Sabine Grant

Interesting (at least for me) to see that 3 translations in French of Mark 11:3 all convey the semantic meaning that the party who will let the colt go or send the colt to " Le Seigneur" is the party who would question what the Disciples were doing :

http://saintebible.com/mark/11-3.htm


Louis Segond Bible (1910) :
Si quelqu'un vous dit: Pourquoi faites-vous cela? répondez: Le Seigneur en a besoin. Et à l'instant il le laissera venir ici.

"Il" (he) refers to "quelqu'un" (someone). Same questioning party who would then let the colt go "ici"(semantically indicating where Le Seigneur is) upon the Disciples reply' " Le Seigneur en a besoin".


Darby Bible (1859 / 1880) :

Et si quelqu'un vous dit: Pourquoi faites-vous cela? dites: Le Seigneur en a besoin; et aussitôt il l'enverra ici.

Same as above with the slight variation of the "il" referring to "quelqu'un" sending(instead of letting it go to...) the colt "ici" still upon the Disciples' reply that "Le Seigneur" needs the said colt.

Martin Bible (1744) :

Et si quelqu'un vous dit : pourquoi faites-vous cela? dites que le Seigneur en a besoin; et d'abord il l'enverra ici.

Same semantically as above 2.

I thought that a translation in another language than English might shed some light as to who is supposed to send what and where and to whom. The above translations could not be confused for meaning that the colt will be returned to "ici" by "Le Seigneur".

aa5874

There is really no need to use French translations and then attempt to convert them to English since professional translators have already provided English translations with the KJV, NAS, CEB, ASV and others.

One must FIRST read the ENTIRE gMark to understand who Jesus character was--NOT one isolated verse.

In gMark, Jesus was the Lord --Le Seigneur--κύριος.

Le Seigneur, κύριος, the Lord Jesus, the Son of Man needed the donkey for his supposed PREDICTED Triumphal entry and he did get it according to the author.

In any language Jesus is the Lord in gMark.

Marc 2.28 Martin Bible (1744) Marc 11.3 Martin Bible (1744)1. "Le Seigneur en a besoin"--Marc 11.3

2. "Le Fils de l'homme est Seigneur"--Marc 2.28

3. "Le Fils de l'homme est Jésus--Marc 2.27-28

Marc 11.7 Martin Bible (1744) Le Fils de l'homme, Le Seigneur, Jésus s'assit dessus l'ânon.

C'est tres simple--tres facile.

In the NT, The Son of Man is LORD in any language in gMark.

aa5874

This is very disturbing. spin asks What's this " MAPKON business??" He thinks 'MAPKON' sounds like German MAP makers.

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 2:28
ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου.

2.ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:19
καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λέγει αὐτῷ· Ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου πρὸς τοὺς σούς, καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτοῖς ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν καὶ ἠλέησέν σε.

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 11:3
3 καὶ ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ· Τί ποιεῖτε τοῦτο; εἴπατε [a]ὅτι Ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει· καὶ [b]εὐθὺς αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει [c]πάλιν ὧδε.

Iskander

Is Jehovah the Father of the Greek Testament? There is only one god in the Hebrew Bible, so that god must be everything there is in that book, and as Christianity and Islam are also monotheists they share the same god. This sharing is, however, ‘skin deep’ and utterly meaningless.

The Christian god has nothing in common with the Hebrew tetragrammaton, for starters Christians love to call their god by their proper name in the most chummy way: Sweet Jesus, Baby Jesus and so forth. The absurd, ridiculous and silly Mosaic prohibition on using the name of god was soon set aside by Christianity.


The Christian abba is not Jehovah even though the Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible are the same book. The Christian Father is the Triune God and it has nothing in common with Father Tetra , other than a book.


Only Jehovah Witnesses and those coming from that religious background weep for the late YHWH. The Lord in the NT is Jesus or His Father the Triune God.


THE TETRAGRAMMATON and the CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES
This book is not Copyrighted.It is the desire of both the author and original publisher that this book be widely copied and reproduced.
www.tetragrammaton.org

Sabine Grant

There is actually a need for native French speakers such as myself to scrutinize translations in French in order to CONFIRM that Spin's observation is 100% correct :

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....47#post7521047.

Had you paid attention to previous exchanges between Spin and Ted you would have made that connection right away.

aa5874

It is you who is not paying attention. I have already exposed the fallacious and absurd arguments of spin.

It is easily shown that Jesus is "Lord" in the NT, even in gMark and in any language.


1. Philippians 2:11 NAS 2. John 20:28 NASB3. Mark 2:28 (NASB)4. Luke 6:5 NASB 5. ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 2:285. Marc 2.28 Martin Bible (1744)6. Marcus 2:28 Biblia Sacra Vulgata (VULGATE) 7. Marcos 2:28 La Biblia de las Américas (LBLA)

Sabine Grant

Both of my posts developed on a SPECIFIC which I quoted and further gave you a link to the relevant post. Feel free to address the SPECIFIC I quoted and "expose the fallacious and absurd argument" from Spin I quoted :

No need to engage in further rants which in no way address the SPECIFIC I was developing on and intended to confirm, based on my analysis of the semantic content of French translations (my native language), that Ted's interpretation of " will send it back here immediately" makes no sense at all. Clearly pointing to Spin's accurate observation in the SPECIFIC of :


I have no idea why you feel it is necessary to respond to my posts addressing a SPECIFIC, quoted and documented via a linked to post, with a series of comments which in no way address the SPECIFIC I developed on when none of my comments even present a position regarding whether the term " Le Seigneur" or "The Lord" refers to God or Jesus.

The specific point of my posts addressing Ted venturing in an interpretation of "and immediately he will send it back here." which makes no sense at all. Which Spin justifiably addressed and corrected in the SPECIFIC post I quoted.

I will safely assume that you should have no issue understanding the meaning of SPECIFIC. Further replies on your part ranting away from the SPECIFIC I developed on will be considered intentional obtuseness.

TedM

Hi Sabine,

I guess I don't understand how the interpretations of X people in ANY non-Greek language shed light on the original intention. Do we know that their translations are independent of the translations of others? And, as we know, quantity isn't quality.

How can we really know if the NRSV is the correct one or not? Should the word for "immediately" really convey a sense of urgency (the 3rd definition in Strong) or certainty (the 2nd definition in Strong)? Should "he will send it back here" be seen as a comment by Jesus ("they will comply") or as part of the explanation Jesus was telling his disciples to give to the villages for why they shouldn't be concerned about some strangers taking the colt ("Jesus/God will return it right back here")?

How do these interpretations you've provided get to the bottom of the situation?

Iskander

This thread, like so many others in this blessed house, was rather funny. --- Funnier still is the last offering in which a reinterpretation of a Greek word will prove that Mary was raped by the Holy Spirit?--, but your intervention in the boorish dispute seems to be justified exclusively by your managerial authority, and this is popish and therefore not funny.

Mark 11: 3 is known to be a corrupted verse, but the verse is clearly meant to say: the master needs it and the animal will be returned to the address from which it was taken immediately after it has been used.

DCHindley

Spin, of course, is just making fun of the source you cited (KATA MAPKON).

For the unwashed masses, it is simply the uncial Greek title of the 2nd gospel transliterated into ASCII characters, which in turn would transliterate into the English characters "Kata Markon" (which a few will recognize as "according to Mark"). I guess there was concern expressed (not necessarily by Spin) that this title, or the text of the citations, should have been translated into English.

It was probably aggravated by the bracketed letters ([a], [b] and [c]) that preceded the words "ὅτι," "εὐθὺς," and "πάλιν" in the third citation (Mk 11:13), plus the lack of bolding of the word "κύριος" as had been done in the prior two citations.

In other words, the text highlighting was inconsistent, and the additional markings confusing, making some wonder whether you understood the words yourself.

DCH (taking lunch break, boss)