Iskander

I have found a proper translation of Romans 3:1 with explanations.

Translating well is very difficult and should not be treated as a toy or an instrument of propaganda. Preserving the intended meaning is one golden rule, twisting the purpose of the text is not cricket.

Translations of the gospels are abundant, very good and easily available. Making use of these translations is the reasonable thing to do.


[The Gospel] regarding His Son, Who as to the flesh (His human nature) was descended from David, the Holy Spirit operating within the soul by which we are regenerated

avi

:notworthy:

Haven't laughed so hard since reading about the fellow who died of fright, as the arrow approached its limit, without ever hitting him...Was that xeno? I have forgotten.

Anyway, back to the point. I agree with you Jiri, I think, but I am not sure, that Aristotle used some kind of magnifying method, either water in a glass, or a lens of some kind (Greeks had a very sound knowledge of optics, and the properties of light, Eratosthenes used that knowledge to compute the circumference of the earth....) to view the pores of cork....

Human sperm are very tiny, but other animals' sperm are much larger, the sperm of a rat, for example, (length at 170 micra,) approximately double the width of a single human hair, would be difficult to see with the naked eye, but theoretically possible.

In my opinion, we constantly underestimate Greek knowledge of science....Roger Bacon, in the thirteenth century, who predicted many inventions, which were not realized until the 19th and 20th centuries, drew upon his knowledge of Greek, to develop those predictions. In other words, some of the credit, for those prescient predictions, belongs to the Greek Scientists from long ago....

Thanks Jiri, for your comment.
avi

Iskander

Is this Olympian forum turning into a circus?

avi

Hi Iskander!

I don't know if you have read my reply to your original message, or not, (post 17), or perhaps your response above, was meant to address both my questions and the comments from post 16, which you have extensively reproduced, above.

If you have an opportunity to do so, I would profit from reading your reply to my questions in post 17. If not, then, thanks for your post, quoted above.

The key to discussing your most recent rejoinder, is the phrase: "proper translation". I dispute, and disagree with, To me, this is absolutely wrong, as an English translation of the Greek original: In my opinion, the translation you have provided has added text, not found in the original Greek, and changed the literal meaning of the text. It has also added meaning, which I dispute. In particular, your translation by an unknown source, suggests that "kata sarka" refers to "His (i.e. Jesus') human nature", whereas, I maintain, in acknowledged ignorance, for there are no diplomae attesting to any supposed proficiency of Greek hanging on my walls, that "kata sarka" refers, not to Jesus, but to David. I would welcome your further explanation.

avi

Iskander

You disagree and that’s fine with me.

Lawyers argue at length in a court of law about the interpretation of legal texts, which were very carefully written by technical experts in the common language of the society in which they live.

I expect disagreement.

The added text as you put is a Christian explanation of the text. The translation I have posted is the traditional Christian translation and explanation, and it is good for me, even though I am not a believer.

When I want to know what any believer thinks I go to their gurus with the humble spirit of an ignorant man trying to learn and then, when I am certain I know what they believe, I decide on the goodness of it all.

avi

Thank you Iskander.
Well, I will refrain from repeating my former questions, as they evidently will not be receiving a reply any time soon.

With regard to "humble spirit", I confess to being arrogant. Our chief difference in modus operandi, however, is this: Although I am ignorant, I certainly do not consult "believers" or "non-believers". For me, this question: How to translate into proper English the following sentence, has nothing to do with "belief", or absence thereof, and everything to do with grammar and vocabulary:
I claim, (in abject, unadulterated, absolute ignorance) that "kata sarka", in this sentence, refers not to God, nor to his son, but to David.

It is, in my view, David's flesh that is real, genuine, and rehabilitated after centuries underground, not Jesus' flesh (which may, or may not, also be real!!--this sentence doesn't tell us one way or the other...). I claim that kata sarka here has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or God. Let us imagine a simple example, to illustrate my point.

How would we convey the notion that:
"According to Sally, Jennifer ate the arm of Katherine" (she had to, to stay alive, and Katherine was nearly dead, already...)?
I claim that "kata sarka" would be used in this context to provide an exclamation to the notion that Jennifer really did consume the flesh of Katherine:

Sally...Jennifer...Katherine "kata sarka". That's how I would write it. So, now we have a test scenario, to investigate how the Koine Greek folks would have written the same sentence.

Iskander, if your "gurus" are correct, (and I am wrong), then they will insist that the proper word order in this sentence is not as I have written it, but instead like this:
Sally...Katherine.... Jennifer "kata sarka", with the understanding that Kata Sarka still refers to Katherine, not Jennifer, despite a location within the text, proximate to Jennifer, at the terminus of the sentence.

I am arguing, in other words, that "kata sarka" must describe, Katherine's arm, not Jennifer's act of eating, nor Sally's act of explaining.

So, with this illustration, the question becomes simplified, and eliminates "believers" versus "non-believers". Does kata sarka, always appear immediately AFTER the noun it modifies, in this case David, or, alternatively, could Koine Greek authors instead have inserted one or more other nouns, between the subject noun, and the modifier? In such a case, how does the reader of Koine Greek passages know which of the three nouns is being modified? Is such a method unique to Kata Sarka, or is it generally the case that in Koine Greek, one or more nouns are interspersed before reaching the modifier:

John robbed a bank using Sam's car, just back from the repair shop of Jim who just returned yesterday, from the hospital, following amputation of his left lower extremity kata sarka-->referring to John, i.e. John in the flesh, not someone disguised as John....(because I would have written instead, John kata sarka robbed a bank.....etc.)

avi

avi

oops. my fault, I should have done a little more searching....Laziness....ugh.
Thank you Rick. My point exactly. Nothing new under the sun....

avi

Toto

I think that if you will check with Rick Sumner, he does not support your position that "seed of David" or "son of David" means a literal direct son of David. The terms are used to include all descendents.

You position is truly unique, and creates some real difficulties in the text.

avi

Thank you Toto, you are, of course, absolutely correct, and I apologize to Rick, if I erroneously gave the impression that I imagined that he supported my position on this issue. Where I meant, to indicate a meeting of the minds with Rick, was over the specific aspect of whether or not, "kata sarka" does in fact correspond to the flesh of David, not the flesh of Jesus.

Regardless of Rick's or anyone else's interpretation, I believe that the Greek text is unambiguous, and affirms that David, literally, in the flesh, provided the sperm to create Jesus, the mythical being.... How is that scenario any different from the birth of Achilles? To me, this is simply good Greek literature.

Let me try putting it a different light: Imagine that Romans 1:3 did not have "kata sarka". Would the English translation differ from the one which we now possess??? I don't think so. In other words, in my opinion, if no one else's, the folks who make bibles have functionally redacted "kata sarka", from my perspective. Without "kata sarka", it seems to me, very reasonable to insist that Jesus is a distant descendant of David, several hundred generations removed, but not his son.

I guess that the reason for ignoring "kata sarka", is because it is a little embarrassing to describe a several hundred year old, pedophilic mummy returning to engage in an evening of philandering with an immature, adolescent juvenile--> i.e. the literal meaning of the Greek text of Romans 1:3, as I have understood it.

Now, if someone can illustrate that "kata sarka", in the first century, had a very different meaning from "in the flesh", referring directly to David, not Jesus or God, then, I am open to the idea of being refuted...
avi

Toto

If you interpret this as Rick and others see it, both David and Jesus are part of the reference to "flesh."

This is in opposition to Earl Doherty's proposed interpretation, in which "kata sarka" refers to a separate dimension. You will find some discussion of that on the boards.