Jamdoc
Watching and Praying Always
- Oct 22, 2019
- 7,369
- 2,301
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
Yes, you *chose* it. You picked the cherry that you wanted, the one that you thought best, the one that was most neutral. That's a safe approach, but not necessarily the most precise. Safe is less than precise.
Let me give you an example. I've had this discussion before on another forum. In Dan 2.40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron...
The word "finally" in the NIV translation isn't really there. But the use of conjunctions in a particular set may legitimately conclude that the last conjunction can mean "finally." It's a scholar's decision to translate it this way, considering how the language is normally used, and not just using a word by word translation. Tendencies in some languages cannot be constructed word by word.
Most translations read: 40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron...
Or, 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron..
The literal, safe rendering would be to translate it as "then," or "and." But the NIV scholars concluded that the context and the formation of these series of conjunctions legitimized the final conjunction being translated as "finally," since that was the apparent insinuation.
All this to show that "safe" translations are sometimes less specific so as to try to not be too specific, and possibly wrong or misleading. But the more specific translation, if indeed it is the real meaning, would be less safe, but provide better understanding and perhaps avoid error.
In this case, our argument was over whether the text meant to say that the 4th Kingdom was the last in world history, or just "the next" Kingdom in world history. But the fact that only 4 were given indicates that the last "and" should be translated as "finally." The 4th Kingdom should be the last in history.
In this case, "and" is being properly translated as "finally," and gives a less "safe" meaning, but a more accurate meaning as conjunctions were used in sets like this, or in a particular context. We are translating the practices of one language into another language with a different set of rules.
The following passage is similar, and also uses a conjunction.
Luke 17.20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation...
The NIV consists of scholars who have studied this arrangement and have decided that conjunction is not determinative with respect to a sequence of events. Rather, the account suggests a change in context such that a conjunction appropriately allows for such and can be translated:
20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come...
Word for word translations can mislead, and certainly are not determinative in this sense. The context is. A single word can be used with different implications based on the context.
Why would I choose an interpretation that doesn't fit both translations?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
It makes no sense to hold an interpretation that does not fit BOTH translations.
Cherry picking is choosing 1 and discarding the other translation because my interpretation doesn't fit both.
You make absolutely no sense.
Upvote
0