I have asked several questions but not one of those who question my qualifications have answered them. But we have had several posts on KJV onlyism.
Because you seem to be headed in that direction when you bring passages in that translation then ask questions as to "why" a certain word is translated in the manner it is.
I asked why we have a single Greek word translated into many different words rather than a few. No answer.
I have EXTENSIVELY answered you on this issue, but you simply do not like the response. If you are waiting for another response, you will likely be waiting for a REAL LONG TIME, as my response is the scholarly response.
Just to recapitulate my response in short form, there is NO one-to-one correspondence between translated words, rather "concepts" are translated as best as is possible in context with the idea carried forth in the original text. Additionally, English (or whichever language is being translated) synonyms are employed to operate within conventional grammar structures and also to offer various levels of readability, determined by the level that the translator wishes to put forth into the market, i.e., a 6th grade reading level, a 12th grade reading level, etc.
I asked why we have so many different Greek words translated into the same English word, as if there was no difference in the intended message, when the inspired word chose this Greek word and not some other. No answer.
Because sometimes different words can have the same usage. I offered the English example "run" which has over 30 different usages.
Greek is similar, but you not having a grasp of Greek scholarship by your own admittance, would not understand that, hence your effort to try to make simple what is in fact rather complex.
Most everyone claims there is no problem and the only reason I believe there is a problem is a lacking in my qualifications. To me this is simply a smoke screen to avoid specific responses.
No, in fact, this IS the problem. You can continue in your rampant ignorance and fail to even grasp that the problem is yours, or you can do as I and several others have suggested and go out to gain an education in Greek grammar.
Summary, if "ek" which has a large range of meanings, could be captured using 8 English words or combination thereof, then more Greek words ought to be translated into 3 or four words. This would reduce overlap, so different Greek words would be translated with different English words in most cases and thus more clearly present with clarity the actual message of the inspired word.
Again, depending on context, and the conventions of GREEK grammar (you continually wish to employ a VERY SIMPLE, GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL, of English grammar as your guide) words like "
ek" can have multiple usages as has been well explained in the posts above.
English, on a level above grade school, also has similar issues. One can use, but, therefore, and, an, the, a, so be it, however, is, was, were, etc., etc., etc., depending on context to carry on the thought of a particular sentence. You take for granted this practice, but you don't know that it is based on certain conventions of grammar that ARE NOT THE SAME in the Greek language.
To refer back to Romans 3:30 which says the circumcised are saved by faith and the uncircumcised are saved through faith, my question is what does this mean, what is the difference being presented by Paul which we may grasp.
What Paul is saying here is actually rather simple, and the term he uses is not "saved," but rather, "justified" (a legal term). He is saying that the means to salvation for the Jew (circumcised) and the Gentile (uncircumcised) is the same -- justification by faith BY God. In other words, God gives the justification and God gives the faith. Why do I say that both justification and faith are by God? The passage says "by God who will..." No mention of the actions of the individual. Even more, the gist of the passage is not circumcision or lack thereof, nor is it justification by faith, but it is actually the fact that in God's eyes Jew and Gentile are one and the same -- lost sinners in need of salvation (justification) and that God handles both the same, for he is one God, not separate gods for Jew and Gentile.
If we back up a couple of verses, we see that Paul is making an argument against a special dispensation for the Jews, who approach God as if their circumcision or covenant sets them apart as somehow special concerning justification. Paul is countering this argument and saying that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
The Jews made the claim that God was their God only, and they were wrong.
No answer will be forthcoming on that question either, or so I suspect.
As I said above, you have been answered, and well. You just refuse the answer offered because it does not match your fundamentalistic and un-educated view of what the answer should be.
