Rewording Passages for a Better Understanding

[Guido]

Is it a sin to reword a passage in the KJV in order to comprehend it better? For instance, let’s say I want to understand this passage from Hebrews:

“If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.


And I am having trouble understanding it, and I rewrote it like this:

"Under the Levitical priesthood the people received the Law. So if perfection were by that priesthood, it was necessary for another priest to rise after the order of Melchisedec, not being called after the order of Aoran.

For the priesthood is being changed. The law of necessity is changed.

For the man these things are spoken of, (Jesus), pertains to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar."

And I changed no meanings but only sentence structure, would it be a sin?

I’m not sure if I did it right though.

I know the way I interpreted it might seem strange but that's the only one I can derive from the text reading it for myself.

 

[Dave G]

Is it a sin to reword a passage in the KJV in order to comprehend it better?

I'd say that as long as you leave the words alone when you quote the passage or write it down for others to see, then you're OK...
To me, you are relating how you personally understand the passage for yourself.

Stated otherwise:
As long as you make it clear to the reader( or listener in a conversation ) that you are not quoting the passage verbatim ( but rather that is how you yourself understands it ),
then I think that you are on safe ground, my friend.

I know the way I interpreted it might seem strange but that's the only one I can derive from the text reading it for myself.

I had to read it, and yours, twice before it "clicked";
Here's how I would have worded it, in your place...

"Under the Levitical priesthood the people received the Law. So if perfection were by that priesthood, it was not necessary for another priest to rise after the order of Melchisedec, not being called after the order of Aoran.

I've added in a word ( and also lined one out ) to show you my own understanding of it based on this:

The writer asks the question...
"What further need was there...?"

Therefore, if perfection were by that priesthood, there would have been no reason for another priest to arise...
One that was after the order of Melchisedec, instead of being after the order of Aaron.
Jesus Christ is our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, King of Salem...
" without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."


Who had no beginning and no end.
He is not after the order of Aaron, who did.

 

[Guido]

I'd say that as long as you leave the words alone when you quote the passage or write it down for others to see, then you're OK...
To me, you are relating how you personally understand the passage for yourself.

Stated otherwise:
As long as you make it clear to the reader( or listener in a conversation ) that you are not quoting the passage verbatim ( but rather that is how you yourself understands it ),
then I think that you are on safe ground, my friend.

I had to read it, and yours, twice before it "clicked";
Here's how I would have worded it, in your place...

I've added in a word ( and also lined one out ) to show you my own understanding of it based on this:

The writer asks the question...
"What further need was there...?"

Therefore, if perfection were by that priesthood, there would have been no reason for another priest to arise...
One that was after the order of Melchisedec, instead of being after the order of Aaron.

Jesus Christ is our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, King of Salem...
" without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."


Who had no beginning and no end.
He is not after the order of Aaron, who did.

Oh okay. So it is saying that perfection is not by the Levitical priesthood. I need to look at this passage a little more but now I'm starting to understand it.

Thank you.