/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Just become KJV only and all these problems go away.

I'm unironically KJV only

What's the alternative, not reading at all? Do you know koine greek and Hebrew better than the translators?

Use a formal equivalence translation and a concordance

>>725766

The kill/murder distinction is so pedantic. Who cares? The Bible promotes the death penalty and the eating of animals, so obviously when it says kill it's talking about murder. And word is a perfectly acceptable translation of logos. The only times I think translations suffer is when

1. we now have more information about a subject we didn't know, giving more context to a verse

2. people insist on reading a specific translation and refuse to ever look up the backing to a verse giving them issue

Most people will never reach a good enough level of Hebrew, Aramaic, Gr–k, or Latin to read the Bible in its earliest forms. Those who commit to studying it generally just make their own translation anyway. I say just read the Bible in the vernacular, whatever language you know best

The number one issue in the history of English translation is the transliteration of βαπτιζω instead of translation to IMMERSION

>>725797

We care because libshits love to take "Thou shall not kill" out of context to say that self defense and repelling invaders is wrong.

>>725820

Ironically, it's Islam that teaches violent self-defense is wrong.

>[2:190] “You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.”

>[2:192] “If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.”

Logos as Word is cucked? But the Hebrew word "Dvar" does mean word (it also means "thing"). Christ is the Dvar of Yahweh.

How some words I've come across could be more literally translated.

jailer (desmophúlax) – bondage guard

prison (phulaké) – ward

prisoner (désmios) – bound

centurion where it's originally "hecatontarch" – hundred-leader

chief captain, tribune ("chiliarch") – thousand-leader

wise men (mágoi) – mages

church (eccleisía) – convocation

synagogue (sunagogé) – congregation

>>725834

centurion comes from centum = hundred

>>725836

I know, and the Greek in turn is a calque, believed by some to be of Old Persian *θata-pati- (“commander of hundred [men]”)

David Bentley Hart's translation of the NT is unironically really good. Some of his choices are bizarre but at least he puts notes to 1) justify his choices and 2) show alternate words that could be used.

Matthew 19:18 is translated as:

>He says to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness"

John 1:1 is translated as:

>In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with Gᴏᴅ, and the Logos was god

>>725843

That looks like a good translation.

>>725843

Upload?

>>725833

Logos also means word, it just can also be used in a philosophical context

>The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word (logos) only, and my servant shall be healed.

>And whosoever speaketh a word (logos) against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

>So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying (logos) is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

Those are times where logos does just mean word, saying, or discourse, as opposed to the eternal Logos of God

>>725843

Personally, I'm very suspicious of his translation. I've heard sketchy things.

>>725843

The only issue I have with David Bentley Hart's is that his translation is intended to show people how the people in the time of the early church would view the verses. As such, some of them are written ambiguously in that they could be interpreted in an Arian or Eunomian way as much as they could be interpreted in a proper trinitarian way. He makes sure in the commentary to explain how people would interpret different verses, and he makes it clear that he is an Orthodox Trinitarian and supports their view, so he definitely doesn't espouse any heretical views in that book. I just think it wouldn't be wise to give to a baby Christian for use as their first New Testament, as they made find it confusing and wind up with weird doctrine.

I read the whole thing, and found it very good and informative, it's just I have that concern about someone leaning too much on it as opposed to viewing it in the context of the early church it's trying to replicate. I can imagine a heretic finding support in that translation more than any other. So long as you pay attention to the commentary, and make sure to also read actual church doctrine, I don't think you'll have much of a problem

>>725847

I don't have an electronic version of it. Also I don't have the book with me so I found these online, so don't ask me about other verses. Well, a good chunk of Matthew is on the Amazon preview, if you want to look.

>>725848

The problem is that Logos as used in John 1:1 means a concept that "Word" doesn't automatically cover. The non-Greek word that covers it best would be "Tao". So of course not every instance of "logos" should be kept in Greek, but translating it as "Word" in John 1:1, while it does convey the notion of Jesus being the perfect "expression" of the Father, still doesn't convey everything the author meant by "Logos".

While this isn't usually a problem, since Bibles with notes and such usually explain what "Logos" implies, and if you have a pastor/priest he can easily explain it to you, it can still lead to some problems - see Steven Anderson making an equivalency between rhema and logos and concluding that the Bible *is* Jesus.

>>725849

His translation is great if you ask me. He does make unorthodox choices, like keeping "word" as Logos, or how he translates what would usually be "God" in John as "Gᴏᴅ", "ɢᴏᴅ", or "god" based on context and grammar, or how he translates "eternal" as "of the Age" many times, or how he tries to convey the voice of the original text rather than making a "literal" translation which is a choice one may love or hate (I personally love it).

I think there is nothing "heretical" about his translation and it makes more evident why things like Arianism, universalism… were genuinely debated problems in the East when it looks like the answer would be obvious based on our current translated Bibles that are themselves already filtered through a Nicene and Chalcedonian theological perspective.

>>725851

Yes, it's not supposed to be your first Bible. It's for people who already live in a theologically orthodox environment but would like to see the text's original voices (that translations tend to quiet down) and how the scriptures may have sounded to the early Christians and the Church Fathers - justifying why the disputes that caused the 7 ecumenical councils even happened to begin with.

>>725853

I have an epub but libgen isn't letting me upload for some reason, sorry guys. I did post all of the prologue of John+the commentary in the logos thread

>>725611

>>725769

What about the Geneva Bible ?

>One example is Matthew 19:18 where pic is translated to kill

It's translated to murder in both the KJV and DRB.

>where Logos is translated to word

Logos translates to word.

>Is this a fallacy of English Bibles or personal interpretation in general?

Personal interpretation. The Church knows the full meaning of the verses, even in the ones that appear to be easy to understand. Be like the eunuch in Acts 8:31.

>>725834

>jailer (desmophúlax) – bondage guard

Bondage guard is nonsensical in english. Jailer is both the meaning and appropriate translation.

>prison (phulaké) – ward

Prison is the most accurate translation into english.

>prisoner (désmios) – bound

Again, in context, it is the best translation.

>centurion where it's originally "hecatontarch" – hundred-leader

They mean literally the same thing.

>chief captain, tribune ("chiliarch") – thousand-leader

Again appropriate. They had control over thousands.

>wise men (mágoi) – mages

In the context of the wise men, it is talking about astrologers, not mages. Regardless, wise men isn't a translation that I particularly like either.

>church (eccleisía) – convocation

Church means gathering. It is an appropriate translation.

>synagogue (sunagogé) – congregation

It's refering to the specific congregations of the Jews, not just any congregation. It is appropriate to give it a specific name.

>>725914

Rendering them in such a manner gives new life to the meaning in a way which immerses one into the Hellenistic mindset more. It's fir those who want to go deeper to get a better sense of were it comes from. No need to limit oneself to the interpretations of early modern translators.

The word for prison is derived from that of a guard as is "ward" in English.

In Acts 22:26 by merely translating it into centurion you lose that transition of the hundred to the thousand.

>In the context of the wise men, it is talking about astrologers, not mages.

Who are you to say that it isn't. Do you expect to tether the historical truth to your rationalistic quibbles?

Convocation and congregation are much better translations of church and synagogue as they were not terms specific to places of worship that were suddenly coined when the NT was written and also provides clearer insight into their purpose as well.

>>725923

Also the Gospel of Mark does use centurion proper.

>>725923

> Do you expect to tether the historical truth to your rationalistic quibbles?

Magi has Zoroastrian connotations, they were not dungeons and dragons type mages lol

>>725925

The meaning isn't restricted to some modern board game context either.

>>725925

Greek: mágoi (μᾰγοι)

Latin: magi

Syriac: mgúshe (ܡܓܘܫܐ)

Wonderful example of the historical cosmopolitanism attestable through Christian scripture.

magi (n.)

c. 1200, "skilled magicians, astrologers," from Latin magi, plural of magus "magician, learned magician," from Greek magos, a word used for the Persian learned and priestly class as portrayed in the Bible (said by ancient historians to have been originally the name of a Median tribe), from Old Persian magush "magician" (see magic). Also, in Christian history, the "wise men" who, according to Matthew, came from the east to Jerusalem to do homage to the newborn Christ (late 14c.). Related: Magian.

magi (n.)

c. 1200, "skilled magicians, astrologers," from Latin magi, plural of magus "magician,

>>725930

The word magician comes from magi not magi from magician. The connotations we have for magician nowadays do not apply to Zoroastrian magi. They were priests and astrologers not proto-Gandalfs.

>>725936

Accidentally posted the etymology for magi twice at the end. Here's the one for mage. Regardless I think even mage is preferable to magi as the originally Greek didn't apply so loan suffix not native to the language either.

mage (n.)

"magician, enchanter," c. 1400, Englished form of Latin magus "magician, learned magician," from Greek magos, a word used for the Persian learned and priestly class as portrayed in the Bible (said by ancient historians to have been originally the name of a Median tribe), from Old Persian magush "magician" (see magic and compare magi). An "archaic" word by late 19c. (OED), revived by fantasy games.

>>725937

Not sure what you're driving at. Are we in agreement that magi in the Bible refers to Zoroastrian magi and not wizards?

>>725940

I believe the word can be applied to them as well.

Also there's no guarantee such characters weren't believed to be enchanters and magicians, rather they likely were.

If it is of some doctrinal concern to you keep in mind their visit took place before the crucifixion i.e. atonement.

>>725942

On what basis do you believe that they practiced enchantment? Because the dictionary said so?

>>725944

Well if the dictionary said then it must have derived that from somewhere such as a reputable historical source.

Looking at French and Spanish translations just now they also use mages and magos, which do have connotations of magician.

It's when look into the translations of historical protestant domains such as the Dutch and German that an autistic reluctance to translate it in such a manner is exhibited.

>>725944

There's also Simon Magus.

>>725951

Yes, he would be an example of a magician in the pejorative sense, a "magus".

>>725946

A dictionary is not a sufficient source to demonstrate something that weighty. You will need stronger evidence to back up that claim. It's a very strange thing to claim that Christ was visited at his birth and received gifts from wizards.

>>725952

Well if the bible and dictionary both indicate similarity why should it be any different.

People believed in magic. The bible doesn't exclude the possibility of it's existence. All the mages saw was a star which they followed.

In Acts pagan devotees are also converted. There shouldn't be anything sacrilegious about infant Jesus being visited by non-Christians considering he would go on to lay his hands on lepers and demoniacs.

Wise men would have been sophists or gnostics.