"Even now, I am unaware of how Greek could possibly lead one to one theology over another, IF read without a lens."
"Brothers of the Lord". We've been through this and multiple other examples, FK. The implications of one's interpretation of that simple phrase are fundamental to the theology of the first 1500 years of Christianity.
"I have been told, in effect, that all Protestant translators throughout history are either liars or idiots."
I haven't told you that. But I will say that Protestant translators did and do have their own positions to advance, usually in opposition to what they believed, generally incorrectly, was Romish spin.
"My godmother gave it to me when I was baptized as an infant in a Methodist church."
Always liked the Methodists; they have great hymns! :)
"In any event, if knowing Greek is absolutely key to understanding vis-a-vis leading to one whole theology over another, then why hasn't someone done an NIV for your side??? That would seem to solve the problem."
Well, there is such an NT, relatively recently done and universally acclaimed as being a miserable piece of work. The reason nothing was ever done, save into Slavonic and Arabic/Syriac, was there was no need for it. We have it in the original. Why read a translation? But given the expansion of The Church into the wider world and the fact that English is becoming the world language, its time we did have a good translation to the extent that English can handle that (see the comment on the 7th Ecumenical Council I pinged you to).
"However, thank God, there are still lots of adults, old and young, who are coming to whatever Christian faith even with virtually no background. Some number of those begin by just picking up a Bible and reading through it. They are whom I'm talking about."
Like the Ethiopian Eunuch who needed at teacher?
That is rather an odd comment considering that the Protestant Reformation started in Europe and was directed against the Church in ROME. The Orthodox supports the Church of Rome (Latin). I'm not sure how Protestants theology could be considered "Romish" when we left Rome. I think you might have us confused.
That teachers are useful, Biblical,
is not the point.
The point is, SCRIPTURE ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO INTRODUCE SOMEONE TO A RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST/GOD AS WELL AS TO HELP THEM WELL ON THEIR WAY TO MATURING IN CHRIST AS HOLY SPIRIT LEADS THEM INTO ALL TRUTH.
IF there were ONE case of such--that would be enough to make the point. There have been many 10's of thousands of such cases over the centuries.
And, I suspect you'd acknowledge that the Roman lens and the Orthy lens are not necessarily more pure and holy than the Protesty lens. If you wouldn't acknowledge that, then the bias disease is well entrenched in your lens as well.
"Brothers of the Lord". We've been through this and multiple other examples, FK. The implications of one's interpretation of that simple phrase are fundamental to the theology of the first 1500 years of Christianity.
I looked at the section you suggested in 11,485, thanks. That gave a few examples of Greek being better because there was no equivalent word in English. I see the same level of idea in whether Jesus had siblings, but in neither case do I see this as leading to one whole theology over another. Reformed theology survives fully in tact if the truth actually was that Jesus was an only child. Further, even if the subject is Mary, there are some points on which your theology and mine are closer together than yours is with the Catholics.
I still can't accept that only in Greek can Christianity be truly understood. Even if exact words can't be matched, I can't believe that ideas can't. Does Orthodoxy require fluency in Greek? That would surprise me. Plus, I know there is no such requirement for Catholics, and you consider them as part of the true Church. Do all of your major disagreements with the Catholics boil down to the Greek?
But I will say that Protestant translators did and do have their own positions to advance, usually in opposition to what they believed, generally incorrectly, was Romish spin.
There have been Protestant translations for as long as there have been Protestants. How can you make a wholesale charge that their positions went against their own beliefs? If you want to say that this or that translation was a work for hire to specs, that is fine, but they all couldn't have been like that. It appears you are making a general charge approaching intellectual fraud. :) I just don't buy it. I have heard from many Catholics that there are some "Catholic" translations which are good and some that are terrible. I would say the same thing about "Protestant" translations.
Like the Ethiopian Eunuch who needed a teacher?
That's not what I was talking about. The Eunuch needed help with a single difficult passage in the OT. So do I today, no big deal. Philip explained the new and easier to understand Gospel of Christ. My comments were about people today with access to both the OT and the NT. Teaching is certainly required for finer points, but the basics of faith are all right there within the four corners. I'm sure many great Christians never even learned the lesson from Isaiah that the Eunuch learned.