Comments on: Translation and Playing Charades

By: Lisa

Lisa — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:29:27 +0000

I feel like a lightbulb has just gone off above my head — AHA!! I love the revelation about “only begotten.” Being raised in a church where mostly NIV was used I hadn’t memorized it with that phrase, but I’ve heard it plenty of times throughout the years. Thanks for sharing that!

Playing catch-up on your blog today. :)

By: laymond

laymond — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:40:41 +0000

[He might ask you why you have a hot water heater, since hot water doesn't need to be heated. Languages aren't always logical]

Tim, not unlike the bible, it all depends on the punctuation.

question; ” why do you have a hot, water heater”
answer; because a cold one, won’t heat the water. :)

By: Tim Archer

Tim Archer — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:15:36 +0000

Anthony,

I think that’s right. The New Testament uses “monogenes” to refer to children: Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Heb 11:17; 1John 4:9

Interestingly enough, even the KJV doesn’t use “begotten” in the Luke passages. Had they stuck with that translation consistently, the meaning would have been conveyed.

And yes, translation between Western languages is much easier than between Western and non-Western.

Grace and peace,
Tim

By: Anthony

Anthony — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:34:16 +0000

Isn’t the idea that, though God may have many children, that Jesus is his “unique” Son. So Jesus is in the larger class of God’s sons, but in a unique way. Perhaps “incomparable” would get at the idea. In the OT, there are other gods, but none are comparable to Yahweh. Could this be the same matter of belonging to a larger class, yet standing apart and distinct from it?

I tried Gen. 1:1 on the translation site you suggested last week. As long as I stuck with Western languages, the results were pretty close. But when I added Asian languages, the results were nonsense. Does this say anything about the relative distances between cultures and the added difficulties of translation?

By: Tim Archer

Tim Archer — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:01:55 +0000

Laymond,

The translation “only begotten” is okay, as long as you leave out the word “begotten.” You might argue that I could translate it as “only resurrected,” because Jesus was resurrected, but since the word doesn’t mean that, it’s an incorrect translation. “Only begotten” is an incorrect translation.

I used English words to help people have an idea of what those Greek roots meant; sorry if that confused. “Monogenes” means unique. It says nothing about birth, neither affirming it nor denying it.

If you don’t like the idea of one thing being considered a class, you might find a dead Greek and argue with him about the insufficiencies of his language. [He might ask you why you have a hot water heater, since hot water doesn't need to be heated. Languages aren't always logical]

Grace and peace,
Tim Archer

By: laymond

laymond — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:53:17 +0000

“They went for mono “one” and genes “born” (like genetics) — “only begotten.” Since then, the word has been found in other writings, and the meaning has become clearer: mono “one” and genes “genre” — “one of a kind.” ”

Tim, I fail to see the difference, when describing God’s son, unless you are saying Jesus wasn’t born?
Tim, I have heard the phrase “one of a kind” and often wondered can one odd thing be considered “a kind/genre” would a “genre of , one of a kind, be made up of odd things which do not fit into other genre, I believe the way we use the word “genre” today means “a class” . but as you said, it all depends on the translation, I sorta believe context has a lot to do with translation, as well as understanding. just my opinion :)
can one thing be considered a class?