Because Greek is an inflected language, the grammar contains meaning that often is lost in translation. This is why translators have to add in words at times. They aren't adding to Scripture; they are trying to convey the full meaning of the grammar. The use of the word “all" in the NIV of Romans 3:24 is a good example.

We just finished recording a 20-hour class on Isaiah by Dr. John Oswalt. What an amazing lecturer, and what an amazing book. The class will be available on BiblicalTraining.org in about 6 months. But John pointed out an interesting passage where concordance was not kept.

Sorry I have been absent for so long. Between finishing the third edition of Greek for the Rest of Us, the laminate sheet, the workbook, building a pole building (that will house the new studio for BiblicalTraining.org) and bedroom addition, and moving to the cabin and trying to sell our home -- life has been a bit crazy. I won’t start M w/ M back up until September, but I do want to continue the discussion I began in Why I Trust the Bible. So the rest of that discussion will continue on Mondays.

Every once in a while I come across a phrase that makes no sense in English, even in the NIV. I expect it more with translations like the NASB and ESV, but not the NIV. When this happens, it is often in a traditional and well-known passage.

Prof Bart Ehrman is famous for his rhetorically powerful statement that there are more differences among the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words. It is true that there are about 400,000 differences among the 5,500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but the real question is one of significance. How many differences could be authentic, and how many do impact the meaning of the verse?