Passage not being Translated Correctly

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] Third Millenium Bible:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But He answered and said, "It is written: `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'"

New Living Translation:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But Jesus told him, "No! The Scriptures say, 'People need more than bread for their life; they must feed on every word of God.'[/font]
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
New Revised Standard:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But he answered, "It is written, "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] Revised Standard Version:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"[/font]
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
Good News Translation:
But Jesus answered, "The scripture says, "Human beings cannot live on bread alone, but need every word that God speaks.' "

Douay-Rheims Bible:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] Modern Versions

The Messege:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Jesus answered by quoting Deuteronomy: "It takes more than bread to stay alive. It takes a steady stream of words from God's mouth."

The Complete Jewish Bible:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But he answered, "The Tanakh says, `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of ADONAI'"[/font]
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
New Century Version:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Jesus answered, "It is written in the Scriptures, 'A person does not live by eating only bread, but by everything God says.'"

God's Word Translation:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Jesus answered, "Scripture says, 'A person cannot live on bread alone but on every word that God speaks.'"

Hebrew Names Version:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'"

World English Bible:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'"

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The Bible in Basic English:
But he made answer and said, It is in the Writings, Bread is not man's only need, but every word which comes out of the mouth of God.

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Youngs Literal Translation:
But he answering said, `It hath been written, Not upon bread alone doth man live, but upon every word coming forth from the mouth of God.'

Older Versions:

The Darby Translation:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But he answering said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which goes out through God's mouth.

The Webster Bible:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The Latin Vulgate:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]qui respondens dixit scriptum est non in pane solo vivet homo sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei

Other Versions:

Weymouth New Testament:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"It is written," replied Jesus, "`It is not on bread alone that a man shall live, but on whatsoever God shall appoint.'"[/font]

No*s · Dec 25, 2004

anders said:
I know very little Greek, but I know several other languages and am a professional translator. After checking out several versions, including the rather new and reliable Swedish "Bibel 2000", I find that I agree with No*s on the translations as well as on the points regarding translation theory, just adding that "literal" or "word-by-word" translations IMNSHO only can produce errors.

Well anders. You're better off than me *grin*. Obviously, I know English and Ancient Greek, but beside that, I'm rather limited lol (a little Latin is not sufficient to count).

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]You said the men would have been translated as "Anthropoi"

If I'm not mistaken Anthropoi is actually modern greek, and wasn't used in acient greek dialect, but Anthropos was used as both singular and plural.

--http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

Well, I have to prove the above statement first, before it becomes valid, so let me gather rescources. What could probably render the above statement invalid, is if I find anthropoi in the greek NT, which shouldn't be hard.

I am not at all saying that you are wrong, you know more greek than me. In fact your one of the peoples I was looking for. I just have some theory behind this, and I'm trying to prove whether or not its wrong.
[/font]

No*s · Dec 25, 2004

Oracle,

You don't need to post whole lexicon references for words, and I wouldn't even bother with numbers from Strong's Concordance. IMO, it borders on worthless and causes far more harm than good. I can also assure you that I am well aware of the meanings of a)/nqrwpos, a)pokri/nomai and those other exceedingly common words.

Posting whole entries is redundant and confusing.

Languages are more than the sum of their parts. Looking at every word cannot take into account context, grammar, idiom, and the like. Word for word studies are misleading. We have to talk about grammar, context, idiom, and all these other things...

Now, on Matthew 4.4, let me spell it out clearly.

In the 3rd century BC some Jews in Alexandria translated the Pentateuch into Greek. Over time other books were translated into Greek. I even suspect there was more than one translation extant in the era before Christ, and I know more came along afterwards (like Theodotian's revision of Daniel).

These translations range from extremely liberal Greek to an attempt at representing Hebrew in Greek. In some places, they read beuatifully. In other places, the translator takes so many liberties with Greek grammar it almost seems incomprehensable.

As a result, the LXX has its own peculuarities. It isn't like Hellenistic Greek (the Koini). It isn't like Attic Greek before it. It's a "bastardized Greek" that isn't really Greek at all. It almost totally lacks the men...de formations and other particles that are normative in Greek. It's not exactly uncommon for it to use a participle as a main verb, and that is a no-no in Greek.

There are numerous other "bastardizations" of the Greek language in the LXX. This is important to the issue you're trying to use to support your translation. Matthew 4.4 is indisputably a quote from Deuteronomy 8.4. It has the exact same text as the passage in Deut.

The fact that a quote in the LXX says something proves just about nothing for Hellenistic Greek grammar. Anyone who's read the LXX can affirm what I'm saying about how quirky it can be.

You could quote 5000 translations by competent translators, and it wouldn't prove a thing about standard Hellenistic Greek grammar from this passage. The translators would have taken issues like this into account.

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

Nope, so far I don't see "oi anthropoi" being used in the greek bible. I've been looking in other rescources too. If so, this may conclude that "anthropos" was both used as singular and plural in an older greek dialect, or should I say "bastardized" greek dialect.

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

No*s said:
This is important to the issue you're trying to use to support your translation. Matthew 4.4 is indisputably a quote from Deuteronomy 8.4. It has the exact same text as the passage in Deut.

Wow, in Deuteronomy 8.4, the word being used for "man" is Adam. Adam, is plural. Let me do some more research before I say anything more.

No*s · Dec 25, 2004

oracle said:
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]You said the men would have been translated as "Anthropoi"

If I'm not mistaken Anthropoi is actually modern greek, and wasn't used in acient greek dialect.

Well, I have to prove the above statement first, before it becomes valid, so let me gather rescources. What could probably render the above statement invalid, is if I find anthropoi in the greek NT, which shouldn't be hard.

I am not at all saying that you are wrong, you know more greek than me. In fact your one of the peoples I was looking for. I just have some theory behind this, and I'm trying to prove whether or not its wrong.

You are very mistaken.

A second declension masculine noun is one of the most regular formations and is used extremely often. Even the article follows its declension.

Here is the declension of a)/qrwpos in Hellenistic Green. I'm doing it double column, so I hope it doesn't get screwed up.

Singular:
N o( a)/nqrwpos
GA tou= a)nqrw/pou
DLI tw=| a)nqrw/pw|
Acc to\n a)/nqrwpon

Plural:
N oi( a)/nqrwpoi
GA tw=n a)nqrw/pwn
DLI toi=s a)nqrw/pois
Acc tou\s a)nqrw/pous

Notice that I included the article. It is one of the most common words in Greek (surpassed only by to ei)mi/ and maybe kai/ and de/).

I omitted the vocative, because it's redundant. I omitted the dual, because it's almost never used in the Hellenistic era (Off the top of my head, I can only think of one author who used it).

Here is the Modern Greek formation. I don't know Modern Greek. I can get a "jist" from articles and things, because of its similarity to Hellenistic Greek. However, I'm copying this from a Modern Greek grammar, because I'm not competent in Modern Greek.

Singular:
N o fi/los
G tou fi/lou
Acc to fi/lo

Plural:
N o fi/los
G tou fi/lou
Acc tous fi/lous

Notice that it also has the -oi ending. It has lost the dative case. It has lost the polytonic accent system. It retains the -oi ending.

This ending is present in Modern Greek. I've seen it in Katharevousa (an artificial variant of Modern Greek). I've seen it in Patristic Greek. I've seen it in Hellenistic Greek. I've seen it in Hellenic Greek. I've seen it in Homeric Greek. I haven't read the Linear B tablets (don't know the writing system), but I'd be willing to bet my life savings that it's in that also.

Here's a suggestion. You're getting in too deep for what you know at the moment. Go pick up a copy of Athenaze! to study Attic Greek, Clyde Pharr's Homeric Greek (an excellent text), or some other Greek grammar. Make sure it's Attic or Homeric Greek, though. I strongly advise against studying "biblical" Greek. There is no such animal.

When you've gone through your first grammar, use the site http://www.perseus.tufts.edu to generate vocab lists, and it also has several books on it. Spend somewhere between half an hour to an hour at a minimum every day. After about two years of that, then you will be able to open the NT (remember to read it with the LXX, or you'll not see some shades of meanings in the words or won't see some literary allusions). After a while of readin it, you'll be ready to attempt to correct a Modern translation.

I took my first year of Greek in 1997. I worked two years there, and made it the focus of my "religious" studies in the university (not all of it was very "religious."). I studied different dialects of Greek and began procuring many Greek grammars. This means I have about seven years of Greek study, according to the criteria I described to you, under my belt.

I learned something very important in the course of my studies on that. If I'm the only person saying something, if there are no scholars and theologians saying it, if somebody hasn't said it in the past 2000 years, then I am wrong. I've thought I could correct it in the past, and I have always been proven wrong. Trust me on that.

By doing what I've described, you'll learn the Greek language, and you'll be able to read the Bible in Greek (It's harder to compose Greek, but oh well). It's long and hard, but that's the only way you'll be able to feasibly criticize translations (and there are places where it's quite possible).

Sorry for the long-winded end...

EDIT:

That Greek "table" didn't come out well. I'm have changed it to single column.

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Mathew 8:27 So the men marveled, saying, "Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"

OK, found anthropoi here.
[/font]

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

No*s said:
Go pick up a copy of Athenaze! to study Attic Greek, Clyde Pharr's Homeric Greek (an excellent text), or some other Greek grammar. Make sure it's Attic or Homeric Greek, though. I strongly advise against studying "biblical" Greek. There is no such animal.

Ok, will do. Well at least its better for me to write here where someone can give me constructive critisicm, that way I don't go around making false statements.

No*s · Dec 25, 2004

Good *grin*.

I think that you'll find the study fun. It takes a while, and it takes a lot of patience, but it can be quite fun.

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

Here, have some frubals for all that hard work.

Bah... I can only give 1 frubal

No*s · Dec 25, 2004

oracle said:
Wow, in Deuteronomy 8.4, the word being used for "man" is Adam. Adam, is plural. Let me do some more research before I say anything more.

I will rarely say anything about Hebrew, because I don't know it, but I'd be careful there. I'm willing to bet that it's singular...

I do know it is in the LXX *grin*.

No*s · Dec 25, 2004

oracle said:
Here, have some frubals for all that hard work. Bah... I can only give 1 frubal

I appreciate the sentiment lol.

I never give them out, because I've discovered that if I move the cursor over the "frubals" text, it just reloads the page.

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

Well its actually used as both plural and singular in Genesis, (this being an actuall known arguement) but that is probably due to the grammer within the context. The translators used Adam to both describe Adam (the first man), and Adam (mankind). Adam means man, or "red earth" in Hebrew.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

The highligted word is the hebrew word Adam.

But then I read an article that stated how you determine whether the word is plural or singular by looking at the context.

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

Bah... You can't give yourself frubals?

I think I at least deserve one for trying.

No*s · Dec 25, 2004

oracle said:
Well its actually used as both plural and singular in Genesis, (this being an actuall known arguement) but that is probably due to the grammer within the context. The translators used Adam to both describe Adam (the first man), and Adam (mankind). Adam means man, or "red earth" in Hebrew.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

The highligted word is the hebrew word Adam.

But then I read an article that stated how you determine whether the word is plural or singular by looking at the context.

I doubt that the article does that. An article, by definition, is a word that operates like the English words "a," "an," or "the." Heck, even some can work like it. However, I don't know Hebrew, and it's possible.

Perhaps somebody on the board will settle the issue. I've taken the LXX as far as I can here, and I dare go no further.

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

Well I guess that means you're "O Anthropos" when it comes to Greek grammatical issues... At least I'm more aware and careful.

oracle · Dec 25, 2004

No*s said:
I doubt that the article does that.

I meant article as in an arguement that someone wrote.
Question:

I have heard that an exact translation of some Hebrew words to English are not exact. One particular Oneness author believes that a singular meaning may be present in Genesis 1:26 "I will make man...." I have also heard that in this particular instance that the pronouns "us" and "our" are not present, but implied by the plurality of these Hebrew words.

My questions is could God be speaking about creation of ALL men, not justAdam? God forms the spirit of man within everyone who was ever born (Zech 12:1). If God was speaking about creating billions of people throughout time, could these words be pluralized to reflect this, and the pronouns exist only because these words are not accurately translated into the English?

Answer:

The way the Hebrew language works, there are no pronouns separate from verbs or nouns. The pronouns are attached to the end of words to indicate who is possessing the noun or verb. In Genesis 1:26, both the verb "make" (asah) and the noun "image" (tselem) are in the plural. The verb is in the first person plural form (indicated by the absence of a suffix in this case), which cannot be understood in any other way than "let us make." The phrase "in our image" is all one word in Hebrew (btselemnou). "In" comes from the Hebrew prefix "b," (Hebrew letter beth) and the "our" comes from the suffix "nou." This noun has a first-person plural pronominal ending which cannot be interpreted in any other way than in a plural sense. I know why some would like to find a way around the plural usage in this verse, but there is no grammatical evidence that would teach anything to the contrary. I do not believe this verse is problematic, however. I deal with this usage of the plural, along with other OT plural verses in my paper entitled, Plural Pronouns Used For God.

The only way we could understand this verse to be referring to all humanity is if the word for "man" was in the plural; however, it is not. It is the singular form. The plural usage in this verse is in reference to God, not man. There are no humans in existence yet, and yet God says "Let us makeman in our image."

Question:

I have mulled over your explanation of why Genesis 1:26 cannot refer to all of mankind, because the word "man" is in singular form. However, there are still three questions I have regarding this verse, and I would appreciate your answer to them.
(1) Even though "man" is in the singular, God says "let them" have dominion. "them"
refers back to the word "man".
(2) The word "man" comes from the Hebrew word "adam" which means "mankind". cannot all of mankind be spoken of in a singular sense, even though it includes many people?
(3) Even though I do not trust the Amplified version, it nevertheless translates this word "mankind".

Please understand, I am not trying to be right because of my position, but I want to be right because of the truth, no matter what. Please answer these questions so that I can throw this "theory" in the trash if it is incorrect!

Answer:

Most definitely the Hebrew word adam (man) is used in the sense of mankind in the Scripture, being viewed as one entity. That I do not doubt. This is irrelevant to the plural pronoun issue of Genesis 1:26, however. The plural pronouns are used in reference to God, not adam-"Let us make man in our image." It does not say "Let me make men in my image." The plural usage is most definitely being used for someone other than man in this passage. There is no grammatical way for us to view the plural pronouns as applying to man.

Question:

I will except your explanation, but let me run one last thought by you.. When we read Genesis, we see God speaking into existence the total purpose of his creation. For instance, God not only spoke the trees into existence, but also how they would procreate themselves with their "seed". Thus in a prophetic sense, God foretold how they would multiply.

Could God be speaking the procreation of man into existence in Genesis 1:26? Notice that God said, "And let them have dominion". The word "them" includes all of mankind, who would have had dominion over all of the earth.

Who personally created you? It was both God and your parents. Your parents, through procreation, created you, but God also created you individually (Zechariah 12:1). Everyone who ever had offspring helped God create the human race. God can see beyond time, and he realized this when he spoke into existence the procreation of man. He realized that individual human beings would help Him propagate the species. Unlike the rest of his creation, they were individuals. Therefore, the word "us" in Genesis 1:26 includes every human being that ever helped the human race "go forth and multiply".

Answer:

I see what you are saying, but I do not believe the interpretation makes logical sense. If it were true that the plural pronouns are referring to God and mankind, then we would have God speaking to humanity, before humanity was even created. It may be argued that God speaks things which are not as though they were, but there is yet another problem. If humanity is included in the plural pronouns, then how can God make man in the image of us, if the us includes humanity? Is humanity being made in the image of God and humanity? Such would be circular reasoning, but this would be the logical conclusion of the proposed interpretation. We are made in the image of God, not our own image.

No*s · Dec 25, 2004

Well, I can't speak on Hebrew any further than I have. I've been meaning to pick it up and study it for a year or two (maybe then I'll speak).

No*s · Dec 25, 2004

oracle said:
I meant article as in an arguement that someone wrote.

Ooooh, that makes more sense.

I'd still be careful. I know a few people who know Hebrew. I can probably email one them the question and ask. I could talk to my heart's content about Greek but not Hebrew...

Passage not being Translated Correctly

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious