Replies

1) There are lots of translations other than the King James.

Very much true, but in this instance they are discussing Greek and Greek Orthodox views/interpretations in the East as opposed to those views/intrepetations in the West (most people in the West refer to either the KJV or the NIV). They specifically point out: "the great theologians of the early church in the East, who wrote in Greek".

2) The King James and all other translations except a few Catholic ones are translations from the original languages, not translations of translations of (however many "of a translation" you erroneously listed).

As I said in #26, I phrased my point poorly.

My point is/was, and you make this point for me, is that we are reading translations, and there was interpretation done to make these translations fit the writing style of the era, i.e. as well as to be easily understood by the intended audience.

Putting aside the beliefs that arose or were taught after St. Gregory the Great's sermon, and really Hippolitus as well, and that may or may or may not have influenced the Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and English scholars/translators of that time, there is still the issue of the language(s) itself.

As I said, I think it's very important to understand why the Greeks feel that we are discussing three seperate women, and why some in the West feel that we are discussing one or two women at the most.

I tend to take the Greek/Eastern Orthodox view, because I feel they are "closer" to the original versions of the New Testament. Most English versions that I've read and studied were written in a style and form of English that I don't use everyday, and that may have changed in meaning since the 1500s and 1600s, or that I'm predisposed towards interpreting a certain way.

The more "modern" versions, whether it's the NIV or one of the more obscure ones, I also question, because they could differ enough from the KJV to cause me to doubt both.