Is the CLNT an Accurate Translation?

We must take a closer look at the concordant method. At first sight it sounds good and right that all Greek (or Hebrew) words should be translated consistently into English, but in fact this concept is deeply flawed. The idea that any given Greek word should always where possible be translated by the same English word sounds good, but it runs totally contrary to the way languages actually work.

Individual words in any language represent areas of meaning rather than pin-points. The area of meaning covered by a word in any given language hardly ever corresponds exactly to the area covered by a similar word in another language. You only have to look in any foreign language dictionary to get this point. Any French dictionary will give several French words for one English word and conversely several English words for one French word. The most accurate translation of any given word will vary according to its context. The same thing of course is true with English and Greek (or Hebrew).

Knoch of course knew this and frequently had to use two or more different English words for a single Greek word.

Logos in Greek is most commonly equivalent to the English word word. But its meaning is much wider. The lexicon gives reason, discourse, doctrine, instruction and several other words, any of which might be the best translation of logos in a given context. To insist it must be translated by the same English word every time it occurs results in inaccurate and bad translation. In fact Knoch uses four different English words - word, expression, account and matter - to translate logos, demonstrating the impossibility of using one English word for each Greek word, but still not accurately conveying the full range of the meaning of logos in English.

The same is true of tenses of verbs. The Greek present tense sometimes correspond to the simple English present, I walk, and sometimes to the continuous, I am walking. To translate it always by the continuous, I am walking, even though it may remove translator’s bias, is inaccurate translation.

All this has two consequences. One is that Knoch frequently has to break his basic rule. The other is he frequently uses English words which are less accurate translations of Greek words than those he would have used if he were not trying to stick to his rules. The result is that the CLNT has minor inaccuracies in almost every sentence.

The CLNT looks surprisingly like the work of a foreign speaker of English. A foreigner often thinks in his own language and translates word for word and tense for tense into English. (English speakers speaking foreign languages usually do much worse!) This is almost exactly what Knoch has done! He is effectively thinking in Greek and translating word for word into English. Foreigners who speak English in this way are not good speakers of English. Most of the time we can understand what they are saying, but they are not accurate and they are often unclear. If you doubt what I am saying, just read one sentence of the CLNT and see! We are not talking about serious errors such as may be found in some other translations. Rather it is minor errors of accuracy and clarity that occur in almost every sentence. The Bible's best known verse comes across as: “For thus God loves the world, so that He gives His only-begotten Son, that everyone who is believing in Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian”.

Is the CLNT free from Bias?

Knoch’s other aim was to make a translation that was free from any bias, including of course his own. Excellent though his intentions were, there are at least three areas where the CLNT reflects Knoch’s personal opinions and is therefore not free from bias.

Area 1: Choice of the best English word to translate a given Greek word.

Knoch himself decides what is the best English word for a given Greek word. This sounds like a very obvious statement, but it is easy simply to miss the implications. 90% of the time another translator might agree with him, but certainly not 100%.

An obvious example is the Greek word aion. Knoch has decided that eon is the best English word to translate it. Other translators would not agree. They might chose age or ever as the best translation of aion. Or they might say it needed several different English equivalents according to its context.

I am not saying that Knoch was right or wrong to choose the word eon. What I am saying is that the choice of the English word eon was Knoch’s personal opinion, rather than being the one correct translation.

Area 2: Choice of whether one English word is sufficient to translate a given Greek word.

Knoch accepts that some Greek words need more than one English word to translate them according to their context. John 3: 8 is a clear example. The Greek word p?e?µa (pneuma) occurs twice in this verse. The CLNT translates it: “The blast (p?e?µa) is blowing where it wills, and the sound of it you are hearing, but you are not aware whence it is coming and where it is going. Thus is everyone who is begotten by the water and the spirit (p?e?µa).” (I’ve inserted the word p?e?µa.)

However in the case of aion Knoch decided that aion could always be translated by the one English word eon, but that p?e?µa needed 2 words. Other translators, as I have said, believe that aion must be translated by ever or age or world according to its context. Again we have Knoch’s personal opinion, rather than the one correct translation.

The whole subject of the translation of a??? and a?????? is such a major feature of the CLNT and so critical that I have added a specific section “???? and a??????” at the end of this writing.

Area 3: When Knoch decides that more than one English word is needed for a given Greek word, he decides which English word to use in each case.

For example Knoch agrees with everyone else that the Greek preposition e? (en) must sometimes be translated as in, and sometimes as with. He translates Matthew 9: 10 as “in (e?) the house” and Luke 22: 49 as “smiting with (e?) a sword”. Obviously he is correct to do so. The problem comes with Mark 1: 8. The CLNT has “I indeed baptise you in (e?) water”. The KJV has: “I indeed have baptized you with (e?) water.” Both of these are valid translations. Of other translators, some agree with Knoch and have “in water”, and some agree with the KJV and have “with water”. Obviously some people believe in baptism by immersion and would prefer in, while others believe in baptism by sprinkling or pouring and would prefer with. The Greek here is ambiguous and both translations are equally valid.

Once again, rather than having the one correct unbiased translation, we have Knoch’s opinion in favour of in water. Some other Bible translations actually put both in and with, and allow the reader to make up his own mind. That is clearly a true unbiased approach .

The Concordant Literal New Testament - Bible Studies for Growth in God
www.growthingod.org.uk/concordant-new-testament.htm


Alternative truth translation ?

And don't forget this monstrosity of Genesis:

CLV(i) 1 1Created by the Elohim were the heavens and the earth. 2 Yet the earth became a chaos and vacant, and darkness was on the surface of the submerged chaos. Yet the spirit of the Elohim is vibrating over the surface of the water. 3 And saying is the Elohim, "Become light!" And it is becoming light. 4 And seeing is the Elohim the light, that it is good.

Who can read that? Compared to:

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good:

Open Letter from the Brits on the front line fighting ISIS:

An Open Letter from British Fighters Against the Islamic State

We are some of an increasing number of British nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq as volunteers with local forces against the Islamic State.

We wish first and foremost to express our sorrow and anger at the recent terrorist attack in Westminster, London, and to convey our sincerest and most heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families. We know only too well what is to lose friends, to treat those horrendously wounded, to pull the dead and dying from the rubble.

We also wish to express sympathy and solidarity with the many ordinary Muslims going to work and school today feeling that they are under special scrutiny, and fearful of what this might mean for them. We share their fear, and we urge anyone who might be tempted to take against ordinary Muslim people to think again. If you associate them with the Islamic State, you are giving such groups exactly what they want: a greater and more violent gap between the Muslim world and ours.

The familiar sounds of hate and bigotry are sounding again – on social media, and in the more guarded mainstream press – where the intent is nonetheless clear. Hate crimes will spike again. There are calls to demolish mosques. The fact that local Muslims raised thousands for victim support, in the immediate aftermath of the attack, is easily drowned out by the bandwagon. The EDL have called a snap demonstration, eager to make hay from the suffering of innocent people.

For all the sound and fury, we don’t remember seeing anyone from Britain First, EDL, UKIP, or their like, by our side in battle. Which is a good thing, because we wouldn’t have tolerated them.

Our ranks are made up of Kurds, Arabs, Yezidis, Brits, Yanks, Canadians, Aussies, Asians, Europeans – Muslims, Christians, Alevis, atheists – too many faiths and races to list. A multi-ethnic, multi-faith entity, standing united against hate and extremism. The majority are, in fact, Muslims, and not only are we proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them – the truth is, we can’t do this without them.

The only way to defeat the Islamic State, and groups like it, is with ordinary, moderate Muslims on side. The only way to defeat hate and extremism is to not give in to it.

Don’t stand with Britain First, the EDL, UKIP or those who talk and think like them. Stand with us.

Signed,

British fighters of the YPG

Joe Akerman

Aiden Aslin

Mark Ayres

Botan England

Macer Gifford

John Harding

Jac Holmes

Steve Kerr

Jim Matthews

Tom Mawdlsey

Ozkan Ozdil

Shaun Pinner

Joe Robinson

Josh Walker
KOM news