verse equivocal

sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
verse equivocal

okay, i may be stepping out of my realm a little here but i really liked Dave_G's post "what does this verse mean to you?". 

i feel the bible is part history with hidden spiritual enlightenment. translated so many times that the original meaning may have been lost due to word definitions in that certain time period.

i think it would be good times to post some more verses and together we try to collaborate on what the meanings could be.  this thread my be a little opinion based since the authors have long gone but i would love to share each others ideas and explore the bible in a constructive fashion.

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
I love this idea.

I love this idea. Obviously I don't agree with the spiritual enlightenment part, but I definitely think it is a very important part of history, as it has influenced much of our culture for millennia. As I've been reading the Gospel of John in Koine Greek, I've come across a number of lines that seem to translate very differently then the general accepted meaning. One of my favorite is the line:

"Και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο και εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν," - John 1:14 (ya, I know, I didn't put in the accents, but I didn't bother as I could only put in one type, and I couldn't put in breathing marks or iota scripts either).

The way that the most seem to translate this is:

"And the word became flesh and dwelt AMONG us."

However, when I read it, it seems to translate as "And the word became flesh and dwelt IN us."

The key here is the word εν (en), while it can be translated as "among" it is normally translated as "in" (the way I do it), and indeed it is the way that the author of John seems to use everywhere else.

The significance of the two translations, is that the first one supports a more orthordox view of Jesus, while the way it seems to translate to me supports the view that the Gospel of John is a Gnostic text. I think this translation is further supported by John 1:12 ("But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" ) which suggests that we can becaume Jesus, or at least like him.

I'm very new to Koine Greek, and I'm hardly an expert on Gnosticism, so I would really like to hear what others have to say about this verse.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry, but I have to

I'm sorry, but I have to point this out. Translations are made from the original Hebrew and/or Greek. Your comment makes it sound like Translations are made from other translations.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Original? Where is that

Original?

Where is that 'original', simple theist? I'd like to see it.

Wait. Maybe just one letter from Paul by itself.

 

To come Rome, to come Rome, much trouble, little money

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:

Original?

Where is that 'original', simple theist? I'd like to see it.

Wait. Maybe just one letter from Paul by itself.

 

To come Rome, to come Rome, much trouble, little money

 

I was implying original language.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:

simple theist wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to point this out. Translations are made from the original Hebrew and/or Greek. Your comment makes it sound like Translations are made from other translations.

We actually don't have the originals for either the old or the new testaments. As for the the old testament, he has it pretty much right. A lot churches use old testaments based on the Greek Septuagint, so in many cases, you quite literally have a translation of a translation. Also added to the fact, that normally when someone translates the bible, so do it after they have already read it in English (or whatever their native language is) so they begin with a bias to what they think it should say. So in otherwords, people literally do start translating, based on previous translations.

As for the new testament, again we don't have an original. The best we have are varies Koine Greek manuscripts that dates hundreds of years after the original writting of the gosples/letters, and what the different versions of the gospels say vary widely. So not only do you have a problem with trying to get an accurate translation from a single manuscript, but you have to now also have to deal with the problem of different versions of the same gospel, saying different things in the original language.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca wrote: simple

Piper2000ca wrote:

simple theist wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to point this out. Translations are made from the original Hebrew and/or Greek. Your comment makes it sound like Translations are made from other translations.

We actually don't have the originals for either the old or the new testaments. As for the the old testament, he has it pretty much right. A lot churches use old testaments based on the Greek Septuagint, so in many cases, you quite literally have a translation of a translation. Also added to the fact, that normally when someone translates the bible, so do it after they have already read it in English (or whatever their native language is) so they begin with a bias to what they think it should say. So in otherwords, people literally do start translating, based on previous translations.

As for the new testament, again we don't have an original. The best we have are varies Koine Greek manuscripts that dates hundreds of years after the original writting of the gosples/letters, and what the different versions of the gospels say vary widely. So not only do you have a problem with trying to get an accurate translation from a single manuscript, but you have to now also have to deal with the problem of different versions of the same gospel, saying different things in the original language.

I did need to add that the OT is sometimes translated from the Greek, so it is a translation of a translation (however I think this is an outdated practice and most new translations go back to the original Hebrew).

As for the NT, do you have any examples where the differences in the text actually have differences that change the meaning of the text? (and also that those copies were not written by a group that most Christians would claim was purposely distorting the truth. (a document written by the gnostics for example) I honestly haven't heard of any text having a major difference. 


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
interesting, thank you for

interesting, thank you for sharing Piper. John is a very interesting book. me and a study partner used to go there a lot and the more we read, the more it's meaning seemed to almost grow into something deeper... if that makes sense.

below is a translation from the Amplified Bible. i usually use it along with other translations of the bible. the amplified bible has also helped me when looking at the original greek as a basis. sometimes there are different words for one translation... like different kinds of "flesh", both just translated into our English word "flesh". the amplified attempts to recognize the difference in the words.

(also i believe it to be kind of important to list the verses around the one in question, just to kind of know where the idea was coming from and where it went.)

------------------------- - - -------------------------

12. But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name.

13. Who owe their birth neither to bloods nor to the will of the flesh [that of physical impulse] nor to the will of man [that of a natural father], but to God. [They are born of God]

14. And the Word (Christ) became flesh (human, incarnate) and tabernacled (fixed His tent of flesh, lived awhile) among us; and we [actually] saw His glory (His honor, His majesty), such glory as an only begotten son receives from his father, full of grace (favor, loving-kindness) and truth. [Isa. 40:5]

15. John testified about Him and cried out. This was He of Whom I said, He Who comes after me has priority over me, for He was before me. [He takes rank above me, for He existed before I did. He has advanced before me, because He is my Chief.]

------------------------- - - -------------------------

Transliterated, Unaccented -- John 1...
(*how do you feel about the transliterated versions? later today i will have the actually greek available to me)

13 hoi ouk exhaimaton oude ek thelematos sarkos oude ek thelematosandros all ek Theou egennethesan.

14 Kai ho Logos sarx egeneto kai eskenosen enhemin, kai etheasametha ten doxan autou, doxan hosmonogenous para Patros, pleres charitos kai aletheias.

------------------------- - - -------------------------

from the information i have gathered John 1:14 is saying that the Word is Christ and He became flesh (human) to live among us. i really need to get my greek dictionary and strong concordance back from my mother's house before i can talk more intelligent on the subject, but i believe that it would be impossible for one to become flesh and live inside someone.

we would have to agree that greek is an inflected language. could it be possible that certain meanings could be altered considering the words in the phrase?

i'll be getting my books back today, so later i will be back and we can converse more on the subject. let me know your thoughts so far and thanks again for the post.

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:

simple theist wrote:

I did need to add that the OT is sometimes translated from the Greek, so it is a translation of a translation (however I think this is an outdated practice and most new translations go back to the original Hebrew).

    Yes, this generally is an outdated practice in terms of translation, but a lot of the translations that used the Septuagint instead of the original (which isn't really original, because it has changed over time as well) are very popular in churches.

Quote:

As for the NT, do you have any examples where the differences in the text actually have differences that change the meaning of the text? (and also that those copies were not written by a group that most Christians would claim was purposely distorting the truth. (a document written by the gnostics for example) I honestly haven't heard of any text having a major difference.

    Oh yes.  A simple example would be from Mark 3:29 ("But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation" ) that was used in the blasphemy challenge.  The last world in the verse is αμαρτηματος (hamartaymatos, meaning "sin" ), but some say αμαρτιας (which is just a different spelling), others say κρισεως/κριματος (meaning "judgment" or "condemnation" ), others say κρισεως και αμαρτιας (judgment and sin), while a few others say κολασεως (meaning "punishment" ).  Now, this doesn't have a huge impact on this particular verse, but examples like this happen multiple times on every single page (Literally every page.  I have a Koine bible and there isn't a single page that isn't almost half full with comments about differences between texts).  There are also examples were some have added or missing verses.  A really quick example would be the reference to the trinity in 1 John 5:7-8 which don't appear in anything prior to the 16th century.  There is also Mark 16:9-20 which is completely missing from older texts, and just abruptly end at 16:8 (and oddly stops with the word γαρ meaning "for," which seems very unusual).  There are also two major variations on what the ending is.  One is the shorter version:

    "And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.'

    While others have the whole longer 16:9-20 (which I'm not bother going to post here, but most new bibles like the TNIV include it).

sapphen wrote:

how do you feel about the transliterated versions? later today i will have the actually greek available to me

    Whenever I check the Greek, I've always have used a bible with standard Greek characters, so I don't really have any opinion on the transliterated versions.

Quote:

from the information i have gathered John 1:14 is saying that the Word is Christ and He became flesh (human) to live among us. i really need to get my greek dictionary and strong concordance back from my mother's house before i can talk more intelligent on the subject, but i believe that it would be impossible for one to become flesh and live inside someone.

    I was thinking the same thing, but I was also wondering if by becoming flesh, it meant dwelling inside our flesh.

Quote:

we would have to agree that greek is an inflected language. could it be possible that certain meanings could be altered considering the words in the phrase?

Absolutely.  Anyways, I'd love to post more, but I'll post this for now because I really have to head of for work.