1 Corinthians 15:11 gives us a great example why it is important to know a word’s semantic range, and also my oft-repeated mantra that there is no random translations in any major Bible translation. There always is a reason, even though at times you have to look pretty hard to find it.

There are two stories in the Gospels about a woman pouring perfume on Jesus, and there are enough differences that some people argue Luke created the account and hence he is not trustworthy. But despite the similarities, there are so many differences that they must be two different accounts, and hence there is no contradiction.

Paul’s only boast is in what God has done through his own ministry, the goal of which was “bringing the Gentiles to obedience” (v 18b). Paul is going out of his way — and confusing most Greek students — by his insistence that everything he has done was really accomplished by Christ through the power of the Spirit. There is quite a bit of information hidden in the Greek that not all translations bring out, or are even able to bring out. Watch the phrasing as we work through the passage.

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.