the left. That would be silly and serve no purpose. It is meant to help the read understand the non-grammatical word for translation. It is an aid but like all translations (that you are used to, like the KJV) they detract from the pure meaning the text and therefore loose some of the original meaning."
Then I saw your next post:
Your post #1527: And by the way, the side-bar text in the interlinear which you linked is probably just a site-wide standard translation they uploaded to the entire Hebrew interlinear. It does not likely mean that they are suggesting that is the correct rendering because the rendering is given below the Hebrew text and contains that portion I quoted earlier.
Which I acknowledged:
My post #1531: Now your catching on, well done.
Your post #1539: "Nope, I went and checked on the main page after I said that: it is exactly what I said it was."
My post #1541: "No it is not how you said it was and trying to redact your statement is disingenuous."
It made no difference to the original fact that you did not know the right hand column is a paraphrased aid.
Zenn
New member
For what it's worth, it would seem the aktionsart in this version of Exodus you quote has the ark being initially covered over with the curtain until the setup is done, and then the curtain is removed and placed across the entrance.
However, the KJV is written to convey the meaning that there are two curtains, the word "veil" being used in verse 3 as the covering for the ark, and the word "hanging" for the covering of the entrance in verse 5.
(And sorry, I haven't the time to peruse your Hebrew Interlinear link.)
FWIW,
Zenn
Zenn
New member
Well ... not wishing to create a ruckus, but Strong's is like a book on addition when you want to talk about Calculus.
If your budget allows, I would recommend the BDAG.
Might you have a copy?
Zenn
(And then Kittle's.)
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
£129.48 on Amazon! I might fall away on that one.
What does it say for John 16:1 out of interest?
4624 [e]
skandalisthēte
σκανδαλισθῆτε .
you might fall away
V-ASP-2P
4624. skandalizó ►
Strong's Concordance
skandalizó: to put a snare (in the way), hence to cause to stumble, to give offense
Original Word: σκανδαλίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: skandalizó
Phonetic Spelling: (skan-dal-id'-zo)
Short Definition: I cause to stumble
Definition: I cause to stumble, cause to sin, cause to become indignant, shock, offend.
Perhaps this discussion will help him decide!
A good discussion either helps us firm our position with improved foundations or leads us to reconsider wrong positions.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Do you worship the Logos?
Zenn
New member
Ahh... British. Find a seminarian who is switching careers and buy his copy cheap.£129.48 on Amazon! I might fall away on that one.
At this point I will defer to the Liddell Scott Lexicon. I use this to provide links when making a point. Click the link, bookmark it and then learn to type in Latin letters for the Greek ones, and you'll get to the Lexicon entry. It's not always perfect, and actually this is a good example where modern scholarship can shine light on 200 year old thinking.
LINK to G4624
In essence, what one tries to do in translation is give as accurate a rendition as possible for what the ~2000 year old reader would understand the text to mean. I just happen to think 'scandal' (as listed in entry A) is a better representation for the meaning here than 'offended'. But I'm not a 400 year old Anglican (meaning member of the church of England of course) so maybe to such a person the word 'offended' would make more sense.
Words are only important in that they convey one's intended meaning. The meaning itself is more important in situ.
Zenn
PS: Background on Liddell Scott
Zenn
New member
If I may comment?
Given the definition in John chapter 1, I would say I do.
Given the description as provided by Philo, I would say, no I do not.
Zenn
Zenn
New member
Uh... don't forget a Greek Interlinear.Shucks it's nothing really. All you need is half a brain and Google.
Zenn
PS: So talk to me about Conceptual Fusion.
PPS: Unless it's too off point for this thread. Then we can defer.
You will have to give me your definition of Logos, George, before I can answer.