Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Knute
I regularly refer to 7.

You left one study option out - but it's not a translation. There are resources where even the ignorant (like me) can find word by word explanations of the original text. There are words or phrases where the very best possible translation into English still doesn't capture the original, because the vocabulary and structure of English doesn't match the Greek (or Hebrew). An example is the three distinct words in Greek (agape, philios, eros) for which English only has one (love). Unless you look at the original, you may miss part of the message.

But for real study, your basic point is what I think is correct: Look at more than one translation (and in my case, the original) and try to understand, not just memorize the words.
15 posted on 01/24/2004 6:48:25 AM PST by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: Gorjus
Topics of this nature pop up here periodically. My two cents is that if you are really interested in the content of the New Testament you have to learn to read the original language which is Koine - the version of Greek which was common in the area from about 300BC until 300 AD.

The other problem is that there are many versions of the same text which differ slightly in content. (A major problem exists because there are two different versions of Acts one much longer than the other.) Once you determine which version you want to read and translate you are just beginning.

The meaning of some of Paul's texts are obscure even when you do know the Greek. He could not write short declarative sentences. Consequently, there are variations in the translations into English.

The other major hurdle is how the translate Greek participles. The Greeks used them a lot and, apparently, their meaning could vary. This is another reason that translations differ.

Another major difficulty in Greek is that they thought differently than we do today. In there language they were not particularly interested if something happened in the past, in the present, or in the future. They instead were interested in whether an action happened or didn't happen. They were also interested in whether that action was over and complete or whether the effects of that action continue into the future and are acting now at the present time. For example, think of the resurrection, an action that happened in the past which has continuing meaning at the present and will continue to have meaning into the future.

My humble suggestion is to check out the local colleges and find one which teaches Biblical Greek and take the courses. Then you well have a much deeper appreciation of what the texts state.

24 posted on 01/24/2004 7:20:06 AM PST by Citizen Tom Paine (The past is an unknown land and so is the future.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson