03-28-2014, 01:58 AM
I'll only respond to what was a response to my posts...and let the others respond to theirs, or mine too if they like.
In your "translation" of Acts 16:4, which is the only verse I have seen from your version to date, you put the word "believers", where the word for "believers" does not exist in Mr. Panin's edited Greek text.
Then you claim that your "translation" is the best ever, from the best ever Greek text version. Better than his, where he uses the actual word for "them" in his text. And looks like you are still changing your version around...so what was "the best", last night, must be even better than the best, today. lol
You try to justify taking the word for "them" away, and adding the word for "believers" into your English version of Mr. Panin's edited Greek text of W&H, but, anyone with any sense, can see that you didn't stick to the text, but, added your own word in. It may seem "harmless" to your mind, but, this type of thing is one of the reasons things have got as messed up as they are. I think we can be pretty sure that this is not the only, or worse, example your version has in it...but, I sure hope so.
Not at all. Verse two speaks of "the Disciples", whom they were ministering among in the region where they were ministering in, and verse 5 speaks of The Assemblies of these Disciples, which were being established in the Faith by the Apostles and their helpers. If you look back a few chapters in Acts, you will see that these Disciples were the ones who needed to know about what was decided at The Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, and whom they were to deliver the judgment and instruction to.
Also, notice that the Apostles in Jerusalem sent two others to help deliver this message to these Disciples, Silas being one of them. There was a good reason for this. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
And where does that type thing end? Have you ever read The Message, by Mr. Eugene H. Peterson? He seems to think it good as well to do such things and think it's the New Testament too.
Have you attended a Bible study group recently?
What you will find most often, especially those which are inter-faith type, is that one will have a NKJV, one will have an NIV, the other an NASB, and one gal might have an Amplified Bible, and one guy a copy of The Message Bible...and they sit down to study a certain passage...and you have this type of response..."wow!!, that reads totally different than my version does. Or..."that isn't at all what my version says, and it gives a different meaning altogether! Or....hey!!! my version doesn't have that verse, or passage in it!!!???
It is a real mess...I know, I have been in these type of bible study groups before...and even led a few...and a lot of the time I have to explain why these things are, and tell how all the variants and missing verses and passages that are in the more modern English versions got there or got taken out.
The skeptics and atheists love this mess, by the way...I've had to deal with them as well over the years and try to explain the mess.
I say...if you have must make a new version, just translate what it there already, and stop trying to make up a new Bible with new words that were not originally penned and translated by the Apostles and their helpers in the 1st century.
Of course, and I didn't say it could be...but, the translator, if he loves God's words high above his own words will do his utmost to render the closest words that matches the source text...and if there is an idiom that can't be clearly related in the receptor language, you can get as close to the meaning as possible, and hopefully make a note giving the literal rendering, or the other way around...I have found it edifying and helpful to read what the idom actually says, literally, even if it might sound odd to our modern western culture ears.
We don't need new Bibles...what we need is the original Bible, as it was written, as close to how it was 1st given. I know...you believe that Mr. Panin's text is the most original Greek version ever, the autograph in print even!!!...if so...then why not translate it as it is given by Mr' Panin then, without adding your own words like "believers" for "them".
I know it may seem a small thing to you in this instance...but, it is the principal of the thing that matters. And that is what I am talking about here.
Ummm...."trillions to one odds" ONLY if that was what was found in the actual text...but, in this case, Mr. Panin decided it needed some adjustments so he could get the result he wanted.
In this case, he created the miracle himself, which simply was not there to begin with!
If you look at the passage in question...Mark 16:9-20, in Mr. Panin's edited text of the W&H and the TR...what do you see there?
How did he get the word count to reach 175 so he would have the numbers multiply the way he wanted them to? I'll give you a hint: He split three words and made them into six words..., and then went with the TR reading for vs 20, which is about half as short as he found in W&H's version. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> ...and amazing!!! you have the miracle now!
How long did it take him to figure out how to do that? It took me about 15 mins to figure out how he did it.
So, he takes what is always and always has been three single Greek words, and cuts them in half, making two new Greek words out of them.
Newly coined Greek words.... Cool beans..The Greek vocab is growing.
And yea, we don't need that last part of Mark's Gospel at all in the Greek text, cause it would run to long for the count anyway.
You don't think this is being at all dishonest? Please.
I think if we looked over his whole job, we would see a lot more of this type massaging of the text to get his end result...I mean 12 hours a day for 50 years? Maybe....but yea, it could take a long time to stitch a new Greek New Testament text together and make sure all the numbers added up they way you thought they should be.
The three single words that he splits up into brand new Greek words in his text are also just single words in the Aramaic text, and always just one word each in the manuscripts, like the Greek version. When translating these words into English, yes, they need to become two words...But, not in the Greek or the Aramaic text, as you count them as one word each, so, this is a cleaver trick that Mr. Panin came up with to work his miracle and try to prove that his brand new Greek text was somehow the very autograph itself as 1st written down... word for word, letter for letter, by the Apostles.
And you have actually believed this is legit? And it seems this is part of the reason that you must reject the Aramaic New Testament text as being original? I mean...it don't matter what you are shown here, if you are going to believe what Mr. Panin says about anyway, against all other real evidence to the contrary...what are we talking to you about it for then?
No, I don't use drugs, thank God.
As I have seen in this case, this is not at all what Mr. Panin did though, here in this instance of the passage in Mark 16:9-20. Perhaps I should look at 1 Cor 13:3 now?
I think I'll give this discussion about one more day, unless moved to do otherwise, so I can get back to more productive things.
And you still haven't been good enough to give us your real name yet...unless I missed it somewhere. Please do, if you really consider us your Brothers.
-Chuck
.
Quote:Where did i add a word? Tell me.
In your "translation" of Acts 16:4, which is the only verse I have seen from your version to date, you put the word "believers", where the word for "believers" does not exist in Mr. Panin's edited Greek text.
Then you claim that your "translation" is the best ever, from the best ever Greek text version. Better than his, where he uses the actual word for "them" in his text. And looks like you are still changing your version around...so what was "the best", last night, must be even better than the best, today. lol
You try to justify taking the word for "them" away, and adding the word for "believers" into your English version of Mr. Panin's edited Greek text of W&H, but, anyone with any sense, can see that you didn't stick to the text, but, added your own word in. It may seem "harmless" to your mind, but, this type of thing is one of the reasons things have got as messed up as they are. I think we can be pretty sure that this is not the only, or worse, example your version has in it...but, I sure hope so.
Quote:If the preceding verses to Acts 16:4 give no indication of who Paul was going to, then the word 'Them' is quite ambiguous, right? And a bit confusing, right?
Not at all. Verse two speaks of "the Disciples", whom they were ministering among in the region where they were ministering in, and verse 5 speaks of The Assemblies of these Disciples, which were being established in the Faith by the Apostles and their helpers. If you look back a few chapters in Acts, you will see that these Disciples were the ones who needed to know about what was decided at The Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, and whom they were to deliver the judgment and instruction to.
Also, notice that the Apostles in Jerusalem sent two others to help deliver this message to these Disciples, Silas being one of them. There was a good reason for this. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->Quote:So, i have replaced an 'Object Noun' (Them) with a 'Plural Noun' (Believers) purely to clarify. And you call that adding words even though anyone would agree that it is merely 'clarifying' the text.
And where does that type thing end? Have you ever read The Message, by Mr. Eugene H. Peterson? He seems to think it good as well to do such things and think it's the New Testament too.
Have you attended a Bible study group recently?
What you will find most often, especially those which are inter-faith type, is that one will have a NKJV, one will have an NIV, the other an NASB, and one gal might have an Amplified Bible, and one guy a copy of The Message Bible...and they sit down to study a certain passage...and you have this type of response..."wow!!, that reads totally different than my version does. Or..."that isn't at all what my version says, and it gives a different meaning altogether! Or....hey!!! my version doesn't have that verse, or passage in it!!!???
It is a real mess...I know, I have been in these type of bible study groups before...and even led a few...and a lot of the time I have to explain why these things are, and tell how all the variants and missing verses and passages that are in the more modern English versions got there or got taken out.
The skeptics and atheists love this mess, by the way...I've had to deal with them as well over the years and try to explain the mess.
I say...if you have must make a new version, just translate what it there already, and stop trying to make up a new Bible with new words that were not originally penned and translated by the Apostles and their helpers in the 1st century.
Quote:Do i need to explain that the job of translating the text cannot possibly be literal word for word because different grammar and phrases and syntax demand customization to make it intelligible in the receptor language? Geeez you say some stupid things! No language can possibly be translated litera word for word into another language, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!
Of course, and I didn't say it could be...but, the translator, if he loves God's words high above his own words will do his utmost to render the closest words that matches the source text...and if there is an idiom that can't be clearly related in the receptor language, you can get as close to the meaning as possible, and hopefully make a note giving the literal rendering, or the other way around...I have found it edifying and helpful to read what the idom actually says, literally, even if it might sound odd to our modern western culture ears.
We don't need new Bibles...what we need is the original Bible, as it was written, as close to how it was 1st given. I know...you believe that Mr. Panin's text is the most original Greek version ever, the autograph in print even!!!...if so...then why not translate it as it is given by Mr' Panin then, without adding your own words like "believers" for "them".
I know it may seem a small thing to you in this instance...but, it is the principal of the thing that matters. And that is what I am talking about here.
Quote:Put his spin on it? Well, if you call mathematically validated trillions to one odds 'his spin on it' then yeah, i would have to agree. 50 years of intensive studious study to extract God's hand finger and guidance on the text, and yet you scoff at it? <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> The type of mathematical odds that NO MAN ON THIS PLANET has been able to dispute. God sends Dr Panin to give you confirmation of the perfect text and this is how you react to it? I question your motives sir!
Ummm...."trillions to one odds" ONLY if that was what was found in the actual text...but, in this case, Mr. Panin decided it needed some adjustments so he could get the result he wanted.
In this case, he created the miracle himself, which simply was not there to begin with!
If you look at the passage in question...Mark 16:9-20, in Mr. Panin's edited text of the W&H and the TR...what do you see there?
How did he get the word count to reach 175 so he would have the numbers multiply the way he wanted them to? I'll give you a hint: He split three words and made them into six words..., and then went with the TR reading for vs 20, which is about half as short as he found in W&H's version. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> ...and amazing!!! you have the miracle now! How long did it take him to figure out how to do that? It took me about 15 mins to figure out how he did it.
So, he takes what is always and always has been three single Greek words, and cuts them in half, making two new Greek words out of them.
Newly coined Greek words.... Cool beans..The Greek vocab is growing.
And yea, we don't need that last part of Mark's Gospel at all in the Greek text, cause it would run to long for the count anyway.
You don't think this is being at all dishonest? Please.
I think if we looked over his whole job, we would see a lot more of this type massaging of the text to get his end result...I mean 12 hours a day for 50 years? Maybe....but yea, it could take a long time to stitch a new Greek New Testament text together and make sure all the numbers added up they way you thought they should be.
The three single words that he splits up into brand new Greek words in his text are also just single words in the Aramaic text, and always just one word each in the manuscripts, like the Greek version. When translating these words into English, yes, they need to become two words...But, not in the Greek or the Aramaic text, as you count them as one word each, so, this is a cleaver trick that Mr. Panin came up with to work his miracle and try to prove that his brand new Greek text was somehow the very autograph itself as 1st written down... word for word, letter for letter, by the Apostles.
And you have actually believed this is legit? And it seems this is part of the reason that you must reject the Aramaic New Testament text as being original? I mean...it don't matter what you are shown here, if you are going to believe what Mr. Panin says about anyway, against all other real evidence to the contrary...what are we talking to you about it for then?
Quote:Inserting 2 or 3 words from an 'actual' text does not mean he is embellishing the text does it? Why do you say such stupid things man?? He confirmed it via the math, 50 years of math. Are you on cocaine or heroin man? I want some. LOL You call this 'constructing a text?
No, I don't use drugs, thank God.
As I have seen in this case, this is not at all what Mr. Panin did though, here in this instance of the passage in Mark 16:9-20. Perhaps I should look at 1 Cor 13:3 now?
I think I'll give this discussion about one more day, unless moved to do otherwise, so I can get back to more productive things.
And you still haven't been good enough to give us your real name yet...unless I missed it somewhere. Please do, if you really consider us your Brothers.
-Chuck
.