Corrections for Translation Notes

August 19, 2009

Ok, here are the corrections that I have found since I re-wrote the Notes for Dan to post.  You can make them by hand until he gets the new version posted.  There are not many.

In “Task of a Translator” – last paragraph – “the 2nd edition is now complete, and posted on line.”
Jn.8:33-47, the list of people should read, “Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Menno, and all their fellows”.
11:28-37, line 1 – change “the” to “that”
18:33-37, line 1 – “that”, not “hat”

Ac.2 – end of chapter, end quote after “them”
Rom.12:18-21, line 2 – substitute “then” for “than”
I Cor.3:9 – replace “job” with “particular task”
II Cor.1, line 4 – comma after “genitive”
Eph.4:30 – capital A for apolutreos
I Tim.1:17, line 2 – apostrophe in “Paul’s”
John’s letters – intro. – add Jn.21:17 to Mt.16:17 in third paragraph
Rev.2:7 – “re: Nicolaitans – Etymologically, it could possibly be a combination of Nike, the name of the goddess of victory, and laos, people, and thus refer to a pagan cult.

Advertisements

A Friendly Reminder

August 11, 2009

Good morning, folks.

I think there needs to be a reminder of the purpose for which this site was created.  I have needed to delete a couple of “responses” which seemed to be aimed primarily at arguing some sort of theological or doctrinal position.  If you would refer to the several introductory statements, you would see that this is not intended to be a forum either to attack or to defend any such hobbyhorses.

The purpose of this site is to explore one question:  “What does the New Testament text SAY?”  In this attempt, language — vocabulary and grammar — is the tool.  “Word Study”, as here defined, is the attempt, using linguistic and historical tools, to discern the intention of the text. In the process, doubtless, “theology” and “doctrine” may well be either challenged or corroborated, depending upon the degree to which the compilers of those positions derived their teaching from the text itself, and the degree to which they stretched or ignored the text in favor of their own preconceptions.

As anyone who has attempted to write faithfully knows, there are occasions when words seem to be “supplied” beyond one’s own ability.  This, I believe, is only a shadow of what happened with the Biblical texts.  That is not to claim a similar level of “inspiration“, but simply to illustrate that it is perfectly possible for any writer — or speaker — to “say” much more than he may have overtly intended. (Case in point:  Caiaphas, at Jesus’ trial. John 11:50-51.  And he was not even a “believer!”)  Therefore, arguments as to what a writer “could” or “could not” have “known” are completely irrelevant.

I continue to welcome comment and critique;  but please keep it on the level to which this site is committed.  I will gladly publish and respond to linguistic challenge; but I will not allow this to become a forum for doctrinal disputes.

In the service of the King,
Ruth