Replies

By the way, "raised him up again" even in the context of the resurrection, doesn't mean "resurrected a second time." He was up, walking around, preaching, and then laid low by crucifixion and death, and then he was up again, raised to live again by God

First, I think this is a rationalization that hardly justifies poetic license to add words that don't exist in the original language. Some translators took it upon themselves to add something to the "pristine" word of God.

Ha ha. You're really reaching now. Did you happen to notice that only 1 of the various translations used the redundancy of "again"? You simply cannot be that tone deaf to language to be incapable of seeing these things.

As far as adding words is concerned, when translating from one language to another, it is sometimes necessary to add words to keep the meaning the same. In Greek you can say things like "to the men who were being led out" with a single word. To translate something like that into English, you have to use more than a single word.

Ha ha. You're really reaching now. Did you happen to notice that only 1 of the various translations used the redundancy of "again"?

One is all you need. If the Bibles say different things they are not pristine. This is not much of a problem in the Church itself, but among Protestant communities where private interpretation of the Bible is enocuraged and even expected, since the Bible is "perspicuous."

If one faulty verison reaches milions of people, the consequences and their scale becomes obvious.