What are your thoughts on this guy's translation of John 1? I believe he may be a Unitarian that doesn't believe in the Pre-existence of Christ. https://globaltruthinternational.com/2018/06/24/two-re-translations-of-john-1-a-comparison/
T, while some parts of his translation are okay IMO, the renderings clearly exceed the Greek in many ways as he even seems to admit. For example, translating Logos as Torah likely obscures John's meaning even if the notion of Torah had some influence on the Johannine Prologue. As I mentioned in another thread "it" for autou is acceptable, but I prefer "him" because of the masculine Logos. Nevertheless, I understand the rationale for using the neuter pronoun when rendering the text into English.
Another thing to consider is that if the Unitarians were correct about Logos and autou/houtos, Logos theology probably would never have originated.
https://tabletalktheology.com/2016/04/01/new-creation-in-johns-gospel/
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts on this guy's translation of John 1? I believe he may be a Unitarian that doesn't believe in the Pre-existence of Christ.
ReplyDeletehttps://globaltruthinternational.com/2018/06/24/two-re-translations-of-john-1-a-comparison/
T, while some parts of his translation are okay IMO, the renderings clearly exceed the Greek in many ways as he even seems to admit. For example, translating Logos as Torah likely obscures John's meaning even if the notion of Torah had some influence on the Johannine Prologue. As I mentioned in another thread "it" for autou is acceptable, but I prefer "him" because of the masculine Logos. Nevertheless, I understand the rationale for using the neuter pronoun when rendering the text into English.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing to consider is that if the Unitarians were correct about Logos and autou/houtos, Logos theology probably would never have originated.