gengwall

“One side says an ancient word is feminine, the other says masculine.”

I too am curious. Most of the people from “the other side” that have commented on this blog, and even those with “credentials” from CBMW and others, don’t argue about the original grammar so much as they argue how the original grammar should be interpreted. For example, some have argued that the switch from plural to singular in 1 Tim 2:11 is in essence a shift from “all woman” to a generic “woman”. But no one I know of denies the shift in number takes place. They simply try to explain it away.

The translations, on the other hand, play fast and loose with the grammar, changing tense in verse 14 to imply that the verse is sepaking of Eve and changing number in verse 15 to imply all women are being addressed.

The edited passage I gave above in post 66 relays the grammar straight. I do not change any tense, number, gender, voice, etc. The only place where I have chosen a translation that leans in my favor are the two instances where “husband” is given. It isn’t that “husband” is an invalid translation, but there are arguments either way (i.e. it could just be “man”). Otherwise, there is no fiddling on my part (or the part of the translators I used for each passage). I do not believe that anyone would disagree that those are literal translations of the grammar. But there are many who would argue that those are bad interpretations of the grammar. Which basically proves the point I think Cheryl is getting at – every translation is also to a degree an interpretation.

Now, the question for you, or any bible reader, is this: “do I whole heartedly trust the translator’s interpretation or do I take it with a grain of salt?” I hope your answer is the latter, especially for those verse that are controversial. Everyone has an agenda and will try to convince you that ther translation/interpretation is correct. It is up to you to do the research (which you are doing dilligently), and eventually draw your own conclusions. But keep in mind that one must always view a translation/interpretation with context and the original audience in view. That doesn’t at all mean that the bible is inapplicable to today’s audience. On the contrary, the bible has proven to be timeless. Never-the-less, there was an original audience for Paul’s letters and we must first determine what those letters meant to that audience before we explore the applicability of the letters to us today.