One of the advantages of formal equivalent translations is that they tend to maintain the distinction between dependent and independent constructions. Often the key to understanding an author’s flow of thought is the difference between an indicative or imperative and a participle. And yet sometimes functional equivalent translations maintain the distinction as well.

There is a cycle in Colossians 1:9–12 (NIV). Paul prays that God fill the Colossians “with the knowledge of his will” (πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ).

Translation without interpretation is impossible. There may be verses where there is no question as to what the author meant, but there are thousands of verses where interpretive decisions must be made.

Paul tell the Colossians, “Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off (ἀπεκδυσάμενοι) the old self (τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον) with its (αὐτοῦ) practices” (ESV, also NASB, CSB, NET, NRSV).

1. “Seeing that” interprets the particle as causal. Paul is looking back at the conversion experience and saying that based on the realities of what happened at that point, therefore, in the present, they should not lie to one another. However, the participles could also be imperatival; the Colossians are to put off the remnants of their pre-conversion selves and not lie. I suspect the former is correct, but the point is that this calls for interpretation. I am a bit surprised that translations claiming to be “literal” did not just say “putting off.”

2. ἄνθρωπον is rightly interpreted as “self.”

I am delivering a paper at the national ETS meeting in a few weeks, so thought I would get your feedback on a few items.

Verbal plenary inspiration means that all (“plenary”) of Scripture is inspired, and the inspiration extends to the words used and not just general ideas (“verbal”). The question is whether or not a formal equivalent type of translation respects verbal inspiration better than a functional equivalent type of translation.

And just to be clear, I believe in verbal, plenary inspiration (and inerrancy).

One of the changes that happens in language is how you refer to people groups. This isn’t a matter of being politically correct; it is a matter of being sensitive and not unnecessarily offensive.

Identify a person primarily (or at least initially) by their ethnicity can give the impression of relational conflict and even hostility when it may not be intended. Imagine a British person seeing an Irish person he doesn’t know, and saying, “Hey Irish.” Or a white person saying, “Hey African.” Or a European seeing a tourist from New York and saying, “American.”

The longer I work in Greek, the more curious I am about conjunctions, and the more I am concerned about how we teach glosses.

Take τότε for example. BDAG give two meanings using the gloss “then.” It can mean “at that time,” which conveys no idea of sequence. It can also mean “then” in the sense of “that which follows in time.” The problem of course is that if you translate with the simple gloss “then,” we hear it as sequential.

Coupled with this is how English hears a series of events. Even without conjunctions, we default to hearing them as sequential. This happened, then that happened.