The way, the truth, and the life – Jesus Christ, page-1361 - HotCopper | ASX Share Prices, Stock Market & Share Trading Forum

Originally posted by ppm56: ↑

Even the Interlinear with corrupted English words say -> And the Word flesh became and NOT this corruption of yours -> "The Word became flesh"
That is an entirely different context and meaning.

Oh for heaven’s sake wotsup, your cluelessness is shining brighter then the sun, and you expect people to take notice of what you are saying, have you ever read Chinese or Ikea instruction, obviously not.

Not knowing why, the above is written as it is only provers that in no uncertain terms you haven’t got the basic understand of how to read anything especially something that is 2000 years old.

This verse and all the verses has already been translated to what it means in today’s mindset as to when it was written
Boy you should checkout the OT to see how its was written.

These are the basics off it all, I hope I covered everything so your brain can work around it and understand

Translating from one language to another, particularly when dealing with a language that is 2000 years old, can be challenging for several reasons:

Linguistic Differences: Languages evolve and change over time, which means that the grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure of a language spoken 2000 years ago may differ significantly from modern languages. This can make it difficult to find exact equivalents for words and phrases, leading to potential loss or alteration of meaning during translation.

Cultural Context: Languages are deeply intertwined with the cultures that produce them. Translators must understand the cultural context in which a language was used to accurately convey the intended meaning. However, with the passage of time, cultural references, idioms, and metaphors may become obsolete or difficult to interpret. This can lead to challenges in capturing the full depth of meaning in older texts.

Contextual Ambiguity: Context is crucial in interpreting and translating texts. However, when translating from an ancient language, important contextual cues may be lost or not fully understood. This can result in ambiguity or multiple interpretations, making it challenging to determine the precise meaning of certain passages.

Lack of Direct Equivalents: Every language has its own unique vocabulary that may not have direct equivalents in another language. This can create difficulties in finding appropriate translations, especially when dealing with abstract concepts or culturally specific words. Translators must make choices based on the closest approximations available, which may not always capture the full nuance of the original text.

Translator Bias: Translators inevitably bring their own background, culture, and biases into the translation process. This can influence their understanding and interpretation of the original text. Differences in theological beliefs, linguistic preferences, or cultural perspectives can affect the way a text is translated, potentially leading to variances in meaning and interpretation.

Given these challenges, translating from a language as old as 2000 years requires expertise, careful analysis of the available resources, and a deep understanding of both the source and target languages. It is an intricate process that involves making informed decisions and weighing the available evidence to convey the intended meaning as accurately as possible.

And then Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek

Expand

You simply cannot translate AWAY from the intended meanings that were intended back in the times.
If you mess with word order, you get an entirely different meaning.

Goodness me, you keep harping on that we need to understand who and what they would have understood passages etc at the time, and now you are saying it is OK to abandon this.

And the Word flesh became and - and the Word became flesh and - ARE two totally different meanings, blind Freddy should be able to SEE this.
The 1st is, Word flesh already existing is going to do something and the 2nd is effectively saying, the word was made flesh = a totally different and FALSE meaning.

Goodness me, the True verses following 1:14, CLEARLY show that Jesus is not on the scene in 1:14 = it is a prophesy of something yet to happen and that is, He will dwell in the Father and behold his glory, just as the scriptures CLEARLY show happened John 17:22 and 17:17
The grace and truth that is to come through Jesus in the following verses, clearly shows that that has not been accomplished yet, as Jesus has Not arrived as per 1:14.

No way is John covering the subject of Jesus's birth, so to speak, he had NO need to do that, Luke well and truly covers that.
The Gospel of John is picking up the likes of Mal 3:1, predominantly introducing the Father Yehowah in the prologue.
The word of God, the likes of Eph 3:9 was expressed, just as the scriptures show, resulting in the words of God becoming, producing, flesh as per example in Isa 55:8-11.
Like -> and the word/plan creation became = 1:3, expressed from the plan in The God in part b of 1:1 and in the word -> "This;" in 1:2.
------------
Most of your link there translates to, this gives us a license to translate to our bias seeds, no more and no less.
Leave the Greek exactly as it is and translate word for word and THOSE of God will have zero issues with flow etc, as it will flow in their minds.