When it is a commentary and not a translation. Shakespeare is not a commentary. Shakespeare adds scripture into his plays. It is not really a translation or commentary. That is the point.
I still don't really know what you are getting at. I see no comparison with Shakespeare to what you have been saying. Pastors have Scripture quotes in their sermons. Does that make them like Shakespeare?
People think that translations are not duplicate copies for some reason. Do other authors besides God, blame translators, people in other languages misunderstand their intent? Yes, I understand that languages have barriers in exact word for word copies. Do people even understand why?
I still don't know what you are getting at with this. It is impossible for a translation to be a duplicate copy. Ask any translator, secular or Bible translators. Ask any United Nations interpreter. Ask the idiotic Japanese politician who used the word mokusatsu (黙殺) in answer to the Potsdam Declaration, thus insuring that Japan would be A-bombed.
It is the backlash of higher criticism that is ingrained in all aspects of Bible interpretation. People who think only the original words have some hidden interpretation that only the enlightened can understand. I ask, why? Why has higher criticism replaced the job of the Holy Spirit?
You are mistaken in your understanding of the term "higher criticism." It is not "ingrained in all aspects of Bible interpretation." Evangelicals and fundamentalists do not use higher criticism in their hermeneutics, and it does not refer to "some hidden interpretation" in the originals. I suggest you learn what higher criticism really is: a practice by liberal "scholars" aimed at the authorship, provenance, originality, etc., of the Bible.
And there is nothing "enlightened" about being able to read the original languages. It takes hard work and many, many hours of study. I had my Greek students do a "review program" of the many conjugations of the Greek verb luo (λύω) over the Christmas break, and several have been talking to me in recent days about how they did. You cannot--CANNOT--learn Greek or Hebrew without serious dedication and many hours of hard work. So to say that we advocate "enlightenment" when we stand for the authority of the Bible in the original languages is absurd.
Why put emphasis on our ability to take God's Word to other languages? What in the world has that to do with "500" different versions of the Bible in English? One could also translate all "500" English versions in different languages. One still has to decide which one is God's Word, no?
How about the Great Commission? Bible translation into all of the languages of the world is implicit in the Great Commission. Anyone who argues against missionary Bible translation is sinning against the last command of Christ on earth.
If we can accept that the Septuagent was the work of 70 different scribes, working individually, not as a group, then perhaps we should trust God and do it that way for every translation to see if 70 modern day scribes could agree with God, instead of each other.
This is meaningless in regards to Christ-honoring, Christ-obeying Bible translation. Christ never commanded any specific number of translators. The translation I led from the TR into Japanese usually had just two translators, sometimes 3-5. Why? There are few who are qualified and have the burden. Luke 10:2--"Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest."
