(November 6, 2015 at 12:22 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: ...... and therefore it is not perfectly translatedAh..No. The translation is flawless literally could not be better.. The assumption you can read anything translated in your language and get 100% of the intended text without accepting all of it's context is where the flaw lies.
To say the translation is flawed means one could translate more closly or do a better job. Not the case here. What I have been tring to get you to understand that your reading of the text is wrong. Not the translation. You can not read ANY translated material like you can any English sourced material. You have to frame it in context inorder to full grasp the meanings because our word do not full match up with anyone elses words
This is not due to a flaw in translation, it is due to incompatiablity between languages. certain words simply do not get fully expressed between languages. again that has nothing to do with the translation, because as I have shown you one can extrapolate full meaning from a translated text if you stay true to the full context. The errors arise when YOU Took the translated text out of context and assigned modern western definations to a text that did not orginate in the language or from this culture.
Quote:when it is translated to another language you use word substitutes much of the time because the translators have no choice but to do that right ?No not at all. when we make a literal translation we use the closest possible word to the original. Sometimes it is an exact match (about 70% of the time) others ideas have to be expressed because the cultures are so different (The words Agape, eros, Phila, Storge' Must all be translated into the single word love, a word we use that means 10 different things to us, so depending on who is reading the word will flesh out a completely different meaning), but again not a translation error just a contextual one based on the readers understanding of that word. One that can be resolved when context is used to fish out the meaning.
Like you and the word believe yesterday. You assumed that the word believe was only an intellectual thing. that belief had nothing to do with any physical act. I showed you yesterday that while belief was an 'intellectual thing' it also had a physical component. (Believeing a parachute will save you by actually putting it on verses intellectually believeing it will save you and not using it.) the "believe" of the bible was the same "believe" we would use to put on a parachute and jump out of the plane. Not just an intellectual choice to accept something. Again same word, no better word more closly fits the Greek, (therefore no translation error) it all has to do with your perception of that word not what it means in the English. IF you hadn't just used 1/2 a verse to define the meaning of that passage, you could see Paul describing the 'acts' of the version of belief, he was talking about belief that resulted in action per the examples of acts taken by said believers this should move your definition of 'belief' to now include action.
Quote: well that would be sufficient for less important writings but if it is the Word of God thats pretty important right so every single word should be exact and not be compromised in the slightest as even a slight mistranslation of one word can change an entire concept (do not add or subtract from the Word remember?) so if it couldnt be translated perfectly there should have never been an attempt to do it and people instead should have kept the original and learned greekAgain, lazy or dishonest interpretation is the problem not translation. Our words often have different meanings. some people (believe or not) intentionally use the wrong meaning of a word to try and create a contradiction.
Quote:i have been to many different modern churches and none have pulled out a greek bible and translated from a greek bible to english , people either use the KJV or modern english translated bibleI would say the vast majority of bible based churches do. Feel good name/claim it churches don't churches that teach doctrine over scripture don't.. but again most do.
Quote:well i agree with you on that but convincing christians that they need to do that is another story"You shall know them by their fruit"
I have the feeling you and I have a vast difference in our understanding of the word Christian.
Quote:so married gay couples who have sex are no longer sinning then right ?I used the word sanctified to define what type of marriage that allows for sex, and it not be a sin.
To be sanctified one must follow the rules (outlined in 1 cor 7) Anything outside of that is sexual sin.. Hetro/gay makes no difference all the same sin.
