> just that I disagree with the assertion, which both Gabby and you are making, that interpretative guesses are necessary during translation. I think it's far more difficult, certainly, and perhaps in isolated places impossible, to do a good translation without explaining away difficult passages. But I think anything less is selling the text out. I don't think an honest conveyance of the Bible's literary power will ever be at the expense of its deeper meaning, because much of its meaning is translated through literary technique. *shrugs* I guess my point is that anything but an almost entirely literary translation becomes more of an interpretation, and good translators of religious texts do that as little as possible. [...]

I think I could agree with that. In fact, your point would be all the stronger, if you'd kindly point out some passages that have that problem. In other words, cite verses which have traditionally undergone such "reinterpretation" during translation, thereby leading support to doctrine or dogma that was NOT implied by the original text. :-)


>
> Tom "One of these days I'm gonna get into an argument about something non-biblical around here" Schmidt
> tmschm@wm.edu

Real argument? I hope not. I'm enjoying how we're looking at the issues from different perspectives. It's like examining variant Scriptural readings from various biblical commentators, eh. The only difference is that I'm just winging it -- whereas you, and Darien, gabby, Grace and Issachar etc. are actually immersed (or have been immersed) in the real text, studying it. Living it, though with your faculty for critical thought you may not think you're doing so. You gain pleasure from discussing the Bible; it's one of your favorite subjects, as you've indicated. And to date I have *always* appreciated what you have to say.

Wolfspirit