post three of three
Now, lets look at other renderings.
Douay-Rheims Bible This bible renders γενεσθαι as “be made” :
Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.
I think this rendering reflects the early context of administerium of the Catholic Church at the time in history when Douay-Rheims was created (partly as competition to Luthers wildly popular translation). I also think other greek verbs for “made” would have been used in this sentence instead of "γενεσθαι" if this had been the intent of the original text. Also, contextually, the many other individuals were already witnesses of christs resurrection and many who were witnesses were not “made” or “ordained” to be thus. They simply were there to see the resurrection just as we might witness a car accident. WE are not necessarily MADE witnesses to a car accident, we just happen to be there and "become" witnesses to it in most cases.
However, the underlying sense of becoming part of the 12 special witnesses /apostles αποστελοι in their official status as those who were truly “sent”/αποστολος allows some validity. Still, if this is meant, then the rendering is clumsy and does not fit the typical greek description of “becoming” a witness. Even today, in English, we say “he became a doctor” rather than “he was made a doctor”. Thus, I believe “become” is more correct english than “be made”.
Ingledsva, If you think “be made” is more correct than “become”, why is this a more correct rendering? If you think it is NOT as correct as “become”, then tell us why.
New Living Translation This bible renders γενεσθαι as “will join with us” (using συν ημιν as the contextual “helping verbs”
. :
from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus' resurrection."
I do not think “join with” is at all, a proper rendering for “to become”/γενεσθαι and, for some reason, they are over emphasizing the words “συν ημιν” (with us) and thus, they overemphasize the act of “joining” the group of witnesses rather than emphasizing the concept of actually “becoming” a witness for Jesus and his resurrection.
Whereas, to me, the greek text is actually, emphasizing the act of becoming a witness to the resurrection of Jesus, more than the act of becoming one of a group. This is why I do not think this translation is as correct as those that simply render γενεσθαι as “become”.
Ingledsva,
If you think “will join with us is more correct than “become”, why is this a more correct rendering? If you think it is NOT as correct as “become” then tell us why.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English This bible renders γενεσθαι as “would be” :
“
Beginning with his baptism by Yohannan, until the day that he was taken up from our presence, would be a witness with us of his Resurrection.”
The greek has no conditional context to γενεσθαι. No “would be”, but rather it is a non-conditional process of “becoming” that the witness is undergoing. It is a firm and actual change of status (γενεσθαι
that is indicated rather than an indication of a conditional (could be or would be) that is indicated by γενεσθαι.
Ingledsva, If you think “would be” is more correct than “become”, why is this a more correct rendering? If you think it is NOT as correct as “become”, then tell us why.
Darby Bible Translation this bible renders γενεσθαι as “should be” :
beginning from the baptism of John until the day in which he was taken up from us, one of these should be a witness with us of his resurrection.
As with the last example, there is no conditional indication of “could be” or “would be” or “should be” in γενεσθαι in my opinion.
Ingledsva, If you think “should be” is more correct than become, why is this a more correct rendering? If you think it is NOT as correct as “become”, then tell us why.
Jubilee Bible 2000 This bible agrees with your claim and renders γενεσθαι as “must be ordained to be” :
beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was received on high from among us, that one must be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
First, there is no verb for “ordained” in the greek, it is only the bias of the translator that can add this concept to the text. The same principle exists for the addition of “must be”.
There is no indication of “must be” in the greek and this is an addition by the translator. Γενεσθαι means “to become” and does not mean “
must become”.
This is a good example of how translators allow their own bias and imaginings to affect what they think is happening in a text and thus describe their own concepts rather than the text itself. (we all do this from time to time).
Ingledsva, If you think “must be ordained to be” is more correct than “become”, why is this a more correct rendering. If you think it is NOT as correct as “become”, then tell us why.
Weymouth New Testament This bible renders γενεσθαι as “should be appointed to become” :
beginning from His baptism by John down to the day on which He was taken up again from us into Heaven--one should be appointed to become a witness with us as to His resurrection."
This is a terrible case of a translator who is adding multiple concepts that are not there. The single word γενεσθαι simply means “to become” and the addition of “should be” is simply not in the greek text but is an improper addition.
The word for “Appointed” is also NOT in the greek text, but is added by a process similar to how “ordained” was added. The translator has, in his mind, a bias or idea as to how someone “becomes a witness” and simply places THAT concept into the text, rather than simply reading the text and translating it. This is a spurious emendation.
Ingledsva, If you think “should be appointed to become” is more correct than “Become”, tell us why. If you think this is NOT as correct as “become”, then tell us why.
1611 King James New Testament
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
First, there is no imperative “must” inside the greek text, but instead the imaginings of whether one IS, or SHOULD BE, or WOULD BE, or SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO, etc. exists within the bias of the individual translator. I think this specific bias comes from later verses when two “candidates” for special witnesses are εστησαν in vs 23, are “chosen”/εξελεξωand Matthias was “enrolled with” the other eleven as special witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.
If these later descriptions do indicate special ordination ultimately occurred (and I would agree with this), the earlier text itself, in vs 22 does not contain “ordination” nor should the translators bias add “ordination” to a base text. I have already explained that there is no noun or verb in this sentence which adds “ordination” to the primary verb γενεσθαι / “to become”.
Ingledsva, If you think “must be one ordained” is more correct than “Become”, tell us why. If you think this is NOT as correct as “become”, then tell us why, rather than simply indicating "someone else did it that way". If you are, as you say, able to "translate the Greek" then demonstrate and discuss how you, "translate the greek".
Please Ingledsva, if you don't have any data or reasoning or logic as to why you think γενεσθαι means "ordained",, please, please, please do not waste our time simply pointing out that the KJV from 1611 a.d. translated it this way or on multiple petty arguments which will only serve to waste our time when the outcome of an arguement against γενεσθαι as "to become" is already obvious and inevitable.
Ingledsva, I honestly wish you a good journey in this life. However, this constant bickering is silly and wasteful.
FIND someone you trust, who can read Greek, and simply ASK THEM to explain this to you...
Clear
εισεακακω
