"Thou Sayest"

in no way did you demonstrate why "su legeiv" came to mean "Yes. It is as you say" in the NIV.
Click to expand...
I didn't tell you it meant anything anywhere. Thou sayest, not me. Not only do you need to do your own homework, you need to learn not to read into things and assume anything.

King James' "thou sayest" I can understand. You see, there's no added commentary. That's called the horse's mouth.
Click to expand...
I see you ignored the figures of speech lesson. In depth lessons in linguistics too much to handle? :p

I don't tell people they're going to hell so I don't exactly have any claims to back up.
Click to expand...
I haven't told anybody here they're going anywhere...but there's always a first time for telling someone *to* go somewhere, it's still early. :cool:

You are the one that came here with a chip on your shoulder looking for someone to knock it off. Don't act surprised if someone takes you up on your offer. Do unto others, and all that jazz. What you are seeing here is what I understand "turn the other cheek" to really mean. Christians are not doormats.

Care to start again, from the beginning? With just a bit of social decorum, tact and civility.

Or would you rather continue dancing toe to toe? 'Cause I ain't had a good intellectual wrastlin' match in a loooong time, and I've sparred with better than you right at this forum.

Either way is good with me. ;)
 
Last edited:
Um, hello? There would be nothing to be offended about if a person knew this didn't apply to them.

"Thou sayest" is the only objective translation.

The following are interpretations:
"Yes. it is as you say." (NIV)
"Sure."
"That's your way of putting it."
"I am what I am."
"I am whatever you say I am."

The NIV is a piece of commentary fraudulently passed off as a translation.
 
Eclectic Mystic said:
Um, hello? There would be nothing to be offended about if a person knew this didn't apply to them.

"Thou sayest" is the only objective translation.

The following are interpretations:
"Yes. it is as you say." (NIV)
"Sure."
"That's your way of putting it."
"I am what I am."
Click to expand...
I get your point. The next one seems to summarize quite nicely:
"I am whatever you say I am."
Click to expand...
:eek:

The antidote to which would be the Contemporary English Version:
"Those are your words!" Jesus answered.​
:cool:
 
Eclectic Mystic said:
OK, so when did "thou sayest" somehow come to mean "Yes. It is as you say"? What if I think it means something more like "That's your way of putting it"?

Anyone got the horse's mouth Greek? Or will you remain silent on this one too?
Click to expand...
It falls right along the lines of Christ telling us specifically that "As you believe, so it shall be".
 
And just so you can put your thinking caps on :)

The translation "a god" at John 1:1 does no injustice to Greek grammar.

Nor does it conflict with the worship of the One whom the resurrected Jesus Christ called "my God" and to whom Jesus himself is subject.

John 20:17 Rev. 3:2, 12; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28.
 
mee said:
And just so you can put your thinking caps on :)

The translation "a god" at John 1:1 does no injustice to Greek grammar.

Nor does it conflict with the worship of the One whom the resurrected Jesus Christ called "my God" and to whom Jesus himself is subject.

John 20:17 Rev. 3:2, 12; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28.
Click to expand...
Your translation is in error. It is "the God", not "a god". Emphasis on big "G" not little "g", and "the", not "a"...

Enjoy your Greek pie...
 
Eclectic Mystic said:
Mee, which translation has John 1:1 as "a god"? All translations I know of say just "God".quote]




For a consideration of the rules of Greek grammar that apply to John 1:1, see pages 26-9 of the brochure Should You Believe in the Trinity? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.


Should You Believe in the Trinity?



At John 1:1 the New World Translation reads: "The Word was a god." In many translations this expression simply reads: "The Word was God" and is used to support the Trinity doctrine.

Not surprisingly, Trinitarians dislike the rendering in the New World Translation.

But John 1:1 was not falsified in order to prove that Jesus is not Almighty God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, among many others, had challenged the capitalizing of "god" long before the appearance of the New World Translation, which endeavors accurately to render the original language.

Five German Bible translators likewise use the term "a god" in that verse.

At least 13 others have used expressions such as "of divine kind" or "godlike kind." These renderings agree with other parts of the Bible to show that, yes, Jesus in heaven is a god in the sense of being divine. But Jehovah and Jesus are not the same being, the same God.—John 14:28; 20:17.



Jürgen Becker, Jeremias Felbinger, Oskar Holtzmann, Friedrich Rittelmeyer, and Siegfried Schulz. Emil Bock says, "a divine being."


See also the English translations Today’s English Version, The New English Bible, Moffatt, Goodspeed.





Jesus—A Godlike One; Divine
Joh 1:1—"and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)"
Gr., καὶ θεὸςη̉̃νὁ λόγος (kai the·os´ en ho lo´gos)​
Click to expand...
 
I see what you're referring to:
On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?
The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an").
Click to expand...

You're using a secondary/tertiary source of citation. There is nothing unequivocal about theos meaning "a god" just because it could. We do know it was written by John... This goes to show that many of these so-called translations-- the New World, the NIV, Contemporary English Version-- are mere pieces of commentary.
 
eclectic mystic said:
You're using a secondary/tertiary source of citation.
Click to expand...

Technically then, what you say applies even to the KJV. Or any translation, for that matter.

Even the Interlinear has its drawbacks. But at least it is an attempt at a verbatim translation. But without familiarity with linguistic norms in the mother tongue (in this case probably Aramaic, but at least Greek) and culture, the nuance is lost.

That is why the lessons on figures of speech and idioms are also important translational tools.
 
Last edited:
Quahom1 said:
Your translation is in error. quote]


We should all Ask yourselves
What is my goal in reading the Bible?
Do I want easy reading with less attention to accuracy?
Or do I want to read thoughts that reflect the original inspired text as closely as possible?’ (2 Peter 1:20, 21)
our objective should determine our choice of translation.


Some linguists have examined modern Bible translations—including the New World Translation—for examples of inaccuracy and bias.


one of them ,Jason David BeDuhn,
published a Book, it was a 200-page study of nine of
the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.

Besides the New World Translation, the others were
The Amplified New Testament,
The Living Bible,
The New American Bible With Revised New Testament,
New American Standard Bible,
The Holy Bible—New International Version,
The New Revised Standard Version,
The Bible in Today’s English Version, and King James Version.

While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.
He calls it a "remarkably good" translation.
Click to expand...
 
mee said:
Quahom1 said:
Your translation is in error. quote]


We should all Ask yourselves
What is my goal in reading the Bible?
Do I want easy reading with less attention to accuracy?
Or do I want to read thoughts that reflect the original inspired text as closely as possible?’ (2 Peter 1:20, 21)
our objective should determine our choice of translation.


Some linguists have examined modern Bible translations—including the New World Translation—for examples of inaccuracy and bias.


one of them ,Jason David BeDuhn,
published a Book, it was a 200-page study of nine of
the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world.

Besides the New World Translation, the others were
The Amplified New Testament,
The Living Bible,
The New American Bible With Revised New Testament,
New American Standard Bible,
The Holy Bible—New International Version,
The New Revised Standard Version,
The Bible in Today’s English Version, and King James Version.

While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.
He calls it a "remarkably good" translation.
Click to expand...
Your translation is literally in error...
Click to expand...
 
The translators of the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION opened up a new world of Biblical understanding.

Bible texts that had previously been only dimly understood became dramatically clear.

For example, the perplexing text at Matthew 5:3, "blessed are the poor in spirit" (King James Version),

was rendered in a way that made sense

"Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need." The New World Translation is also quite consistent and uniform in its rendering of key terms.

The Greek word psy·khe´, for example, was translated "soul" in each of its occurrences. As a result, readers can quickly discern that contrary to religious theories, the soul is not immortal!—Matthew 2:20; Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9; 17:33.
 
Quahom1 said:
mee said:
Your translation is literally in error...
Click to expand...



An outstanding feature of the New World Translation involved the restoration of God’s name, Jehovah.


In ancient copies of the Hebrew Bible, the divine name is represented by four consonants that may be transliterated as YHWH or JHVH.

This distinctive name appears nearly 7,000 times in the so-called Old Testament alone. (Exodus 3:15; Psalm 83:18)

Clearly, our Creator intended his worshipers both to know and to use that name



However, superstitious fears caused the Jewish people to cease using the divine name.

Following the death of Jesus’ apostles, copyists of the Greek Scriptures began replacing God’s personal name with the Greek words Ky´ri·os (Lord) or The·os´ (God).

Sad to say, modern translators have perpetuated this God-dishonoring tradition, eliminating God’s name from most Bibles and even concealing that God has a name.

For example, at John 17:6 are Jesus’ words: "I have made your name manifest." Today’s English Version, however, renders this: "I have made you known."


Some scholars defend the elimination of the divine name because its exact pronunciation is unknown.

However, such familiar Bible names as Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Jesus are routinely rendered in ways that bear little resemblance to their original Hebrew pronunciation.

Since the form Jehovah is a legitimate way of rendering the divine name—and one familiar to many people—objections to using it ring hollow.

yes this world trys to hide the name of the most high,and the



NEW KING JAMES VERSION i notice ,has taken the most highs name away from PSALM 83;18 , and the cloudy darkness goes on .


three cheers for the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION its good to get things right :)



​
Click to expand...
 
mee said:
Since the form Jehovah is a legitimate way of rendering the divine name—and one familiar to many people—objections to using it ring hollow.
Click to expand...
er, actually, it's a complete mistake; the word came from using the Tetragrammaton Y-H-W-H (obviously the hebrew letters) with the vowels for the word that is said instead during prayers. obviously we don't pronounce the Name, but we do say "ADoNaY", meaning "My Lord" - what the jws have done is mistake this for the correct Name itself, because in religious texts those are the vowels that are added to allude to the pronunciation that is used, rather than the actual vowels that go with the Tetragrammaton. there's a reasonably good discussion here:

Names of God in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
mee said:
Quahom1 said:
An outstanding feature of the New World Translation involved the restoration of God’s name, Jehovah.


In ancient copies of the Hebrew Bible, the divine name is represented by four consonants that may be transliterated as YHWH or JHVH.

This distinctive name appears nearly 7,000 times in the so-called Old Testament alone. (Exodus 3:15; Psalm 83:18)

Clearly, our Creator intended his worshipers both to know and to use that name



However, superstitious fears caused the Jewish people to cease using the divine name.

Following the death of Jesus’ apostles, copyists of the Greek Scriptures began replacing God’s personal name with the Greek words Ky´ri·os (Lord) or The·os´ (God).

Sad to say, modern translators have perpetuated this God-dishonoring tradition, eliminating God’s name from most Bibles and even concealing that God has a name.

For example, at John 17:6 are Jesus’ words: "I have made your name manifest." Today’s English Version, however, renders this: "I have made you known."


Some scholars defend the elimination of the divine name because its exact pronunciation is unknown.

However, such familiar Bible names as Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Jesus are routinely rendered in ways that bear little resemblance to their original Hebrew pronunciation.

Since the form Jehovah is a legitimate way of rendering the divine name—and one familiar to many people—objections to using it ring hollow.

yes this world trys to hide the name of the most high,and the



NEW KING JAMES VERSION i notice ,has taken the most highs name away from PSALM 83;18 , and the cloudy darkness goes on .


three cheers for the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION its good to get things right :)




​
Click to expand...
The translation is "literally" in error.
Click to expand...
 
mee said:
Millions of readers have discovered the New World Translation to be not only readable but scrupulously accurate.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out you could replace that translation with any other one and the sentence would still be true.

Just because a bunch of readers find something readable and accurate doesn't mean it is accurate.

It's all the opinions of the readers, and the vast majority of Christians (me included) don't personally read Greek or Hebrew, and don't speak Aramaic, and also don't understand the figurative language that was appropriate at the time in these languages... so our opinions are kind of worthless from a scholarly standpoint.

Without detailed personal linguistic knowledge, all of our beliefs about the proper translations are grounded in faith in one church or another, in one scholar or another. None of it is personally known. I always wish I had the time to pursue these studies for this reason. I want to personally do the work. Unfortunately, I face this little problem of needing to pay my bills...:rolleyes:
 
I spent about 20 minutes with that hefty load of research. But I do appreciate scriptures from other faiths which tend to have: 1) Original Text 2)Translation 3)Commentary all together so there its clear where there is interpretation. Theres a significant difference between the inevitable "lost in translation" vs. the outright slipping in of extraneous words.

I like the face though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top