What Makes a Bible Version a Paraphrase?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Whether 400 years ago when the KJV was written, or today, the languages the Biblical people spoke were long since dead. They were not languages still spoken in 1611. Those old translators were basically "guessing" as are translators of today.

The big difference is that the "guessing" of today is hundreds of times more accurate, and thousands of times faster... with no humanly-input mistakes, whatsoever. Back then, they had none of the relatively recent discoveries of thousands of ancient pieces of literature to refer to and compare with. Not only that serious limitation, but they also had no computers that can instantly compare hundreds of thousands of examples of older languages... AND completely competently track and trace the progression of the multitude of variations of development that have occurred in languages over thousands of years. The human errors of yesteryear are gone.

There is no way we can, if using any logic at all, say that the translations of half a century ago came even close to being as accurate as those provided today.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

Harvest 1874

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2018
1,100
573
113
62
Tampa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ok, now for starters can we please forego this? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it's time to start leveling mild insults at them as being unspiritual. You're at least polite about it, but I get this sort of thing a lot, and it's labelling. You're insinuating I'm not a "true child of God" in the sense that I'm not spiritually enlightened.
First of all this was not meant as an insult in anyway nor was I questioning your spirituality, nevertheless if a reproof or correction is proven necessary the man of God should not frown upon such, but rather should accept it as evidence that the Lord is dealing with him. Even the spiritually minded have a tendency from time to time to look at things from the natural man’s perspective. In many cases certain things can be viewed from both perspectives.
LoL. Yes, all is harmony when the wicked are judged. Edom later becomes emblematic of what God hates and brings judgment upon.

Harvest, in Romans 9, Paul is not comparing those who are favored versus those who are "less favored." He's comparing those who are true children of God from those who are not true children of God (Romans 9:8). Esau was a child of the flesh. Come on, buddy. I'm trying to start my day here, and you're fogging up my head, LoL.
And so are we to assume as you appear to suggest that those who are not the true children of God, the “promised seed” are hated by God? Heavens No! There are both spiritual promises and there are earthly promises, the spiritual naturally being the higher or greater favors. Fleshly Israel (except for a remnant) felled in obtaining these higher favors.

As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your own sakes; but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.”

What could be plainer, simpler, than this statement? Who could misunderstand that the Apostle is here referring to Natural Israel, broken off from special favor and relationship to God, that the favored ones from among the Gentiles might be gathered into membership in the Church of Christ, Spiritual Israel? And how strong, how convincing, is the statement that, in harmony with divine predestination on the subject, Israel is not forever cast off from divine favor, but is included among God’s elections—elect of God as a people, not to the highest place, the spiritual, but to have the first and highest blessing of all the families of the earth under Messiah’s Kingdom, and this not for their own sakes, but for the father’s sakes—for the sake of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—for the sake of God’s promises made to them—for the sake of all the faithful of that nation who walked with God.

This does not sound like a people God hates, only one less favored.

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” The Lord knew of the temporary lopping off of Israel even before he had made any of his promises concerning them.

For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience (as well as the higher honor and favor), even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy (or special favor) shown you they also may obtain mercy (favor, howbeit a lesser favor). For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.” (Rom 11:29-32)

Oh, Heavens... Harvest, I was talking about the foreknowledge of God. He disdains those who reject Him. They will have not only rejected Him but the Father. Does He walk in hate? No. Does He disdain the wicked, which means view them as not worthy of reward but rather torment? Yes. (Matthew 25:26–30).
As the Apostle insinuated Israel’s rejection of the Lord is only temporary, God having committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy upon them all. The difficulty here is that like most of the professing church you appear to be under the impression that now is the only time for salvation, that if one does not repent and accept Christ in this lifetime they are forever lost. (We won’t even go into the God dishonoring and blasphemous doctrine of eternal torment as the wages of sin here, which you seem to be advocating.)

Now in the next age when the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth as the waters cover the sea then having been brought to a knowledge of the truth should any (including Israel after the flesh) reject Christ (the Great “Prophet”, Acts 3:19:22, 23) they shall be utterly cut-off from amongst the people (i.e. go into second death).

Yes they are beloved, but this does not negate the fact that if they don't repent of rejecting Christ as Savior they are headed for eternal torment, and those in Hell are not simply "less favored."

We agree if they don’t repent and accept Christ they are doomed as are all men, but God is not dealing with either Israel or the rest of the world presently. The only ones presently on trial for life or death right now are the fully consecrated; those in covenant relationship with the Father (Psa 50:5) those who have been begotten of the His spirit, the rest of the world as well as Israel will be judged in the next age, for

God “has appointed a day (a future age, the millennial age, during the Mediatorial reign) in which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man (the Christ Head and body) whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him (first the head and presently the body) from the dead.” Acts 17:31

There was no intimation by the Apostle that the world's Judgment Day had begun already when he spoke these words. Everything in his language indicated that it would be future. Elsewhere we are told that when the world will be on judgment, on trial, for life or death everlasting, the Church glorified will be the judges. (Matt 19:28; 1 Cor. 6:2) This means that when the Church, now on trial, shall have been completed, finished its judgment shall have passed through the resurrection change into glory and become associated with the Redeemer in His Kingdom, then and only then will the world have its Judgment Day, or trial.

As for your last statement, “those in Hell are not simply "less favored." This is true, they’re not, they’re just dead and the dead know nothing.

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge (consciousness) or wisdom in the grave (Heb. sheol, hell) where you are going.” Eccl 9:10
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Willie, as per my rely in Post #40, I think the danger is in missing on the proper thought-to-thought. IMO it would be far better to labor to translate accurately, using word-for-word equivalence with a translation like "disdain," than to potentially water down proper interpretation by re-defining the actual wording used in the text to make God appear more "kind."
There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order.

Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations.

The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text. ...

Because literal translations can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the dynamic equivalence philosophy. According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator to use better English style and word choice, producing more readable translations. In the above example, (that I left out) the dynamic equivalence translators were free to use the more readable expression "have sexual relations with" instead of being forced to reproduce the Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of."

The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.

For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine. ...

Both literal and dynamic equivalence philosophies can be carried to extremes....

So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read.

read more here
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willie T

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
nevertheless if a reproof or correction is proven necessary the man of God should not frown upon such, but rather should accept it as evidence that the Lord is dealing with him.

LoL. At least you have a sense of humor. Bravo! That was a nice slight of hand. Ha!
Even the spiritually minded have a tendency from time to time to look at things from the natural man’s perspective. In many cases certain things can be viewed from both perspectives.

Ok. This I can agree to. :) It's just that you were assuming I was already "looking at things from the natural man's perspective." You have to understand I get insults leveled at me virtually every day, and they all sort of sound like this, yet at the end of the day they usually can't answer me or the scriptures I use to support my arguments, so it gets a little tiresome being told how I'm "not spiritual" all the time rather than addressing the verses or topics at hand.
Israel is not forever cast off from divine favor, but is included among God’s elections

Do you hold to the doctrine that all of Israel in the flesh will be saved even if they do not receive Jesus as Messiah? Or do you believe they have to in order to be saved? And if they must, what will happen to them if they don't?
As the Apostle insinuated Israel’s rejection of the Lord is only temporary, God having committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy upon them all. The difficulty here is that like most of the professing church you appear to be under the impression that now is the only time for salvation, that if one does not repent and accept Christ in this lifetime they are forever lost. (We won’t even go into the God dishonoring and blasphemous doctrine of eternal torment as the wages of sin here, which you seem to be advocating.)

Now in the next age when the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth as the waters cover the sea then having been brought to a knowledge of the truth should any (including Israel after the flesh) reject Christ (the Great “Prophet”, Acts 3:19:22, 23) they shall be utterly cut-off from amongst the people (i.e. go into second death).
We agree if they don’t repent and accept Christ they are doomed as are all men, but God is not dealing with either Israel or the rest of the world presently. The only ones presently on trial for life or death right now are the fully consecrated; those in covenant relationship with the Father (Psa 50:5) those who have been begotten of the His spirit, the rest of the world as well as Israel will be judged in the next age, for

God “has appointed a day (a future age, the millennial age, during the Mediatorial reign) in which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man (the Christ Head and body) whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him (first the head and presently the body) from the dead.” Acts 17:31

There was no intimation by the Apostle that the world's Judgment Day had begun already when he spoke these words. Everything in his language indicated that it would be future. Elsewhere we are told that when the world will be on judgment, on trial, for life or death everlasting, the Church glorified will be the judges. (Matt 19:28; 1 Cor. 6:2) This means that when the Church, now on trial, shall have been completed, finished its judgment shall have passed through the resurrection change into glory and become associated with the Redeemer in His Kingdom, then and only then will the world have its Judgment Day, or trial.

As for your last statement, “those in Hell are not simply "less favored." This is true, they’re not, they’re just dead and the dead know nothing.

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge (consciousness) or wisdom in the grave (Heb. sheol, hell) where you are going.” Eccl 9:10

Harvest, out of curiosity, what is your denominational affiliation? For one thing, you teach soul sleep. I am not wishing to label and then simply dismiss you by asking. I am trying to wrap my head around your theology, which appears to be some sort of package deal.

Do you have a denominational affiliation you align yourself with?
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.

I agree.
For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine. ...

An interesting perspective I hadn't seen before. I happen to agree with the Catholic stance that true faith will manifest in deeds. I differ with them on the interpretation of what those deeds are, tending more towards practicalities than rituals, but do not wish to discuss it at the present time. But I do find it interesting. All the bickering about "works" doctrine grates on the nerves after a while, as it dismisses all but faith as having a role in the Christian walk.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I agree.


An interesting perspective I hadn't seen before. I happen to agree with the Catholic stance that true faith will manifest in deeds. I differ with them on the interpretation of what those deeds are, tending more towards practicalities than rituals, but do not wish to discuss it at the present time. But I do find it interesting. All the bickering about "works" doctrine grates on the nerves after a while, as it dismisses all but faith as having a role in the Christian walk.
The Catholic stance is that true deeds (done from the grace of Christ) will ultimately perfect our faith.
But I know what you mean. When we get accused of "works righteousness" I hit the roof.
 

Harvest 1874

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2018
1,100
573
113
62
Tampa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Do you hold to the doctrine that all of Israel in the flesh will be saved even if they do not receive Jesus as Messiah? Or do you believe they have to in order to be saved? And if they must, what will happen to them if they don't?

I believe we already addressed this in our previous post, but for further clarification, in regards to your first question like the rest of the world of mankind if they do not accept Christ there is no hope for them, there is no other way save through Christ. If any refuse as was stated, they shall be destroyed from amongst the people.

Harvest, out of curiosity, what is your denominational affiliation? For one thing, you teach soul sleep. I am not wishing to label and then simply dismiss you by asking. I am trying to wrap my head around your theology, which appears to be some sort of package deal.

Do you have a denominational affiliation you align yourself with?

I am a Bible Student and have been one for over 30 years, we are non-denominational.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am a Bible Student and have been one for over 30 years, we are non-denominational.

Ok. Sounds good. Is there a website you could link to? I suppose I'm just looking for an easier way to get a grip on the totality of your doctrine than dealing with it piece by piece. But that's ok too. It's just that I'm not sure I have the energy right now to analyze that entire post and then respond. But if you stick around this site, over time I'll be able to get a better handle on what you believe and why.

Blessings in Christ, brother.
Hidden In Him
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I believe we already addressed this in our previous post, but for further clarification, in regards to your first question like the rest of the world of mankind if they do not accept Christ there is no hope for them, there is no other way save through Christ. If any refuse as was stated, they shall be destroyed from amongst the people.
I am a Bible Student and have been one for over 30 years, we are non-denominational.
What about a person who, through no fault of their own, have never heard the gospel? Is that an automatic hell sentence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
-Those old translators were basically "guessing" as are translators of today.

Willie,

What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

Are you a Bible translator from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English that enables you to conclude that old and contemporary translators are 'guessing' in their translations?

Oz
 
Last edited:

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order.

Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations.

The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text. ...

Because literal translations can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the dynamic equivalence philosophy. According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator to use better English style and word choice, producing more readable translations. In the above example, (that I left out) the dynamic equivalence translators were free to use the more readable expression "have sexual relations with" instead of being forced to reproduce the Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of."

The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.

For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine. ...

Both literal and dynamic equivalence philosophies can be carried to extremes....

So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read.

read more here

epostle1,

You have plagiarized (stolen) material from a Catholic Answers' website that you have included in your post. Google helped me locate some of your material:

Bible Translations Guide - Catholic Answers
Bible Translations Guide - Pack Of 50 Tracts
At Catholic Answers we are often asked which Bible version a person should choose. ... can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the ... According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is ...​

Oz
 

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Willie,

What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

Are you a Bible translator from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English that enables you to conclude that old and contemporary translators are 'guessing' in their translations?

Oz
Then you tell us what they were doing...… an "educated guess" is still a guess. None of those translators spoke the language, since they were trying to come up with answers to what is known as a "dead language." All they could do was compare old scraps and make conclusions as to what the most likely meanings were. That is called, "guessing."
 

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Willie,

You seem to assume that an English translation is 'what was really meant' by the original author.

That's a monstrous leap.

Oz
Not at all. I am, and have consistently been, speaking exclusively about the translations we read today, and what the translators of several hundred years ago decided were the meanings of the original words.
 
Last edited:

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
One man's feelings about "The Bible Students."
Do the Bible Students (a religious movement founded by Pastor Russell) still exist or became Jehovah's Witnesses?


Owen Richard Kindig
, Am I a Jesus follower? You tell me.
Answered Mar 4, 2016 · Author has 415 answers and 264.9k answer views


Yes the Bible students do exist, and are still quite active. They hold an international convention in Europe every 2 years (this summer it will be in Poland) and a national convention in Johnstown, Pennsylvania ... usually in early to mid July. I grew up as part of the Bible students and have many friends in the group.

I also happened to grow up in Columbus, Ohio, which was where the Jehovah's Witnesses adopted their name at a conference in 1933.... about 17 years after C.T. Russell died. In the 17 years after he died, there was a great deal of controversy among those who appreciated his writings, and many factions emerged.

The leader at that time was a man called "Judge" Rutherford, who had worked with Russell as an administrator but was not part of the governing committee that Russell appointed in his will.

Rutherford gained control and forged the group into a top-down, authoritarian structure that aggressively uses coercive means to push people into canvassing for the group. For the last couple of decades its baptisms immerse people, not "into Christ" as followers of Jesus have done for centuries, but "into Jehovah's organization."

Though JW's claim to believe that Jesus died for the entire world, they also believe that the last century has been a time of judgment, and that the only people in the world who will be delivered into the Kingdom of Christ will be ... Jehovah's witnesses. In other words, JWs believe that only a few million of earth's billions living now will be saved... only the JWs.

Bible students who adhere more closely to what Russell wrote tend to believe that everyone, everywhere, will gain eternal life in the coming Millennium. Every flavor of Christian (including JW), Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists. Everyone. They see the blessings of God as coming to the world in spite of the beliefs people hold in this life.

Most Bible students are especially friendly toward Jewish people, and encourage them to hang onto their Jewish identity and resist Christian proselytization efforts. (since mainstream christianity teaches that Jews who don't accept Jesus before they die will go to hell). By the way, Jehovah's Witnesses take their name from Isaiah 43:10, a verse which Bible students apply to all Jews. JWs think of themselves as inheriting all the positive redemptive promises that seem to be written to the Jews.

Bible students don't believe in an eternal hell, they believe that hell is the grave, Jesus went there, everyone goes there, and everyone is resurrected out of it.

From my perspective the Jehovah's Witnesses are the least interesting and most unlikable group who emerged from the movement Russell started. Today it is very difficult for most JWs to obtain from their leaders what Russell wrote. If they do read "Studies in the Scriptures" and talk about it, they will soon find themselves excommunicated. JW's even have a Biblical phrase that they think describes Bible students: "The evil servant class."

I know a number of ex-JWs who are active among Bible students.

Other movements that trace many of their roots to Russell's influence are the Associated Bible Students or simply Bible Students, the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, the New Creation, Christian Believers, Divine Plan Bible Students, and several others.

By the way, Russell did not introduce the name "Bible students" until 1910, almost 30 years after he began his work, because he didn't want to form a sectarian denomination, he wanted to unite Christians in an extra-denominational movement. He wrote: "Now in the Lord's providence we have thought of a title suitable, we believe, to the Lord's people everywhere, and free from objection, we believe, on every score—the title at the head of this article (International Bible Students Association). It fairly represents our sentiments and endeavors. We are Bible students. We welcome all of God's people to join with us in the study...."

While every movement struggles to live up to its ideals -- and all fall short -- it has been my observation that individual conscience and freedom to choose what one believes remains a relatively common characteristic among the Bible students I know. And I've also noticed that avid talking about and pursuit of Bible knowledge is a characteristic that remains remarkably intense among Bible students ... more than I have observed in other groups with which I also maintain fellowship. Walk through a Bible student gathering at the lunch hour and eavesdrop on the conversations. You won't hear politics as a rule, nor sports nor petty issues ... just a whole lot of Bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: epostle1

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then you tell us what they were doing...… an "educated guess" is still a guess. None of those translators spoke the language, since they were trying to come up with answers to what is known as a "dead language." All they could do was compare old scraps and make conclusions as to what the most likely meanings were. That is called, "guessing."

That just isn't so. From (How we got the Bible, Neil R. Lightfoot, Baker Book House, 1981, p.23-24). "The Bible was written originally in three languages: (1.) Hebrew, (2.) Aramaic, and (3.) Greek. Contrary to the opinion of some people, these languages are not dead languages. Hebrew is the spoken language of the new state of Israel; Aramaic is spoken by a few Christians in the environs of Syria; and Greek , of course is spoken by millions of people today, although it is quite different from the Greek of the New Testament."

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
epostle1,

You have plagiarized (stolen) material from a Catholic Answers' website that you have included in your post. Google helped me locate some of your material:

Bible Translations Guide - Catholic Answers
Bible Translations Guide - Pack Of 50 Tracts
At Catholic Answers we are often asked which Bible version a person should choose. ... can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the ... According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is ...​

Oz
Thanks for providing the link, I was tired and forgot. You gather the firewood and you can use my lighter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and Willie T

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Then you tell us what they were doing...… an "educated guess" is still a guess. None of those translators spoke the language, since they were trying to come up with answers to what is known as a "dead language." All they could do was compare old scraps and make conclusions as to what the most likely meanings were. That is called, "guessing."

You didn't answer my question.

Are you a Bible translator?

Do you read a translation that is full of 'guesses'?