This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. To anyone who knows/studies Greek, has a mainstream translation ever...

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
4 weeks ago#11
The controversy over Jn 1:1 that I was interested in concerns theos and Colwell's Rule. My allegation is that translators confidently hide behind this so-called rule because alternate renderings mess with their systematics and/or tradition. For a detailed discussion thereon, this is a great read:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/2501uj/is_colwells_rule_still_accepted_by_modern_scholars/
Read everything and share your reactions if interested. If you click on the link in one of the comments and read the comments on the linked post, you will see brief attention shed on logos, too, which I also found compelling. Anyway, while I am not a proponent of Reddit, that board seems full of interesting material.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?

User Info: YHWH_Saves

YHWH_Saves
4 weeks ago#12
zinformant posted...
Colwell's Rule

I'll read and reply in full, but I am aware of this controversy. In fact, I remember reading that some of the earliest non-Greek translations don't include the the definite article.

It is interesting stuff.

I'll read and reply later.
"Man will not live off of bread alone, but by every word proceeding through the mouth of God." "You are not able to serve God and wealth.".

User Info: YHWH_Saves

YHWH_Saves
4 weeks ago#13
zinformant posted...
Colwell's Rule

Okay, I've absorbed about as much of that as I can, for the time being. And I'm inclined to agree with you.

Lots of "rules" being "discovered" by relatively modern scholarship, which happen to enforce the particular theology that shares its bias.

============

With that being said, I have noticed that even in the comparatively more sophisticated Greek of the writings of Luke/Hebrews, that these same types of omissions of the definite article exist. When translating, I usually contemplate whether or not the context demands an article or not, and often find that in the event that this rule is invalid, it really doesn't matter which way we go.

For example, is Jesus a king of Israel, or the King of Israel? From the perspective of the people being quoted, it doesn't matter.

Am I a husband to my wife (which doesn't necessitate that she is polyamarous), or the husband of my wife.

==============

Specifically, my own interpretation is that John 1:1 is not alluding to some Trinitarian concept of God by assigning the "qualitative substance" of God to Jesus, but is rather elaborating on exactly what God's image (originally referenced in Gen 1) is. His wisdom/obedience/morality is the "light of men" that human beings were supposed to carry into the world, and is a very reflection of God to Creation.

As such, he can rightly be called either "a God" or "God," and neither is blasphemous/pagan/incorrect. Adam, in his original form, was a/the Son of God, too. Or put another way, Adam was originally God/a God as well.

==========

Athanasius writes about this "Image" being interchangeable with John's "Word," and this consideration of God's "image," and how Jesus restored it, in my opinion, the only thorough exegesis of the entirety of scriptures. In other words, the only valid way to tie in Jesus to the rest of the bible, not only with the Law/Prophets/Messiah, but also to the Creation/Fall event, is to ponder what exactly Adam was tasked with in the beginning. Jesus is the 2nd Adam, but he - being perfected - is also the original/prototype as well ("the first").

I've gone on a meandering rant, but I am 100% in agreement with you that modern Christian theology often "gets in the way" of discerning the true intent of the scriptures.

The reason why I feel so compelled to preach is because I have never heard this taught in a substantial way, and yet I think that it is the truth.
"Man will not live off of bread alone, but by every word proceeding through the mouth of God." "You are not able to serve God and wealth.".
(edited 4 weeks ago)

User Info: Patriotwolf

Patriotwolf
3 weeks ago#14
My small group leader has a major in ancient Greek and he prefers the NIV.

It's important to note that when it comes to ancient Greek, its usage is just as important as the words meaning.
"You're just one big headache, and I got a pistol full of aspirin"

User Info: TheGrowlanser

TheGrowlanser
3 weeks ago#15
The person/people that made/make the translations are supposed to be Christians and to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to be led by Him while working on it, if not, then that translation I dare to say is not from God. And if God wanted it to be translated that way is for a good reason.
You never fight against justice.
(edited 3 weeks ago)

User Info: YHWH_Saves

YHWH_Saves
3 weeks ago#16
TheGrowlanser posted...
The person/people that made/make the translations are supposed to be Christians and to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to be led by Him while working on it, if not, then that translation I dare to say is not from God. And if God wanted it to be translated that way is for a good reason.

I agree on the first point. I believe that only believers should be involved in translating the scriptures. Someone without a theological perspective couldn't possibly grasp the concepts contained therein.

But I don't believe that there is a single translation that is chosen by God. It's not some abstract science that cannot be verified; sometimes, the translators do make decisions on the basis of personal bias, and it shows (as in the verses being discussed here thus far).
"Man will not live off of bread alone, but by every word proceeding through the mouth of God." "You are not able to serve God and wealth.".

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
3 weeks ago#17
The theological perspective emerges from translation; any other directionality or influence colors the resultant work more than is desirable. To use my example from earlier, I tend to favor the qualitative rendering ('divine', which differs from the mainstream, itself), though I maintain that anyone dismissing the indefinite case due to the systematics they impose on the text has no business in scholarship. In other words, God does not quality control translations; people, with or without divine direction, do. There are a great many poor ones in addition to ones that are open to argument or interpretation; whether they're theologically significant returns to the examples in #13 above. Most of the time, it probably doesn't matter, but anyone invested in sacred texts does take minutiae seriously. Even textual variants deserve attention.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?
(edited 3 weeks ago)
#18
(message deleted)

User Info: TheGrowlanser

TheGrowlanser
3 weeks ago#19
What do you guys think of the New Living Translation?
You never fight against justice.

User Info: YHWH_Saves

YHWH_Saves
3 weeks ago#20
TheGrowlanser posted...
What do you guys think of the New Living Translation?

I haven't read every translation, but I did recently pick up the NLT for my wife. I've skimmed through and it looks like a pretty good translation, in the sense that it reads fluidly and doesn't seem to compromise core doctrine.

In fact, very few translations would I consider to be deviant or heretical.
"Man will not live off of bread alone, but by every word proceeding through the mouth of God." "You are not able to serve God and wealth.".
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. To anyone who knows/studies Greek, has a mainstream translation ever...