Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
Translating and interpeting are two different things.
|
Translation does sometimes involve a certain amount of interpreting. For example, the addition of the word italicized "duty" in the King James Version of
Ecclesiastes 12:13. There is no corresponding word in the Hebrew text and adding the word does not affect the gramatical correctness of the passage in English. Then there's the phrase "was with God" in
John 1:1. The Greek phrase is more properly translated along the lines of "pertaining to God," "pertaining to deity," "with regard to God," or "with regard to deity" much the way the same Greek phrase was translated in Hebrews. There's also the addition of what the KJV has as
1 John 5:7. What was added does not appear in any Greek text prior to the one Erasmus produced in the 16th century (which, in turn, was based on an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate).
While I'm not sure you use modern translations (you seem to be one of those "KJV only" preachers), there is the issue of that method of translation called "dynamic equivalence" or "thought-for-thought" translation. That method relies on a great deal more interpretation than "literal" or "word-for-word" translation that is known as "formal equivalence." The "translators" in dynamic equivalence translations (after presuming to know how the Bible writers thought) try to "translate" how the Bible writers thought into how we might think today.
All of this is being done by people you believe are not saved. It is inconsistent for you to rely on unsaved people to translate God's word for you.
Why in the world are you going to a denominal church to begin with???????????
Linear Mode
