Passage not being Translated Correctly

[oracle]

Wow, I can't believe how the bible is so wrongly translated from Greek to English. No wonder why you find contradictions.

Hey its almost 2000 years since this was written. Not only does translating Greek to English not stay faithful to the meaning, but Greek itself changed after 2000 years. Another factor, are the limits of communication. For example, I may use different defenitions to certain terms so that they have a different meaning, and when I refer to a certain term, it might be misinterpreted by the reciever who has a different definition for that same term. So then, what happens is miscommunication.


2 Thessalonians 2:1

New King James Version

For that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.



My Interpretation (taken out)

 

[linwood]

Very interesting Oracle....Thanks.

Might I ask what you are translating from?

 

[oracle]

The original greek New testament. Also from Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon
OR Thayer's Greek Lexicon. I also use some wording as to interpret in the way I believe it was meant to be interpreted. Also the way that this passage has been interpreted by scholars is very inconsistent and doesn't make any sense. Ancient greek can be easily twisted. For example, Anthropos can mean a single man, or it can mean men in general. I don't believe that he is talking about one man, but men of the sinful nature in general. There are many men who sin, not just one. Our word man, is the same as Anthropos. It can be used both singular and plural.

Usage Note: Traditionally, many writers have used man and words derived from it to designate any or all of the human race regardless of sex --www.dictionary.com

And such is the confusion with the hebrew word Adam/Adamah, which is PLURAL not singuler, and shouldn't be used as describing a single man, but is a word describing mankind as being one entity.

My translation took a lot of work, and the way I came up with this translation was to pick appropiate words that stayed consistent with the former and latter part of the context, by comparing words with with the same referances, by using common sense, and it's the year 2004 for God's sake! You see for yourself how my interpretation is smooth, making total sense of the passage, while the other is choppy, confusing to understand, and unconsistent within it's own context!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I also use some wording as to interpret in the way I believe it was meant to be interpreted.

It's called cherry-picking. What I find very silly is that someone would seriously counterpose this 'skill' to the decades of study in relevant philology that characterizes the scholarship underlying the standard translations.

 

[oracle]

It's called cherry-picking. What I find very silly is that someone would seriously counterpose this 'skill' to the decades of study in relevant philology that characterizes the scholarship underlying the standard translations.

Really? Why don't you translate it yourself from Greek, then tell us yourself what this passage is talking about. Do you have any evidense to back up this statement? Tell us, what is this passage talking about? Otherwise, their is no credible arguement to your statement.

I also use some wording as to interpret in the way I believe it was meant to be interpreted.

The scholars did the same thing! They even confess this in on of my bibles, the interlinear bible for example.

 

[No*s]

Wow, I can't believe how the bible is so wrongly translated from Greek to English. No wonder why you find contradictions.

Hey its almost 2000 years since this was written. Not only does translating Greek to English not stay faithful to the meaning, but Greek itself changed after 2000 years. Another factor, are the limits of communication. For example, I may use different defenitions to certain terms so that they have a different meaning, and when I refer to a certain term, it might be misinterpreted by the reciever who has a different definition for that same term. So then, what happens is miscommunication.

Oracle,

For starters, Modern Greek has changed a lot, but it is also still compatible with the koini of the New Testament. Rather than make such vague statements, could you tell us 1). what changes into Modern Greek pertain to your new translation? That would be a lot simpler.

Now on your interpretation/translation...I think the KJV's translation is demonstrably better.

Just two examples:

1). "O anthrwpos" means "the man." It does not mean "the men." If it ment the latter, it would have been "oi antrwpoi." That this means one man is pretty clearly indicated in 3c where it calls him "o uios tis apwleias," where you'd be far more hard pressed to make that argument.

2). "tis anomias" means "of lawlessness." It's one of those nice genitives (unless you want to make it an ablative, but that would make no sense here). "Anomia" is a compound of "Nomia" and the negative prefix "a-." Nomia means "law," and with the prefix, it means "lawlessness." The word doesn't even refer to egos.

That's just two examples in it (I don't know how you got your rendition of v. 10).

At the very least, I'm glad you called it an "interpretation." It is most certainly not an accurate as a translation.

 

[oracle]

Ah ha, the person I was looking for who studies these things. I'll tell ya later why I made changes like that.

 

[oracle]

anthropos {anth'-ro-pos}



1) a human being, whether male or female

a) generically, to include all human individuals

b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order

1) of animals and plants

2) of from God and Christ

3) of the angels

c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin

d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity

e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul

f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God

g) with reference to sex, a male

2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one

3) in the plural, people

4) joined with other words, merchantman

This will show all the verses where Anthropos is being used, and word is being used as plural in many verses, as describing the whole human race in one entity. Just as english has traditionally done the same with the word man, when clearly in modern times, it is used in singular form. Clearly the same thing was done with the word Anthropos in older Greek dialect.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/4/1104009011-4638.html

A quick example,This right here is evidence of my arguement:

Mathew 4:4
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 word for Man here is Anthropos, however it is clearer here that it is being used in a plural form. In some passages, the translaters have changed it into men, because usage for it being plural is very obvious. My arguement, it that this antropos in 2 thessalonians, it refering to Man in general. The key here is to look at how Anthropos is being used in other parts of the NT. You cannot interpret it with moderng greek dictionaries because the word usage and dialect has changed much after 2000 years.

you stated: Modern Greek has changed a lot, but it is also still compatible with the koini of the New Testament.

I don't believe this to be totally true, because some word usage it not compatible. Just as english has changed within a couple centuries. However, this greek dialect is 2000 years old!

Just as we traditionally used Man as plural, but now in modern times it is used only in singular form.

 

[oracle]

The point of my interpretation is to modernize the meaning of the passage. Translated literally from greek, it is confusing to understand and easily misinterpreted. First of all, it is in a different language. Second of all this greek dialect is 2000 years old. I came up with this arguement by observing how the word Anthropos was being used in other passages. Clearly now, my translation from lawlessness to transgression is not a clearly valid one. Or what I mean is that the arguement to change the wording that way isn't as strong as my arguement for anthropos. But that is not important. My main argument is this word Anthropos.

 

[oracle]

Here is the actual literal translation from Greek to English:

becaus unless comes the falling away first, and is revealed the man of sin, the son of perdition, he opposing and exalting himself over everything being called God, or subject of worship, so as him in the temple of God he as God to sit, showing himself that he is a God. Do you not remember that yet being with you, these things I told you? And now the thing restraining you know, for to be revealed him in the him of time. the For mystery of already works of lawlessness, only he restraining now, until out of midst it comes. And then will be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord will consume by the spirit of the mouth of Him, and the coming according to the working of Satan in all power and signs and wonders of a lie, and with all deciet of unrighteousness in those being lost; because the love of the truth not they recieved for to be saved them. And because of this will send to them God a working of error for to believe them the lie, that may be judged all those not believing the truth, but having pleasure in unrighteousness.

What I tried to do was modernize it, and I can show you why I logically made all the changes I did. All this is just an example of ONE change with the word Anthropos. Now, can you tell me for certain that there is a reason why it has to be singular within its context. That's what I'm really wondering. Now, what you say is true, it's my interpretation of it, that's why I don't necassarily call it a translation. I really feal that it is talking about men in general. However, I am going to talk to an expert.

 

[Melody]

I think I've just committed one of the seven deadly sins - envy. I am sooo envious of those of you who read Greek and Hebrew <sigh>.

Interesting thread btw.

Melody

 

[oracle]

Another thing, to be a son of perdition is metaphor. How can you literally be a son of destruction? I will get into in detail later on...

 

[No*s]

Oracle,

Thank you for trying to give me reasons why you're translating it that way.

I also need to note that before I go on, I will be using Betacode to denote my Greek. I don't know if you can read Betacode or not, so here is an intro:

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/OM/Beta-codes.html

I'm fudging on the final sigma and caps.

First things first. What I mean when I ask for reasons why a translation is translated a certain way is actual grammatical and contextual reasons why it should be done so. Quoting from the Strong's Concordance, Thayers, or any other lexicon rarely constitutes that action, except on those occasions where the definition itself is in question.

You highlighted three definitions as applicable to your translation of "anthropos." They go:

1) a human being, whether male or female

a) generically, to include all human individuals
b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order

<snip>

f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God

3) in the plural, people

Definition #3 is irrelevant. The phrase " o( a)/nqrwpos th=s a)nomi/as " is not plural.

Definition 1a "generically, to include all human individuals" is also irrelevant. If you consult Liddell and Scott, also available online, it says that blatantly, "Pl. uses it both with and without the Art. to denote man generically." This effectively jettisons 1a. The same basic thing applies to 1b.

Definition 1f is a very context sensitive definition. It doesn't fit this context, though. The "two-fold nature of man" isn't even mentioned in the passage in question. The comparison required isn't possible.

So, those definitions you highlighted do not apply to this text. They can't apply to this text. Not only is o( a)/nqrwpos singular, but it is definate. The article makes it refer to a particular person, and since it's a)/nqrwpos, it is still pretty general: he is unidentified, but it's one person. Your translation "men of egoistic nature" requires something beginning with a)/nqrwpoi. It must lack the article.

The phrase "of egoistic nature" completely ignores the definition of a)nomi/a, as I outlined previously.

The point of my interpretation is to modernize the meaning of our current dialect. Translated literally from greek, it is confusing to understand.

When you brought it across into English, you made it say things in English that the Greek cannot mean (as noted above). There are also other problems in the translation, but dealing with one phrase should be sufficient.

I am also well aware of how "confusing" a literal translation is. However, your translation below is not a literal translation. It is a translation of individual words, sometimes not a very good one there at all, brought across with no sensitivity to English grammar. Changing word order does not decrease literallness. It merely makes it comprehensible in the target language.

Here is a literal translation of the 2.3:

"Do not allow a man to deceive you according any manner because if the falling away should not come first and the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, should be revealed."

This is the same cleaned up a little:

"By no means, do not allow anyone to deceive you, because the falling away must come first and that man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, is revealed."

Both are clear in their context, but finally cleaned up to production level:

"By no means, do not allow anyone to deceive you. That day won't come unless the falling away comes first and the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, is revealed."

The first version of 2.3 is a very literal translation. The second version is still literal but less so. The third version is pretty standard.

A word-for-word translation of a passage that doesn't take into account its target language is not literal. It's a form of cryptography, and it would elicit an "F" from a Greek professor.

EDIT:

You can read the Lexicon I cited at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu

 

[oracle]

So basically your saying that it's other words within the context that determin whether if it's being used in a plural or singular form?

can you explain to me why anthropos is bein used here in a plural form?

Mathew 4:4
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.

 

[No*s]

I think I've just committed one of the seven deadly sins - envy. I am sooo envious of those of you who read Greek and Hebrew <sigh>.

Interesting thread btw.

Melody

Melody,

Don't be. It allows you to be more specific, but translations allow you to get the sense of a passage accurately almost all the time. I know of very few contexts where I think that most translations are inaccurate or unacceptably so (there are places where some degree of inaccuracy is necessary to get the point across).

If someone is making a major doctrinal point, and their point hinges on "Greek" or "Hebrew," then it's a pretty safe bet that they're trying to fill you full of it. Like I said, there are places, but I would count on its not being so if I were you.

Of course, you could always up and study it lol.

 

[oracle]

It is a translation of individual words, sometimes not a very good one there at all... http://www.perseus.tufts.edu

I see what you mean here

 

[No*s]

So basically your saying that it's other words within the context that determin whether if it's being used in a plural or singular form?

can you explain to me why anthropos is bein used here in a plural form?

Mathew 4:4
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.

Because the quote is from the Septuagint. The LXX version of Dt. 8.4 has that text verbatim. The LXX is also not standard Greek. In fact, sometimes it makes no sense in Greek.

The NT's vocabulary is heavily influenced by the LXX. On the whole however, its grammar is not compatible except where it quotes it, or in some portions of Revelation where grammar gets rather hairy.

 

[No*s]

I see what you mean here

OK, that's good lol.

 

[anders]

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.

 

[oracle]

Is this singular word being used in plural form? Is there greek grammer within the context noting that this word "anthropos" (being singular) should be used in plural form? If I'm not mistaken, it was used as both in older greek dialect.

1). "O anthrwpos" means "the man." It does not mean "the men." If it ment the latter, it would have been "oi antrwpoi." That this means one man is pretty clearly indicated in 3c where it calls him "o uios tis apwleias," where you'd be far more hard pressed to make that argument.

However, I notice how you said "O anthropos" would mean "THE man"

Mathew 4:4
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
Strongs Numbers: 611, 2036, 1125, 3756, 1909, 740, 3441, 2198, 444, 235, 1909, 3956, 4487, 1607, 1223, 4750, 2316.

[/font] Literal:
He but answering said, it has been written: Not on bread alone shall live man, but on every word proceeding through the mouth of God.
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
Greek Pronounced:
[/font](A)apokrinomai (B)epo (C)grapho (D)ou (E)epi (F)artos (G)monos (H)zao (I)anthropos (J)alla (E)epi (K)pas (L)rhema (M)ekporeuomai (N)dia (O)stoma (P)theos.

Thayers Lexicon:
(A)apokrinomai
1) to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer
2) to begin to speak, but always where something has preceded (either said or done) to which the remarks refer

(B)epo
1) to speak, say

(C)grapho1) to write, with reference to the form of the letters
a) to delineate (or form) letters on a tablet, parchment, paper, or other material
2) to write, with reference to the contents of the writing
a) to express in written characters
b) to commit to writing (things not to be forgotten), write down, record
c) used of those things which stand written in the sacred books (of the OT)
d) to write to one, i.e. by writing (in a written epistle) to give information, directions
3) to fill with writing
4) to draw up in writing, compose

(D)ou
1) no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answer

(E)epi
1) upon, on, at, by, before
2) of position, on, at, by, over, against
3) to, over, on, at, across, against

(F)artos
1) food composed of flour mixed with water and baked
a) the Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one's thumb, and as large as a plate or platter hence it was not to be cut but broken
b) loaves were consecrated to the Lord
c) of the bread used at the love-feasts and at the Lord's Table
2) food of any kind

(G)monos
1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely

(H)zao
1) to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)
2) to enjoy real life
a) to have true life and worthy of the name
b) active, blessed, endless in the kingdom of God
3) to live i.e. pass life, in the manner of the living and acting
a) of mortals or character
4) living water, having vital power in itself and exerting the same upon the soul
5) metaph. to be in full vigour
a) to be fresh, strong, efficient,
b) as adj. active, powerful, efficacious

(I)anthropos
1) a human being, whether male or female
a) generically, to include all human individuals
b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order
1) of animals and plants
2) of from God and Christ
3) of the angels
c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin
d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity
e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul
f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God
g) with reference to sex, a male
2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one
3) in the plural, people
4) joined with other words, merchantman

(J)alla
1) free from pain or grief

(K)pas
1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
a) some of all types

(L)rhema
1) that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word
a) any sound produced by the voice and having definite meaning
b) speech, discourse
1) what one has said
c) a series of words joined together into a sentence (a declaration of one's mind made in words)
1) an utterance
2) a saying of any sort as a message, a narrative
a) concerning some occurrence
2) subject matter of speech, thing spoken of
a) so far forth as it is a matter of narration
b) so far as it is a matter of command c) a matter of dispute, case at law

(M)ekporeuomai
1) to go forth, go out, depart
2) metaph.
a) to come forth, to issue, to proceed
1) of feelings, affections, deeds, sayings
b) to flow forth
1) of a river
c) to project, from the mouth of one
d) to spread abroad, of a rumour

(N)dia
1) through
a) of place
1) with
2) in
b) of time
1) throughout
2) during
c) of means
1) by
2) by the means of
2) through
a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
1) by reason of
2) on account of
3) because of for this reason
4) therefore
5) on this account

(O)stoma
1) the mouth, as part of the body: of man, of animals, of fish, etc.
a) since thoughts of a man's soul find verbal utterance by his mouth, the "heart" or "soul" and the mouth are distinguished
2) the edge of a sword

(P)theos
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
a) refers to the things of God
b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
a) God's representative or viceregent
1) of magistrates and judges

Interlinear:
But answering, He said, it has been written: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word going out of the mouth of God.

Standard Versions:

New American Standard Version:
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But He answered and said, "It is written, `MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.' "

American Standard Version:
[/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 King James Version:
[/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 proceeds from the mouth of God.' "

King James Version:
[/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.

Holman Christian Standard Bible:
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But He answered, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."
[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] Continued on next page...

[/font]