NIV mistranslations: a yes for a no?

[bar Jonah]

Perhaps someone here can help me. I know we have some uber-knowledgeable people here in the areas of Greek and Hebrew translation, and the study of original manuscripts.

Obviously, no translation is perfect, but as many of us know, the NIV is a lot less perfect than many others, being not only less literal but also containing blatant errors such as Hebrews 11:11. But a while back, I also ran across another error such that the NIV mistranslated a "yes" as being a "no" ... or maybe it was vice versa. I can't recall, nor can I remember where that verse was.

I was wondering if anyone happened to know where that verse is? I do know it was in the OT, and I'm almost positive it was not in the Pentateuch, but that doesn't narrow it down too much. :)

Thanks in advance!


Jim

[PRAISE]

RightIdea:
Perhaps someone here can help me. I know we have some uber-knowledgeable people here in the areas of Greek and Hebrew translation, and the study of original manuscripts.

Obviously, no translation is perfect, but as many of us know, the NIV is a lot less perfect than many others, being not only less literal but also containing blatant errors such as Hebrews 11:11. But a while back, I also ran across another error such that the NIV mistranslated a "yes" as being a "no" ... or maybe it was vice versa. I can't recall, nor can I remember where that verse was.

I was wondering if anyone happened to know where that verse is? I do know it was in the OT, and I'm almost positive it was not in the Pentateuch, but that doesn't narrow it down too much. :)

Thanks in advance!


Jim

I find it interesting that you say that-"No translation is perfect"-This is why, regardless of what translation people use, the promise of Isaiah 55:11 still holds true-that wherever Gods word goes out, SOMETHING with happen-where it says that His word shall not return void! What ever version you use, It is still God's word, & it WILL accomplish whatever God wants it to do! :hi: I would die deffending that truth!

Praising Him for the truth of HIS WORD!
Praise:thumb:

[bar Jonah]

But how far are you willing to take that, Praise? Needless to say, scripture is certainly not inerrant, but of course I hold to the infallibility of scripture, for the very reason you gave. Nevertheless, there are translations that are outright perversions of God's word.

The JWs use a perverted version of the Bible which destroys the divinity of Christ, blatantly mistranslating certain passages such as John 1:1 -- "... the Word was with God and the Word was a god." Meaning that He is like a god -- they believe He is Michael the archangel and thus somewhat god-like.

Cults like the JWs and the Mormons use significantly perverted scriptures. Just how bad does a translation have to be in order to be outside of the scope of Isaiah 55:11?

[GrayPilgrim]

IMHO im many places in the OT of the NIV is more like a paraphrase than a translation. In fact my Hebrew prof from OSU showed us how it often missed the nuance of the text. Jaltus will tell you that the NT, he likes it, I am still unconvinced. I tend to not like dynamic equivalency theory, which the NIV is based on, but that is just my opinion. You can find people out there who swear by it.

However, let me tell all of you that don't have access to the original that you do not need to learn the languages, but please do :thumb: :), instead the best way to figure out the text is to take a number of versions and lay them side by side. So you lay them side by side and figure out where all the versions differ, which generally is not that much, and that is where you do your work in commentaries (or the languages if you have that skill. I would recomend using the following translations for this process.


ESV
NASB
NIV
RSV
Tanak (OT only; this is a translation commitioned by the Jewish Publication Society which sticks woodenly to the Massoretic text, but has an extremely Jewish bias, e.g. Ps 110:4 reads "You are a priest forever, a rightful king by My decree." What's the significance? Well it renders Melchizedek so as to keep someone from seing the connection between this and the Book of Hebrews.


This is not an exhaustive list but should be a good start.

[bar Jonah]

GP, what's your opinion of the NKJV, just out of curiosity? Though I am not a formally trained seminarian or anything, my personal investigation into certain passages has indicated that the NKJV gives a more accurage translation in some areas. Your thoughts?

[GrayPilgrim]

To be honest, I have never used the NKJV with any regularity so I would not be able to give you an accurate opinion

[bar Jonah]

I have also seen scathing critiques of the RSV, with a laundry list of scriptures that are significantly mistranslated, and giving the overall conclusion that it is one of the most problematic translations in common usage. I have even heard the claim that many of these translational errors "diminish the divinity of Christ," which is a pretty serious accusation. I'm sorry that I don't have these accusations or lists before me, right now. So my own statement here is understandably qualified by that.

Any input on that? Is that even perhaps why you included it?

[Jaltus]

The NT for the NIV is not bad, but it is only really good for Paul's epistles. The gospels are a bit off and Acts can be very bad. The general epistles are only a little off as well. Good luck on Revelation for ANY translation, the Greek is truly (intentionally) garbled.

[bar Jonah]

The founder of GODISNOWHERE, Daniel, likes to refer to the NIV as the "New Infested Version." LOL

But as much as I dislike the NIV, I understand the latest version of the NIV is FAR worse. Nearly as corrupt and twisted as The Message, from what I've heard.

[smilax]

RightIdea:
I have even heard the claim that many of these translational errors "diminish the divinity of Christ," which is a pretty serious accusation.Are you talking to King James Onlyists?

[bar Jonah]

Definitely not. I wouldn't take them the least bit seriously; that should go without saying. :)

[GrayPilgrim]

RightIdea:
I have also seen scathing critiques of the RSV, with a laundry list of scriptures that are significantly mistranslated, and giving the overall conclusion that it is one of the most problematic translations in common usage. I have even heard the claim that many of these translational errors "diminish the divinity of Christ," which is a pretty serious accusation. I'm sorry that I don't have these accusations or lists before me, right now. So my own statement here is understandably qualified by that.

Any input on that? Is that even perhaps why you included it?

According to Wayne Grudem, who I had for three theology courses at TEDS, this was the reason that they undertook the work on the ESV. Grudem loved the RSV overall but it had a liberal bias that would remove Christological and divine impliactions. The only two verses I can remember off the top of my head are:

Psa 145:6


RSV "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;"

ESV "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;"


Here we see an adversion to prophecy, especially Messianic in the RSV.

And of course, Isa 7:14:


ESV Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

RSV Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


This one has always boggled my mind. Of course maindens can have loose morals in our society, however, to be unwed adn have a child was high problmeiatic in that society, for 'almah means young unmarried woman!

The NRSV is just PC clap trap. In Ezekiel they translate son of man as "mortal". What's the problem with that? Well in the NT Jesus uses two distinct meanings for Son of Man, one just happens to come from Ezekiel, but if you were to read it in the NRSV you owuld miss it every time. George Eldon Ladd in his New Testament Theology describes the two themes, the glorious conqueror comes from Daniel, but the suffering servant concept comes from Ezekiel, which just happens to be the more common usage of the term in the Gospels.:argh:

GP


TYPO: I had ESV instead of RSV

[George Blaisdell]

Right Idea writes:

>Nevertheless, there are translations that are outright perversions of God's word.

You have got that right! But top be fair, the translator's is a thankless job.

If you do like me, and give it a wooden translation, with a basic understanding of the Greek, nobody else will understand it. Yet a literal word for word translation has a lot to recomment it, especially if it is given an English word order, and even if it is given English syntax and usage, all accountable to the literal.

At the way other end of the spectrum, there is translation for meaning, where the translator sees his job as one of translating the meaning of the text. His argument is "What? You don't want me to translate the meaning??" I call these guys the exegetical translators, and their problem is that they do not understand the meaning of the text, and they use the translational process to grind their theological axes... Now if you happen to agree with their axes, and enjoy grinding on them, then they are way cool, but if not, they are way uncool...!!! One of the hallmarks of these folks is the centrality of exegesis in the translational process, and they guard against excesses by utilizing translating committees...

There is a leg of meaning based translation that regards the usage of the Bible as translationally determinative - So that if you are passing out Bibles to random strangers at airports or in K-Mart parking lots, you will need one translation, geared to the perceived needs of these random strangers, and if you are going to use it in a pew in church, then it can be translated more technically, and if it is for East LA Latino street gangs, then it should be translated along the lines of some rap music...

I happen to prefer a relatively literal translation, because I want to be able to see what the original language actually said, and not what some translator might think is the meaning of what the original author said.

The Christian Bible, btw, is the Greek Bible, the LXX, not the Masoretic Text, and not ANY translation into ANY other language. [Sorry, KJVers! I love the KJV, and use the Third Millennium Bible, its legitamit successor, all the time, but the real Bible is the Greek one...Text critical problems and all...]

Formal equivalency is a lesser twisting of the meaning based wringer, and it should be added that each of the non-literal methods has legitamite areas and instances of application. And nobody speaks Koine Greek anymore, except in the readings of scripture in the Greek Church, and most Greeks miss a fair amount of what is read.

One little example is "forever" - The Greek is 'eis tous aiwnas twn aiwnwn' - literally "unto the ages of the ages"... Both are a really long time. A little [not much] more significantly, the Greek word we usually see translated as 'patience' is actually 'long-suffering''... Whenever we sin, we cause suffering...

But what you will find in any translation is a mixture of methods and results, so that if you wish to do a translational dissection, you can find fault with the most literal. I like the ESV, but it has problems. All translations are translations, and there are some that are really crappy... I know just enough Greek to critique a translation, and not enough to translate [or understand] as I read the Greek... But the best I can recommend is an interlinear, where you can see the actual words and their English equivalents [glosses]... The search engine at the bottom of this page has an "interlinear" but it is not really one, for it is the text with the KJV ot the NAS translation. Yet even here, you can click on the Greek word and it looks up the meaning for you.

The JW translation, with its indefinite article in front of God in John 1:1 ["And the Word was a god..."] utterly misses the meaning, yet they will argue with you for years over their rightness, and can prove it to their satisfaction without even one blink. Praying for them is a good thing...

But you are right, there are some really terrible translations out there that do indeed pervert the Bible ... And the other side of that fact is the additional fact that the Bible is not self-translating, nor is it even self-explaining, not even in the Greek. The proof of this is the great history of disagreements over its meanings [eg heresies] across the millennia... The ground and support of the truths of the Bible, according to the New Testament, is the Church. Simple as that. It is most certainly not the scholar, nor is it the Lone Thinker in Scriptural Meditation...

So enough of this rant!

geo

[GrayPilgrim]

Geo--

Would you mind explaining a little bit more your understanding of the Christian canon being the LXX and not the MT? For instance, do you include the Apochrypha? Is it based on hte general preference for the LXX readings in the NT? Just cuious.


GP

[George Blaisdell]

Gray Pilgrim writes:


>Geo--

>>>Would you mind explaining a little bit more your understanding of the Christian canon being the LXX and not the MT? For instance, do you include the Apochrypha? Is it based on the general preference for the LXX readings in the NT? Just cuious.<<<

The lxx is a translation into Greek of the Jewish books of the Old Testament, the texts of which have been lost - The lxx was the Jewish Bible, and indeed the bible of Christ and the apostles, although there may have been at that time still extant texts of the Hebraic OT. It is the text predominantly quoted in the NT...

But the main reason is that for the first thousand years of Christianity, it was the Old Testament of Christians, and the Church of this first millennium had this as its foundation, even though the Latin Church had its vulgate translation of it. The Masoretic text is a later development, evolving as a Jewish text in the absence of the ancient text translated by the lxx, being finished [I think - I am no scholar of these events] around 900 AD. It was developed as a part of the Jewish diaspora's efforts to retrieve theeir roots, that had been uprooted in the first century. It is theologically and religiously a post-Christian Jewish development, and did not come out of Christianity. Hence, to call it Christian would seem to err, even though its creators did a first rate job of it.

When differences show up between the lxx and the mt, the mt is not necessarily the corrective of the lxx, and especially so in view of the differing theology of the two traditions. And the lxx is the far older text, by about a thousand years... The LXX is the specifically Christian OT, and the MT is the specifically Judaic OT, and this is why, for all its textual difficulties, it is the one that is authoritative.

If we had the original Hebraic texts from which the LXX was the translation, we might have a case for correction of the [lxx] translation. But we don't, and the MT did not come out of the Christian theological tradition.

The communion of the Churches in communion with Constantinople - The Church at Antioch, Jerusalem, etc., have all kept the lxx as their OT for two millennia now, and do not recognize the MT as having any value as a Christian text. It is Jewish... [Paul spent a lot of time keeping them separated - The works of the Law vs justification by faith and grace being the most obvious, but as well, the whole issue of trying to be both [keeping one's theological bases BOTH covered - Yaargh!], Paul opposed and showed the impossibility of...

geo

geo

[George Blaisdell]

Right Idea writes:

"Obviously, no translation is perfect..."

Before we give it that easy of a bye, please consider the following example: Hebrews 11:1 - The classic Pauline definition of Faith.

This is what a translator has to deal with. The text in the English alphabet reads:

11:1 estin de pistis elpizomenoon hupostasin, pragmatoon elengchos ou blepomenoon. [And no pronouncing that 5th word with a sneeze! who... who... HOOP'O'stashin'!!!]

And in bone-head literality, it reads:

estin = it is
de = a new topic marker - 'but' and 'now' work; so does a pause and a sip of water
pistis = faith
elpizomenoon = of [things] being hoped for
hupostasin = basis [hupo=under, stasis=stand - hypostasis= sub-stand or substance]]
pragmatoon = of matters done/events - pragmatics
elengchos = evidence/proof
ou = not
blepomenoon = pf [things] being seen - the blep root is found in English now in radar talk - a blip on the screen...

So that we have: "It is now faith of things being hoped for a basis of matters a proof of not being seen." Which is totally unintelligible, so we do a little outline:

estin de pistis
Now faith is

elpizomenoon hupostasin pragmatoon
of things hoped for a basis of events

elengchos ou blepomenoon
evidence of [them] not seen.

And the parenthetical [them] means both the things hoped for and the events, for the three 'oon' endings are all linked.

And the format "estin de ____" is a classical definition format, then followed by its meaning. And the meaning of faith here is twofold: The two nouns are 'hypostasin' [basis or substance] and 'elengchos' [evidence/proof].

11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. [TMB]

11:1 Now faith is the assurance of {things} hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [NAS]

11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. [KJV and NKJV]

These first three are all fairly literal, and the next three head off into explanation and thereby re-write the Bible:

11:1 To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see. [Good News]

11:1 Faith assures us of things we expect and convinces us of the existence of things we cannot see. [God's Word]

11:1 Faith means being sure of the things we hope for and knowing that something is real even if we do not see it. [New Century Version]

When I get done going through a little passage like this, I am less harsh on the translators, for they have a whole Bible to do, and I have the luxury of just a few words... Yet clinging closely to the original text is the best protection against one making [human] revision of God's Holy Word...

geo

[dizzle]

Wow, George thanks.

[Socrates]

George Blaisdell:


[The LXX] is the text predominantly quoted in the NT...Doesn't mean much. If I had a theological discussion with KJV users, I'd probably use the KJV without thinking that is inspired. So no wonder the Apostles used the Bible that the diaspora Jews could go and check, like the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11. It would have been pointless for Paul to preach, then have the Bereans go and check and find that it's not the way THEIR Bible had it.

The LXX is the specifically Christian OT, and the MT is the specifically Judaic OT, and this is why, for all its textual difficulties, it is the one that is authoritative.The translators of nearly all English versions use the Masoretic, and rightly so. E.g. the LXX has the obvious error that its Genesis chronologies are inflated, having Methuselah surviving the Flood. This is probably because the translators wanted their history to match the preposterous claims of the Egyptians at Alexandria where they were. They also translate call the king of the book of Esther "Ataxerxes", which is the Greek version of the Persian king called "Artakhshassa" in his own tongue or "Artachshast" in the Hebrew. But the king in Esther, called "Achashverosh" in Hebrew was almost certainly the king who called himself "Khshayarsha", and the Greeks called "Xerxes".

A good article defending the superiority of the Masoretic over both the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch is Some Remarks Preliminary to a Biblical Chronology (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv12n1_chronology.asp).

Are you Eastern Orthodox perchance?

[Socrates]

Genesis 6:13(NIV):

So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. But "all people" is a mistranslation. The Hebrew is basar meaning flesh, and most other translations have it right.

This is probably due to the influence of Ronald Youngblood, a local flood advocate, on the translation committee.

OTOH the NIV does well in Genesis 2:19, rendering wayyitser as the pluperfect "had formed", which removes a favorite biblioskeptical alleged contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. I wish more translations would do this. BTW, Sailhamer disagreed with this because he desires to make the chapters contradictory, but this goes against Keil and Delitzsch, and Leupold.

[George Blaisdell]

Dee Dee writes:


Wow, George thanks.

There was one other item in this definition that I forgot to mention, and that is its structure, for it is a classic. On the one hand, the differentia of faith are hypostasis/basis and evidence/conviction - Yet on the other, the heart of the definition, the word right in the very middle of it, and there are but 5 words, and this word is number 3, is the word pragmatoon, of things done, and so it stresses the practical and pragmatic nature of faith [Noah *built* an ark, etc...]. By western definitional stancards, faith has two nouns that define it, but by the Greek, it has more.

estin de pistis

elpizomenoon hupostasin
pragmatoon
elengchos ou blepomenoon

So that by this accounting, faith is pragmatic, of things hoped for yet not seen, the basis of hope and the unseen evidence, of [pragmatic] events...

How on earth are we going to get all this out of an English language?

Praying for translators is a good thing...

geo

[George Blaisdell]

Socrates writes:

> quote from geo:
> [The LXX] is the text predominantly quoted in the NT...

>Doesn't mean much.

Well, it means that it was the Bible of the Apostles. And the textual difficulties of its subsequent transmission to what we have today is an important issue, of which you are doubtless better informed than I am.

I am not yet baptized into the Antiochian Orthodox Church - Scheduled for Mar 5th, after 4 years of being a wannabe, two as a catechumen.

I like the idea of using the Apostles' Bible... Regardless of how well non-Christians reconstructed their lost Hebraic Old Testament. I am prejudiced toward Christian sources... And of course, there is doubtless a great deal that can be of benefit from the MT.

Thanks for the reply...

geo

[Socrates]

> quote from geo:
> [The LXX] is the text predominantly quoted in the NT...

>Doesn't mean much.

Well, it means that it was the Bible of the Apostles. And the textual difficulties of its subsequent transmission to what we have today is an important issue, of which you are doubtless better informed than I am.
I wouldn't make that claim. But I would say that it seems inappropriate to quote part of something, then reiterate what you said which is actually answered in the part snipped.

I am not yet baptized into the Antiochian Orthodox Church - Scheduled for Mar 5th, after 4 years of being a wannabe, two as a catechumen.Thanx for the explanation. I thought it had to be some sort of Eastern Orthodox, but I confess ignorance of the Antiochian (Antiochan?) one. The long catechetical phase has the advantage of making sure converts are totally serious.

[George Blaisdell]

Socrates writes:

>> quote from geo:
>>> [The LXX] is the text predominantly quoted in the NT...

>> Doesn't mean much.

> Well, it means that it was the Bible of the Apostles. And the textual difficulties of its subsequent transmission to what we have today is an important issue, of which you are doubtless better informed than I am.

>I wouldn't make that claim.

Well, that is a nice condescension, but the truth is, I am really very uninformed on text-critical matters, and on the issues of the MT.

> But I would say that it seems inappropriate to quote part of something, then reiterate what you said which is actually answered in the part snipped.

I thought I said what I hadn't said [the lxx is the Apostles Bible], and then affirmed you in what I had snipped of you...

But I'll cop to inappropriateness!! :-)

quote:
>I am not yet baptized into the Antiochian Orthodox Church - Scheduled for Mar 5th, after 4 years of being a wannabe, two as a catechumen.

>Thanx for the explanation. I thought it had to be some sort of Eastern Orthodox, but I confess ignorance of the Antiochian (Antiochan?) one.

My Church is mentioned in the Bible as the Church in which believers were first called Christians. [Somewhere in acts, I think.] It is one of the Churches, along with the Latin, and the one at Constantinople, and the one in Jerusalem, among others in communion, that met in ecumenical council and established the cannon of the holy scriptures, and the Nicean Creed... These patriarchates all still exist, persecuted and battered and beaten down in the east by the same forces as those of 9-11.

This is one of the original apostolic churches - Married patriarchs and priests dressed in black robes with long white hair and beards in abundance, and a service of worship in acapella singing and chanting of prayers and psalms with bells and incense and icons that keeps to the ways handed down from generation to generation. As my Fr. says: "We don't change nuttin'" And that's almost true!

> The long catechetical phase has the advantage of making sure converts are totally serious.

Ain't no glad-handing at the door and 'welcome to the salvation train' and 'Are ye saved yit?' from these guys.

geo: "I want to become Orthodox."
Church: "Are you sure?"
geo: "Of course I'm sure! I'm here, aren't I?"
Church: "We'll see..." [expressed silently]

I have never seen anything remotely like Orthodoxy anywhere - It was love at first encounter, but the four years it has taken is more a reflection of me than of them.

geo

[djconklin]

>The lxx is a translation into Greek of the Jewish books of the Old Testament, the texts of which have been lost - The lxx was the Jewish Bible, and indeed the bible of Christ and the apostles, although there may have been at that time still extant texts of the Hebraic OT. It is the text predominantly quoted in the NT...

True, however there are parts of the LXX which are quite faulty (Daniel and Jeremiah come to mind real quick) and the NT writers were not adverse to using the Hebrew Bible (what we today call the MT) and thus obviously expected their readers to know it as well.

:yipee: What's this? Some sort of victory dance?

[djconklin]

>Regardless of how well non-Christians reconstructed their lost Hebraic Old Testament.

What evidence is there that it was ever "lost"? The NT writers certainly knew of it and parts were preserved quite well in the DSS.

[dizzle]

The :yipee: is just a TWeb standard. It can be used to express almost anything. Thus one of our proposed slogans...

Theology is a like a dancing bananna....

[George Blaisdell]

Dee Dee writes:

The is just a TWeb standard. It can be used to express almost anything. Thus one of our proposed slogans...

Theology is a like a dancing bananna....:yipee:

I may be just an old fuddy-duddy, but that icon seems kinda evil to me, much akin to the gloating and taunting and sodomous victory gestures too often seen in the end-zones of professional football...

When well intended, it obviously means a loud and prolonged and victorious !!!YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!

geo

[George Blaisdell]

DJ writes:

>> Regardless of how well non-Christians reconstructed their lost Hebraic Old Testament.

> What evidence is there that it was ever "lost"?

That it has been lost is well accepted and known to western scholarship, and that it was re-created, but with vowels, possibly out of the awesome mental and oral tradition [Jewish] of its origin. It was not completed until sometime in the 900AD era...

> The NT writers certainly knew of it and parts were preserved quite well in the DSS.

It was not lost until after the fall of Jerusalem and the scattering of the inhabitants thereof, following the death of Christ. So that while it was still extant, there were references to it in the NT, but the commonly used OT of the Jews of that time was the LXX, not the Hebraic one, and I think it may have had to do with the usage of Greek that was so widespread with the diaspora, and the commonality of the Greek. I would guess, without any evidence whatsoever, that the Hebraic texts were not extensively copied, but were cherished and kept within the priesthood at high levels...

Someone on this list has GOT to be better informed on this than me, and can render a better account of matters!

geo

[barryrob]

But how far are you willing to take that, Praise? Needless to say, scripture is certainly not inerrant, but of course I hold to the infallibility of scripture, for the very reason you gave. Nevertheless, there are translations that are outright perversions of God's word.

The JWs use a perverted version of the Bible which destroys the divinity of Christ, blatantly mistranslating certain passages such as John 1:1 -- "... the Word was with God and the Word was a god." Meaning that He is like a god -- they believe He is Michael the archangel and thus somewhat god-like.

Cults like the JWs and the Mormons use significantly perverted scriptures. Just how bad does a translation have to be in order to be outside of the scope of Isaiah 55:11?We "JWs" do not destroy the divinity of Christ because we think he is divine, but not the same being as The Almighty. He has the same nature as God but not the same person or part of a three fold personage.

If we "JWs" are so wrong why is it that many other versions of the Bible render John 1:1 etc. in a like way:-
VARIOUS OTHER RENDERINGS OF JOHN 1:1 TAKEN OF THE W.W.W. http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm

Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."



Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: "and the Word was a divine being."

John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god

Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine

Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god

New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"

Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"

Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"

Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Belsham N.T. 1809 "the Word was a god"

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"

International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity."

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London "[A] Divine Person."

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God" "At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order."

21st Century NT Free "and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal

George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature ...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."

William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos

Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine

Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was

Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was

J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"

Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"

Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And the Word was divine."

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'

Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript) "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."

Buzzard/Hunting "In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the Wisdom was God’s Wisdom" (Pro. 8:22-30)

Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1 "III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like"

Barryrob

[bar Jonah]

Boy, did you dig this up from the boneyard or what? :riahem:


As creator of the thread, I'd just like to say...


:offtopic:

[Menachem]

ESV
NASB
NIV
RSV
Tanak (OT only; this is a translation commitioned by the Jewish Publication Society which sticks woodenly to the Massoretic text, but has an extremely Jewish bias, e.g. Ps 110:4 reads "You are a priest forever, a rightful king by My decree." What's the significance? Well it renders Melchizedek so as to keep someone from seing the connection between this and the Book of Hebrews.


This translation of Psalm 110:4 is not incorrect in fact I think it fits better in the context than other renderings...although I would translate some of the words a little differently than JPS does...

[Jaltus]

We "JWs" do not destroy the divinity of Christ because we think he is divine, but not the same being as The Almighty. He has the same nature as God but not the same person or part of a three fold personage.

If we "JWs" are so wrong why is it that many other versions of the Bible render John 1:1 etc. in a like way:-

They don't. They might look like what JWs want, but the words have a much deeper meaning. And some of the translations below flat out go against grammar.


Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."


This must be old, because "Interlineary" is not a word in modern English.


Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

Divine person = member of the Trinity.

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

1808?

Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

Grammatical impossibility. The nominative cannot show possession. This guy is flat out wrong.

La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: "and the Word was a divine being."

Impossible, since it was originally written in French. Someone may have translated his French to that, but the above is a translation of a translation.

John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god

1829?

Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine

That would be fine, I guess, except that "divine" in Greek is a different word.

Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

Never heard of such a version. Who Improved and Corrected it, JWs?

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

His understanding of syntax is flawed since he is taking the anarthrous as the subject instead of the articular. His understanding of Greek must be limited.

C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god

C.C. Torrey had a lowercase ? I find that questionable.

New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"

A paraphrase translation? Are you serious? Why not quote the Living Translation!!

Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

Of course, Moffatt knew his terminology was correct Trinitarian terminology. There is no difference between being divine and being part of the Trinity. You are using a false dichotomy in appealing to the word "divine" as not being Trinitarian.

International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

Hahahaha.

Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

MD? You must be kidding.

Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"

See what I said about divine above.

Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Again, improper understanding of syntax, no use of the word wV in the Greek, so this is a mistranslation, pure and simple.

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"

This doesn't even make sense.

Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Improper handling of syntax.

Belsham N.T. 1809 "the Word was a god"

1809?

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Who?

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

Again, improper translation. There is a different word for godly, and it was not used here.

J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"

Hahahahahaha. A translation from German into English of the Greek? Not to mention that ZNW is known for the atheists which publish in there. Add to this how he skipped o logoV and you can understand my ridicule.

International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity."

Improper translation unless it keeps both uses of qeoV the same.

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London "[A] Divine Person."

Trinitarian language.

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

Nonsensical. How can it be "a" god and still be capitolized?

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

From a Unitarian? Shocking! (yes, I am being sarcastic)

Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

Just look at the title of the book.

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God" "At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order."

Hahahahahahahahaha.

21st Century NT Free "and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal

Hahahahahahahaha.

George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

This is not translating from Greek. This is irrelevent.

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

Trinitarian language.

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

See above on "a God."

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Paraphrase, not a translation.

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"

Again, divine fits Trinitarian language just fine.

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

German to English again.

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature ...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."

Inappropriate translation. "Theos" never means divine in the NT, AFAIK, since there is in fact another Greek word for it.

William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"

Paraphrase.

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos

Paraphrase plus from German, plus theos cannot mean "godlike."

Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine

Covered above.

Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was

Mistranslation.

Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was

Hahahahahaha, you expect me to take a verions seriously that includes the Gospel of Thomas? Have you read the Gospel of Thomas?

J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

Mistranslation.

Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

German, plus see above.

Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

What does Divine Being mean and can theos really mean that?

Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"

Mistranslation.

Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"

Mistranslation.

Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"

Mistranslation.

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

Thought? And you expect me to take this seriously?

Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"

Mistranslation. No "itself" in the text, let alone the rest of the mistranslation.

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

Mistranslation.

Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

See above.

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

Doesn't even make sense.

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

Mistranslation. No "world" in there, so would not trust this guy at all.

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

Improper understanding of syntax.

Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

Where is "kind" in the Greek?

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"

Not a translation but a paraphrase.

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

You quoted the original and are now quoting the translation of it? Dishonest, to say the least.

Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

Again, no understanding of Greek if he is using "kind" anywhere around this.

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And the Word was divine."

See above.

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

You already quoted this guy with a different translation.

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

You are quoting Muslims?

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

See above.

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Illegitimate translation.

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'

Illegit again. Theos does not mean divine being in the NT.

Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript) "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."

Hahahahahaha.

Buzzard/Hunting "In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the Wisdom was God’s Wisdom" (Pro. 8:22-30)

Hahahahahaha.

Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1 "III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like"

Not bad, but he misunderstands Greek here. Theos without the article still can mean God.

Barryrob,

I would have much more respect for your position if you could argue the grammar instead of pointing to different scholars (and heretics and atheists) who use a translation approximating what you would like the Bible to say. the bottom line is that it does not matter how many translations you have, there are more that take the Trinitarian view than do not. Need I go through the church Fathers who understood Jesus as God?

You have no argument for your position here. 100 bad translations of a passage still is not better than 1 good translation.

[Jaltus]

This translation of Psalm 110:4 is not incorrect in fact I think it fits better in the context than other renderings...although I would translate some of the words a little differently than JPS does...

Are you saying that this reference to Melchizedek is not in fact connected to the person in Genesis? I rather doubt that.

[bar Jonah]

They don't. They might look like what JWs want, but the words have a much deeper meaning. And some of the translations below flat out go against grammar.

Reading this post was some of the best fun I've had in a week! You utterly decimated his ludicrous bibliography of heresy, paganism and pure nonsense. You're getting pearls, but you deserve a PotD! On this occasion, you definitely have the right idea! :rithumb:



That said, this whole new conversation is completely :offtopic: LOL There's another thread for this. Let's take it there, so people will know where to look for this stuff. (In fact, I think you should post this stuff in the other thread, Jaltus. Just repost.) :ripink:

[Menachem]

Are you saying that this reference to Melchizedek is not in fact connected to the person in Genesis? I rather doubt that.

Yes, I would not transliterate this as a Name but apply it as a translation of the words Malki-Tzedek as Rightous King.. The translation of it as "By my decree a rightous king" is not incorrect..... Look at the Hebrew...Coheyn LeOlam Al-Diverati Malki-Tzedek על-דברתי מלכי-צדק אתה-כהן לעולם "You are a Priest for all time, A rightous king by my decree."
you could also read Coheyn as Kiheyn if you remove the vowels meaning "to ordain" saying "your ordination of priesthood shall last forever, My decrees are of a rightous king" once we move the vowels and assign new ones we can read it many ways...

So my answer is yes I would read it as Rightous king despite what many others say about it....Becasue I feel this translation fits the context better....

[Jaltus]

The problem with your understanding, however, is that the only two occurrences of this phrase EVER are Genesis 14:8 and Psalm 110:4. If there were other occurrences which clearly showed the phrase not being used as a name, you might have a case. But I think you are just avoiding the reference in order to dilute the meaning of Hebrews.

[Menachem]

The problem with your understanding, however, is that the only two occurrences of this phrase EVER are Genesis 14:8 and Psalm 110:4. If there were other occurrences which clearly showed the phrase not being used as a name, you might have a case. But I think you are just avoiding the reference in order to dilute the meaning of Hebrews.

You can however find similar words such as Adoni-tzadek and see that Melki-tzadek can be translated just like Adoni-tzadek can be translated and is translated variously(adoni-tzadek) as "rightous lord." To rely only on other occurances in the text only and not on Hebrew knowledge would do an injustice to translating and representing the hebrew accurately.

No, I am showing that this is in fact is not a reference to a person specifically(such as mechizadek in Bereshit) but to a rightous king(namely King David). The Hebrew is quite clear this is not a person specifically but a rightous king(inferred as king David) the context shows that. The theme of this psalm is of a rightous king. "Na'em HaShem LeAdoni....." So says Hashem to my master[or my lord] sit at my right hand..... "Adoni" can and is used throughout the Tanakh as a reference to a king or someone of high stature.

Honestly I think your book of "Hebrews" dilutes the message of this Psalm completely and mistraslates or misrepresents some things in the Tanakh just to try and fit jesus in the Tanakh..... Who knows :nsm:

[NSMinistries]

Interesting Thread :ponder:

[Jaltus]

You can however find similar words such as Adoni-tzadek and see that Melki-tzadek can be translated just like Adoni-tzadek can be translated and is translated variously(adoni-tzadek) as "rightous lord." To rely only on other occurances in the text only and not on Hebrew knowledge would do an injustice to translating and representing the hebrew accurately.

No, I am showing that this is in fact is not a reference to a person specifically(such as mechizadek in Bereshit) but to a rightous king(namely King David). The Hebrew is quite clear this is not a person specifically but a rightous king(inferred as king David) the context shows that. The theme of this psalm is of a rightous king. "Na'em HaShem LeAdoni....." So says Hashem to my master[or my lord] sit at my right hand..... "Adoni" can and is used throughout the Tanakh as a reference to a king or someone of high stature.

Honestly I think your book of "Hebrews" dilutes the message of this Psalm completely and mistraslates or misrepresents some things in the Tanakh just to try and fit jesus in the Tanakh..... Who knows :nsm:


Then to be consistent you have to deny there is a person in Genesis 14!

I disagree with you that the Hebrew calls for an unpersonified person, especially since the "righteous king" would never have an order of priests coming after him, that would negate the law! How can you seriously argue that the Davidic King could ever have an order of priesthood?

Add to this that the LXX and even the OG take this as a reference to Melchizedek, and I think you are trying to go against the Christian understanding rather than arguing for a different understanding. Remember that the OG was translated before the time of Christ and by Jews. Yet they used Melchizedek and not "righteous king." How do you explain such a rendering by those who spoke and wrote that language? (by the way, Psalm 110 MT = Psalm 109 OG/LXX)

[Menachem]

Then to be consistent you have to deny there is a person in Genesis 14!

Not necessarily because from context you can see it is talking about a person named Melchizadek He is the King of Shalem...This is where knowledge of Hebrew comes into play.... Of course I could say "a rightous king, King of Shalem..." But that makes less sense than "Mechizadek, King of Shalem"

I disagree with you that the Hebrew calls for an unpersonified person, especially since the "righteous king" would never have an order of priests coming after him, that would negate the law! How can you seriously argue that the Davidic King could ever have an order of priesthood?

well you can reserve the right to disagree with me I never intended for you to agree with me. I am showing you that there are more than one renndering to a passage and that some fit better than others...That is my intention...

I am not saying an order of priests coming after him, I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is that this psalm says is that this person(rightous King) should spread the faith(i.e. be a priest forever), even the Kings had priestlike functions but never functioned fully as a priest. It connects to the bit in the Torah that says "you shall be a nation of priests" or "a Holy nation"...This verse does not say every Jew is a priest only Levites and Kohenim are. However, it does say everyone has an obligation to promote the faith amongst its adherents and others...

Add to this that the LXX and even the OG take this as a reference to Melchizedek, and I think you are trying to go against the Christian understanding rather than arguing for a different understanding. Remember that the OG was translated before the time of Christ and by Jews. Yet they used Melchizedek and not "righteous king." How do you explain such a rendering by those who spoke and wrote that language? (by the way, Psalm 110 MT = Psalm 109 OG/LXX)

of course the LXX would..the Modern septuagint you have was put together by christians(i.e. Lucian and Origen....see Hexapla) seeing a connection between 'hebrews' it was read transliterated into a name and fit into Greek words meaning the equivalent......However the LXX is not authoritative to me so that negates the use of LXX as an example(only hebrew sometimes aramaic)...Also many Jewish Rabbis such as Rashi saw this as Mechizadek in Bereshit and said this Psalm was about Avraham which put a whole new spin on it... While others comment that this is not a reference to the Priest-king Mechizadek in Bereshit but a reference to a rightous [Davidic] king.

I am suggesting that this is not a reference to Mechizadek but of a rightous [Davidic] King who is "a priest forever(i.e. upkeeps the faith)."

[barryrob]

Barryrob,

I would have much more respect for your position if you could argue the grammar instead of pointing to different scholars (and heretics and atheists) who use a translation approximating what you would like the Bible to say. the bottom line is that it does not matter how many translations you have, there are more that take the Trinitarian view than do not. Need I go through the church Fathers who understood Jesus as God?

You have no argument for your position here. 100 bad translations of a passage still is not better than 1 good translation.
Is this more to your taste Jaltus?



Watchtower 1975 11/15 pp. 702-704 Questions from Readers




Questions from Readers





Does the rendering of John 1:1 in the New World Translation violate rules of Greek grammar or conflict with worship of only one God?




The New World Translation renders John 1:1 as follows: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Some have objected to the translation "a god," which appears in the final clause of this verse. They claim that the translators were wrong in putting an "a" in there before "god." Is this really a mistranslation?







While the Greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the English "a," it does have a definite article ho, often rendered into English as "the." For example, ho Khristos´, "the Christ," ho Ky´ri·os, "the Lord," ho The·os´, literally, "the God."







Frequently, though, nouns occur in Greek without the article. Grammarians refer to these nouns as "anarthrous," meaning "used without the article." Interestingly, in the final part of John 1:1, the Greek word for "god," the·os´, does not have the definite article ho before it. How do translators render such anarthrous Greek nouns into English?







Often they add the English indefinite article "a" to give proper sense to the passage. For example, in the concluding portion of John 9:17 the Greek text literally states, according to the interlinear literal translation by clergyman Alfred Marshall, D.Litt: "And he said[,] — A prophet he is." There is no definite article before the Greek word for "prophet" here. The translator, therefore, rendered the word as "a prophet," as do many other English translations.—Authorized Version, New American Standard Bible, also translations by Charles B. Williams and William F. Beck.







This does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the Greek text it should appear in English with the indefinite article. Translators render these nouns variously, at times even with a "the," understanding them as definite, though the definite article is missing. At Matthew 27:40, for instance, several English Bible versions have the phrase "the Son of God," though the Greek word for "son" is without the definite article.







What about John 1:1? Marshall’s interlinear translation of it reads: "In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with — God, and God was the Word." As noted above, no "the" appears before "God" in the final clause of this verse. The New World Bible Translation Committee chose to insert the indefinite article "a" there. This helps to distinguish "the Word," Jesus Christ, as a god, or divine person with vast power, from the God whom he was "with," Jehovah, the Almighty. Some persons familiar with Greek claim that in doing so the translators violated an important rule of Greek grammar. Why so?







The problem, they say, is word order. Back in 1933 Greek scholar E. C. Colwell published an article entitled "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." In it he wrote: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article."







At John 1:1 the anarthrous predicate noun the·os´ does precede the verb, the Greek word order being literally: "God [predicate] was [verb] the Word [subject]." Concerning this verse Colwell concluded: "The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun." Thus some scholars claim that the only really correct way to translate this clause is: "And the Word was God."







Do these statements of Colwell prove that "a god" is a mistranslation at John 1:1? Perhaps you noticed this scholar’s wording that an anarthrous predicate noun that precedes the verb should be understood as definite "if the context suggests" that. Further along in his argument Colwell stressed that the predicate is indefinite in this position "only when the context demands it." Nowhere did he state that all anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of grammar, but context must guide the translator in such cases.







The Greek text of the Christian Scriptures has many examples of this type of predicate noun where other translators into English have added the indefinite article "a." Consider, for example, Marshall’s interlinear translation of the following verses: "Says to him the woman: Sir, I perceive that a prophet [predicate] art [verb] thou [subject]." (John 4:19) "Said therefore to him—Pilate: Not really a king [predicate] art [verb] thou [subject]? Answered—Jesus: Thou sayest that a king [predicate] I am [verb, with subject included]."—John 18:37.







Did you notice the expressions "a prophet," "a king" (twice)? These are anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek. But the translator rendered them with the indefinite article "a." There are numerous examples of this in English versions of the Bible. For further illustration consider the following from the Gospel of John in The New English Bible: "A devil" (6:70); "a slave" (8:34); "a murderer . . . a liar" (8:44); "a thief" (10:1); "a hireling" (10:13); "a relation" (18:26).







Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses mentioned in the two previous paragraphs, and in many more: "The use of it in translation is a matter of individual judgement. . . . We have inserted ‘a’ or ‘an’ as a matter of course where it seems called for." Of course, neither Colwell (as noted above) nor Marshall felt that an "a" before "god" at John 1:1 was called for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar. It was "individual judgement," which scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed a different judgment in this place by the translation "a god."







Certain scholars have pointed out that anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek may have a qualitative significance. That is, they may describe the nature or status of the subject. Thus some translators render John 1:1: "The Logos was divine," (Moffatt); "the Word was divine," (Goodspeed); "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," (Barclay); "the Word was with God and shared his nature," (The Translator’s New Testament).







Does being "divine" or godlike mean that Jesus Christ is himself almighty and coeternal with God the Father?







It is true that trinitarians attach special significance to the divine status of Jesus. They even employ a special non-Biblical Greek term, homoousios ("of one substance," or "of one essence"), in this regard. The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains under the heading "Consubstantiality," which is an English rendering of homoousios: "The consubstantiality defined by [the Council] Nicaea I [325 C.E.], then, . . . affirms essentially that the Son is equal to the Father, as divine as the Father, being from His substance and of the same substance with Him; it follows necessarily that the Son cannot belong to the created . . . Because of the absolute unicity, unity, and simplicity of God, the identity of the substance is not merely specific [as in the case of humans having human nature in common] but absolute, or numerical."







Where, though, in the Scriptures does one encounter such reasoning? The answer is simple: Nowhere. The written Word of God neither contains the word homoousios nor the idea that trinitarians attach to it. That is mere philosophizing.







Does the idea that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Scriptural teaching that there is only one God? (1 Cor. 8:5, 6) Not at all. At times the Hebrew Scriptures employ the term for God, ’elo·him´, with reference to mighty creatures. At Psalm 8:5, for example, we read: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones." (Hebrew, ’elohim´; "a god," New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible) The Greek Septuagint Version renders ’elo·him´ here as "angels." The Jewish translators of this version saw no conflict with monotheism in applying the term for God to created spirit persons. (Compare Hebrews 2:7, 9.) Similarly, Jews of the first century C.E. found no conflict with their belief in one God at Psalm 82, though verses 1 and 6 of this psalm utilize the word ’elo·him´ (the·oi´, plural of the·os´, Septuagint) with reference to human judges.—Compare John 10:34-36.







Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures, is "the image of the invisible God." (Col. 1:15) Yet Christians with a heavenly calling expect to bear Christ’s image in its fullness, becoming partakers of "divine nature," when they get to heaven. (2 Pet. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21) They have already gotten a start toward this by the spiritual "new birth" while yet on earth. (1 Pet. 1:3, 4) This, however, does not mean that they will be coequal with God. Nor does Jesus’ then having "divine nature" with them mean that for him.







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.






Barryrob

[Jaltus]

Barryrob,

I'll give you a full reply within the next week, Lord willing.

eliyosef,

Your facts about the LXX are simply false. We have manuscripts which date from before Origen et al and from before the time of Christ (see Emanuel Tov's work on the Qumran scrolls). The LXX (where it differs from the MT) has a Hebrew text behind it. The rendering of Melchizedek as a name thus predates ANY Christianity.

[Menachem]

Barryrob,

I'll give you a full reply within the next week, Lord willing.

eliyosef,

Your facts about the LXX are simply false. We have manuscripts which date from before Origen et al and from before the time of Christ (see Emanuel Tov's work on the Qumran scrolls). The LXX (where it differs from the MT) has a Hebrew text behind it. The rendering of Melchizedek as a name thus predates ANY Christianity.


I have no quarrels with the fact that extant copies of various books existed, what I am arguing is that they were put together by Origen and Lucian....What do you think the Hexapla was....copies of the "Old Testament" in greek put together to try and find which ones were the "correct" ones....

Im not saying your wrong about the rendering of Malki-tzadek, what I am arguing is that there are better translations and the "Rightous king" translation better fits the context of the Psalm...

True, the rendering of malki-tzadek does predate christianity see book of Genesis...But it doesn't mean that everywhere you see this word(i.e. in the Psalms) a name of a person is implied...The context of the hebrew here seems to fit "Rightous King" easier than it does Malki-tzadek as a name..

[Menachem]

Is this more to your taste Jaltus?



Watchtower 1975 11/15 pp. 702-704 Questions from Readers




Questions from Readers





Does the rendering of John 1:1 in the New World Translation violate rules of Greek grammar or conflict with worship of only one God?




The New World Translation renders John 1:1 as follows: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Some have objected to the translation "a god," which appears in the final clause of this verse. They claim that the translators were wrong in putting an "a" in there before "god." Is this really a mistranslation?







While the Greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the English "a," it does have a definite article ho, often rendered into English as "the." For example, ho Khristos´, "the Christ," ho Ky´ri·os, "the Lord," ho The·os´, literally, "the God."







Frequently, though, nouns occur in Greek without the article. Grammarians refer to these nouns as "anarthrous," meaning "used without the article." Interestingly, in the final part of John 1:1, the Greek word for "god," the·os´, does not have the definite article ho before it. How do translators render such anarthrous Greek nouns into English?







Often they add the English indefinite article "a" to give proper sense to the passage. For example, in the concluding portion of John 9:17 the Greek text literally states, according to the interlinear literal translation by clergyman Alfred Marshall, D.Litt: "And he said[,] — A prophet he is." There is no definite article before the Greek word for "prophet" here. The translator, therefore, rendered the word as "a prophet," as do many other English translations.—Authorized Version, New American Standard Bible, also translations by Charles B. Williams and William F. Beck.







This does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the Greek text it should appear in English with the indefinite article. Translators render these nouns variously, at times even with a "the," understanding them as definite, though the definite article is missing. At Matthew 27:40, for instance, several English Bible versions have the phrase "the Son of God," though the Greek word for "son" is without the definite article.







What about John 1:1? Marshall’s interlinear translation of it reads: "In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with — God, and God was the Word." As noted above, no "the" appears before "God" in the final clause of this verse. The New World Bible Translation Committee chose to insert the indefinite article "a" there. This helps to distinguish "the Word," Jesus Christ, as a god, or divine person with vast power, from the God whom he was "with," Jehovah, the Almighty. Some persons familiar with Greek claim that in doing so the translators violated an important rule of Greek grammar. Why so?







The problem, they say, is word order. Back in 1933 Greek scholar E. C. Colwell published an article entitled "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." In it he wrote: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article."







At John 1:1 the anarthrous predicate noun the·os´ does precede the verb, the Greek word order being literally: "God [predicate] was [verb] the Word [subject]." Concerning this verse Colwell concluded: "The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun." Thus some scholars claim that the only really correct way to translate this clause is: "And the Word was God."







Do these statements of Colwell prove that "a god" is a mistranslation at John 1:1? Perhaps you noticed this scholar’s wording that an anarthrous predicate noun that precedes the verb should be understood as definite "if the context suggests" that. Further along in his argument Colwell stressed that the predicate is indefinite in this position "only when the context demands it." Nowhere did he state that all anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of grammar, but context must guide the translator in such cases.







The Greek text of the Christian Scriptures has many examples of this type of predicate noun where other translators into English have added the indefinite article "a." Consider, for example, Marshall’s interlinear translation of the following verses: "Says to him the woman: Sir, I perceive that a prophet [predicate] art [verb] thou [subject]." (John 4:19) "Said therefore to him—Pilate: Not really a king [predicate] art [verb] thou [subject]? Answered—Jesus: Thou sayest that a king [predicate] I am [verb, with subject included]."—John 18:37.







Did you notice the expressions "a prophet," "a king" (twice)? These are anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek. But the translator rendered them with the indefinite article "a." There are numerous examples of this in English versions of the Bible. For further illustration consider the following from the Gospel of John in The New English Bible: "A devil" (6:70); "a slave" (8:34); "a murderer . . . a liar" (8:44); "a thief" (10:1); "a hireling" (10:13); "a relation" (18:26).







Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses mentioned in the two previous paragraphs, and in many more: "The use of it in translation is a matter of individual judgement. . . . We have inserted ‘a’ or ‘an’ as a matter of course where it seems called for." Of course, neither Colwell (as noted above) nor Marshall felt that an "a" before "god" at John 1:1 was called for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar. It was "individual judgement," which scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed a different judgment in this place by the translation "a god."







Certain scholars have pointed out that anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek may have a qualitative significance. That is, they may describe the nature or status of the subject. Thus some translators render John 1:1: "The Logos was divine," (Moffatt); "the Word was divine," (Goodspeed); "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," (Barclay); "the Word was with God and shared his nature," (The Translator’s New Testament).







Does being "divine" or godlike mean that Jesus Christ is himself almighty and coeternal with God the Father?







It is true that trinitarians attach special significance to the divine status of Jesus. They even employ a special non-Biblical Greek term, homoousios ("of one substance," or "of one essence"), in this regard. The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains under the heading "Consubstantiality," which is an English rendering of homoousios: "The consubstantiality defined by [the Council] Nicaea I [325 C.E.], then, . . . affirms essentially that the Son is equal to the Father, as divine as the Father, being from His substance and of the same substance with Him; it follows necessarily that the Son cannot belong to the created . . . Because of the absolute unicity, unity, and simplicity of God, the identity of the substance is not merely specific [as in the case of humans having human nature in common] but absolute, or numerical."







Where, though, in the Scriptures does one encounter such reasoning? The answer is simple: Nowhere. The written Word of God neither contains the word homoousios nor the idea that trinitarians attach to it. That is mere philosophizing.







Does the idea that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Scriptural teaching that there is only one God? (1 Cor. 8:5, 6) Not at all. At times the Hebrew Scriptures employ the term for God, ’elo·him´, with reference to mighty creatures. At Psalm 8:5, for example, we read: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones." (Hebrew, ’elohim´; "a god," New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible) The Greek Septuagint Version renders ’elo·him´ here as "angels." The Jewish translators of this version saw no conflict with monotheism in applying the term for God to created spirit persons. (Compare Hebrews 2:7, 9.) Similarly, Jews of the first century C.E. found no conflict with their belief in one God at Psalm 82, though verses 1 and 6 of this psalm utilize the word ’elo·him´ (the·oi´, plural of the·os´, Septuagint) with reference to human judges.—Compare John 10:34-36.







Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures, is "the image of the invisible God." (Col. 1:15) Yet Christians with a heavenly calling expect to bear Christ’s image in its fullness, becoming partakers of "divine nature," when they get to heaven. (2 Pet. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21) They have already gotten a start toward this by the spiritual "new birth" while yet on earth. (1 Pet. 1:3, 4) This, however, does not mean that they will be coequal with God. Nor does Jesus’ then having "divine nature" with them mean that for him.







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.






Barryrob





Is this a copy and paste from a book?

[Sacrificial Ram]

But how far are you willing to take that, Praise? Needless to say, scripture is certainly not inerrant, but of course I hold to the infallibility of scripture, for the very reason you gave. Nevertheless, there are translations that are outright perversions of God's word.

The JWs use a perverted version of the Bible which destroys the divinity of Christ, blatantly mistranslating certain passages such as John 1:1 -- "... the Word was with God and the Word was a god." Meaning that He is like a god -- they believe He is Michael the archangel and thus somewhat god-like.

Cults like the JWs and the Mormons use significantly perverted scriptures. Just how bad does a translation have to be in order to be outside of the scope of Isaiah 55:11?
On the other hand, the concept that Michael is an archangel is based on a mistranslation of the term 'Great Prince' in Daniel. So much mistranslation, so much doctrine change.

Translation is often interpretation.