Someone says :
Roman 1:1
[KJV] 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
[NKJV] 1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated to the gospel of God
[NLT] 1 This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, chosen by God to be an apostle and sent out to preach his Good News.
[NIV] 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--
[ESV] 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
[CSB] 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and set apart for the gospel of
God --
[NASB20] 1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called [as] an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
[LSB] 1 Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called [as] an apostle, having been set apart for the gospel of God,
[NET] 1 From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.
[RSV] 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God
[ASV] 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
[YLT] 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God --
[DBY] 1 Paul, bondman of Jesus Christ, [a] called apostle, separated to God's glad tidings,
[WEB] 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated to the gospel of God,
[HNV] 1 Sha'ul, a servant of Yeshua the Messiah, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Good News of God,
[BBE] 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, an Apostle by the selection of God, given authority as a preacher of the good news,
What about that (or ANY of these) translations is CORRUPT?
-
- The letter WAS written by Paul, from Paul, and that is why it begins with his name … see the letter from James for another example of First Century Letter Writing etiquette.
- GOD did choose Paul to be an Apostle (that is how one becomes an Apostle)
- What you appear to be railing against is Formal Equivalence vs Dynamic Equivalence as a translation philosophy … which is nonsensical since there is no such thing as a “literal translation” … most words do not have EXACT parallels in other languages and idioms require some form of Dynamic Equivalence to be meaningful.
So, what EXACTLY is “corrupt” in any of the translations of Romans 1:1 presented above?