γάρ is a tricky word. The more formal equivalent translations tend to just use “for” and let you figure out what it means. The problem is that “for” has a much smaller range of meaning than γάρ, and “for” often does not fit the biblical context. In the case of Romans 12:3, I think translating γάρ as “for” misleads the reader.

How do you translate θλῖψις? If you translate it as “tribulation,” does that bring in foreign ideas in some contexts? This is a tricky one. I wasn't planning on blogging while on vacation in Switzerland, but my brother-in-law asked a good question.

Translators have to be comfortable with compromise. Rarely can you hit the nail on the head, and generally you either over- or under-translate. What do you call all the people in your church? Beloved? I think not.

I was talking to someone yesterday who was explaining why he didn’t use the NIV. He referred to it as a “dynamic equivalent” translation, and it wasn’t a complement. Strange as it may sound, it was the first time my attention focused on the word “equivalent” instead of “dynamic.”

When Paul tells the Romans that Jesus was “appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection,” does that mean he wasn’t the Son of God before his resurrection? I thought God never changes?

Don't you find it strange that after many months with Jesus (we don't know how many), the disciples find themselves in a potentially fatal storm, and they ask if Jesus even cares? The context of months of ministry suggests that they did know how much he cared, but the way translations handle the passage you may be led to think they didn't know, which would be strange indeed.

Paul encourages us to “put on (ἐνδύσασθε) the full armor of God” (v 11), and again to take up (ἀναλάβετε) the full armor of God (v 13). The third imperative στῆτε tells us to “stand,” and then he follows with a series of participles telling us how to do this.

It is often argued by a small but vocal minority of people that modern translations omit the doctrine of the Trinity. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the accusation is still leveled against the NIV and all modern translations. But this is an issue of textual criticism and not theology.

Sometimes in Greek you can't tell the difference between an indicative and an interrogative, a statement and a question. After Thomas says, “My Lord and My God,” does Jesus affirm him, or question him?

Some people say they don’t trust the Old Testament because of all the so-called contradictions. One of the apparent contradictions often pointed out is found in Proverbs 26:4–5. Should you, or should you not, answer a fool?

It has long been said that the Gospels are anonymous. At one level, that’s true. The names of the authors are not embedded in the text of the Gospels. And since we don't really know who wrote them, how can we trust that what they say about Jesus is true?

It is a constant temptation to think that we are our own, that we are in charge of our own lives. But for Christians, we belong to him, and when we walk, even then He directs our steps. This is what the first question of the Heidelberg Catechism is all about.

It appears that there were three tests as to whether a book was viewed as authoritative and therefore included in the biblical canon. With so many people thinking the Gospel of Thomas should be in the Bible, let’s look at the facts.

Is 1 Corinthians 13 really a parenthetical “love chapter”? Or is it powerful, rhetorical language reflecting Paul's frustration with the Corinthian church? And how do we translate the figure of speech when Paul says that in the bookkeeping of love, past wrongs are not recorded?

“Cornelius said, ‘Four days ago at this hour, I was praying at the ninth hour in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing.’” The challenge here is that it was only three days earlier that Cornelius had his vision. So is this an error?

Titus 3:3 paints a pretty dark picture of who we were before Christ. It may seem like a small point, but does Paul say we were “detestable,” or both being hated and hating others”? Either way, do we really believe this? The ramifications for evangelism are significant.

Romans 12:9 and the following verses give us an interesting challenge as to what it means and how to translate it. Specifically, where did all the indicative verbs go, and what is the relationship of 12:9a to the following verses?

Concordance is the practice of using the same English word to translate the same Greek or Hebrew word. At times it can help, and at other times it is poor English style and can actually get in the way of understanding the passage. Here is a Hebrew and a Greek example.

We live in such a culture of un-grace, one without natural affection. Whether it is rancid politics or gossipy and critical people in the church, it seems there is little affection between people. Does that sound too harsh? Then I encourage you to just listen to conversations around you and decide for yourself. Are the people, are you and I, speaking with affection for others?

When you want to emphasize a word, you push it forward in Greek word order. But what exactly is Greek word order?

Greek has a wonderful ability to state a prohibition with different nuances. Unfortunately, these nuances are often lost in translation.

Jesus' ambiguous answer to Judas' question about not being the betrayer is very clever. Judas knows that Jesus knows, and Jesus is giving him one last chance to change his mind by answering in such a way that the other disciples would not understand.

One of the things you will likely hear on the university campus is that the Bible’s depiction of Jesus is historically inaccurate. For example, did Jesus say he was God, or did the church make it up? Skeptics use the phrase “Jesus of history” to refer to who they think Jesus “really” was. They use “Christ of faith” to refer to who the church, especially Paul, supposedly changed Jesus into. But did Paul change the essential nature of the gospel.

I received an email about what could be the weirdest misuse of the aorist tense I have ever seen. They claimed that the aorist “having followed” in Matthew 19:28 describes a once for action that was eternally binding, and therefore Judas will be in heaven judging the twelve tribes of Israel. How do people come up with these things, and what lack of humility allows someone to make a claim about Greek that no grammar or commentary would allow?

As an example of persistence in prayer, Jesus tells the parable of the persistent widow pestering the unjust judge until he vindicates her. His ultimate motivation is that he feared she would wear him out, or was it that he feared she would physically attack him as the NIV suggests?

What would you do if your child came over to your house, said he no longer believed the Bible, and renounced his faith? On top of that, he sent you a spreadsheet with hundreds of places in the Bible that he claims are factually erroneous or theologically absurd.

One common challenge made by skeptics of the Bible is that memory is faulty. It “leaks” and cannot be trusted over a long period of time. This means the Bible likely has errors and embellishments that were introduced during the time gap between Jesus' life and the writing of the Gospels.

Paul often gets a bad rap for seeming to be too caustic and judgmental. It’s too bad that this opinion is not more often balanced by Paul’s other statements of love and concern for his churches. But I think a proper translation of Romans 9:3 might help a little.

Because Greek is an inflected language, words that go together don't have to be next to each other. It can make translation a little challenging, though, when you start reordering words and phrases to make sense in English.

Because Greek is an inflected language, words that go together don't have to be next to each other. It can make translation a little challenging, though, when you start reordering words and phrases to make sense in English.