A Case for Not Reading The Bible Literally

[RWRiley]

I understand what you're trying to do, and I respect the desire to strip away religious baggage and let readers see the structure of the Greek.
My concern would simply be whether an etymological rendering communicates what the word means in actual usage.
Compound words often drift beyond the sum of their parts.
For example, while καταλλάσσω may be analyzed as something like "change" or "exchange" with a prefixed intensifier, Paul's usage seems consistently relational.
In Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5, the emphasis is not merely that an exchange has occurred, but that a state of alienation has been replaced by a state of peace and restored relationship.

So when I read "down-another-exchange," I can see the pieces of the Greek compound, but I am not sure a modern English reader would naturally arrive at the idea Paul is expressing.
A translation's task is not only to show how a word was built but also how the word functioned in the author's argument.
In that sense, "reconciliation" may carry some theological baggage, but it also immediately communicates the restoration of a broken relationship, which appears to be exactly Paul's point.

That said, you've raised a valuable question.
Every translator must decide whether to prioritize transparency to the Greek form or clarity of meaning in the target language.
My instinct is that Paul cared more about his readers understanding the reality being described than about preserving the visible components of a compound word.
So if I were evaluating your method, I'd ask: does "down-another-exchange" communicate Paul's intended meaning more clearly than "reconciliation," or does it mainly communicate how the Greek word was constructed?
To me, those are related but not necessarily identical goals.

(OMC)
So if I were evaluating your method, I'd ask: does "down-another-exchange" communicate Paul's intended meaning more clearly than "reconciliation," or does it mainly communicate how the Greek word was constructed?

(Robin)
Granted ... and yet, as with Figures ... one does not just skip over such a compound words reading, if it sounds a little garbled to the English ear ... WHAT? ... Whats is that babbler saying? (They ask Paul the very same question on Mars Hill in Athens) ... i've sat o the rock, and watched the sun set over the city ... What did he just say? Makes you pause and think about it, if you are really interested ... doesn't it? Andwhen you think about it .... it DOES make sense, you just have to chew on it for awhile.

 

[RWRiley]

That is exactly why I find these word studies interesting.
Looking at your list, I can see why you've gravitated toward "correct," "correction," and "corrected" as the core idea of the δικ- word family.
It gives the family a very consistent English backbone.
My only hesitation is that "correct" in modern English often suggests fixing an error, whereas Paul's usage frequently seems to operate in the spheres of justice, legal standing, vindication, and right relationship.
For example, when Paul says God "justifies the ungodly" in Romans 4:5, "God corrects the ungodly" feels narrower to my ear than what Paul may be conveying.
That said, I think you've touched on a real translation challenge.
"Righteousness" is traditional, but many readers don't know what it means. "Justice" works in some contexts but not all.
"Correctness" or "correction" highlights conformity to a standard, which is certainly part of the semantic range.
So if I were evaluating your approach, my question would not be whether "correction" is possible, but whether it can carry the full weight of passages where Paul appears to be speaking of acquittal, vindication, covenant standing, or moral rectitude all at once.
In other words, you've solved one problem by making the word family transparent in English, but I'd be curious whether any meaning gets lost when all the δικ- terms are funneled through the idea of "correct."
That would make for a fascinating passage-by-passage discussion, especially in Romans, where Paul seems to squeeze every possible nuance out of that word family.

First of all the word has to fit in all its occurances ... fit ... not be perfectly tailored ... if it does not fit in all cases, then you discard it and try again. However, you can have more than one word for a single Greek word ... I call it the stable of ords that a Greek word rides on, depending upon the context. I am only 30 years into this project, and for some Greek words, I have only gotten so far with ... first i find the "fit" word .. and then, god willing, and the damn dont break, I get to go back and fine tune ... For instance, I'm up to ten different word for the Greek kai (and) ... that is, there are way more than 1000 instances in the 13 epistles that are my sample universe ... I've got them all first fitted with the conjunction "and" and the adverb "also" ... but then I finally tumbled to the other eight applications ... this takes a lot or work ... but sometimes the results are amazing!

 

[OMC]

(OMC)
So if I were evaluating your method, I'd ask: does "down-another-exchange" communicate Paul's intended meaning more clearly than "reconciliation," or does it mainly communicate how the Greek word was constructed?

(Robin)
Granted ... and yet, as with Figures ... one does not just skip over such a compound words reading, if it sounds a little garbled to the English ear ... WHAT? ... Whats is that babbler saying? (They ask Paul the very same question on Mars Hill in Athens) ... i've sat o the rock, and watched the sun set over the city ... What did he just say? Makes you pause and think about it, if you are really interested ... doesn't it? Andwhen you think about it .... it DOES make sense, you just have to chew on it for awhile.

That gets to the heart of the matter.
Being a Greek speaker and hearing someone say καταλλάσσω in ordinary usage, I would not be consciously thinking, "down-another-exchange," any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."
Native speakers tend to hear the meaning of a word rather than analyzing its parts every time it is used.
That said, the components of the word are not irrelevant.
Sometimes they can shed light on why a word developed the meaning it did.
So I think your approach has value as a study tool because it reminds readers that these words did not appear out of thin air.
They have roots and history.
My hesitation is simply that etymology and meaning are not always identical. As a Greek speaker I would understand καταλλάσσω primarily as the restoration of a relationship, while rarely pausing to analyze the compound itself.
So perhaps the question is this: are we trying to translate what Paul's readers would have understood when they heard the word, or are we trying to expose the building blocks that gave rise to the word?
Those are related goals, but they are not necessarily the same goal.
I think your method excels at the second.
The challenge is determining when that also serves the first.
That's why I find your project interesting, even when I might choose a different English rendering.

 

[RWRiley]

That gets to the heart of the matter.
Being a Greek speaker and hearing someone say καταλλάσσω in ordinary usage, I would not be consciously thinking, "down-another-exchange," any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."
Native speakers tend to hear the meaning of a word rather than analyzing its parts every time it is used.
That said, the components of the word are not irrelevant.
Sometimes they can shed light on why a word developed the meaning it did.
So I think your approach has value as a study tool because it reminds readers that these words did not appear out of thin air.
They have roots and history.
My hesitation is simply that etymology and meaning are not always identical. As a Greek speaker I would understand καταλλάσσω primarily as the restoration of a relationship, while rarely pausing to analyze the compound itself.
So perhaps the question is this: are we trying to translate what Paul's readers would have understood when they heard the word, or are we trying to expose the building blocks that gave rise to the word?
Those are related goals, but they are not necessarily the same goal.
I think your method excels at the second.
The challenge is determining when that also serves the first.
That's why I find your project interesting, even when I might choose a different English rendering.

All translators are liars!

Yep!

(OMC)
....any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."

(Robin)
Ahhh ... that was a tough one ....
4920 GK5317 sunEsousin 4862 + <em>h</em>iemi (n.f.) = sent [terminus ad quem] they will together-understand V-FAI-3P.5692

4920 GK5317 *suniasin *GCT, spelling difference they together-understand V-PAI-3P.5719

4920 GK5317 suniousin 4862 + <em>h</em>iemi (n.f.) = sent [terminus ad quem] they together-understand V-PAI-3P.5719

4920 GK5317 *suniete *GCT, parsing and declension difference be you together-understanding V-PAM-2P.5720

4920 GK5317 suniOn 4862 + <em>h</em>iemi (n.f.) = sent [terminus ad quem] together-understanding V-PAP-NSM.5723

4920 GK5317 sunientes 4862 + <em>h</em>iemi (n.f.) = sent [terminus ad quem] together-understanding V-PAP-NPM.5723

4921 GK5319 sunestEsate 4862 + 2476 you had together-stood V-AAI-2P.5656

4921 GK5318 *sunistanO *GCT, spelling difference I together-stand V-PAI-1S.5719

4921 GK5318 sunistEmi 4862 + 2476 I together-stand V-PAI-1S.5719

4921 GK5319 sunistanomen 4862 + 2476 we together-stand V-PAI-1P.5719

4921 GK5318 sunistEsin 4862 + 2476 she/ He together-stands V-PAI-3S.5719

4921 GK5319 sunistanein 4862 + 2476 to together-stand V-PAN.5721

4921 GK5319 *sunistanOn *GCT, spelling difference together-standing V-PAP-NSM.5723

4921 GK5319 sunistOn 4862 + 2476 together-standing V-PAP-NSM.5723

4921 GK5319 *sunistanontes *GCT, spelling difference together-standing V-PAP-NPM.5723

4921 GK5319 *sunistantes *GCT, spelling difference together-standing V-PAP-NPM.5723

4921 GK5319 sunistOntes 4862 + 2476 together-standing V-PAP-NPM.5723

4921 GK5319 sunistanontOn 4862 + 2476 of~together-standing V-PAP-GPM.5723

4921 GK5319 sunistasthai 4862 + 2476 to be together-stood V-PPN.5745

4921 GK5318 sunestEken 4862 + 2476 there has had together-stood V-RAI-3S.5758

4923a GK5323 sunoida was 4894 4862 + 3609a I have had together-perceived V-RAI-1S.5758

4925 GK5325 sunoikodomeisthe 4862 + 3618 you being together-edified V-PPI-2P.5743

 

[RWRiley]

That gets to the heart of the matter.
Being a Greek speaker and hearing someone say καταλλάσσω in ordinary usage, I would not be consciously thinking, "down-another-exchange," any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."
Native speakers tend to hear the meaning of a word rather than analyzing its parts every time it is used.
That said, the components of the word are not irrelevant.
Sometimes they can shed light on why a word developed the meaning it did.
So I think your approach has value as a study tool because it reminds readers that these words did not appear out of thin air.
They have roots and history.
My hesitation is simply that etymology and meaning are not always identical. As a Greek speaker I would understand καταλλάσσω primarily as the restoration of a relationship, while rarely pausing to analyze the compound itself.
So perhaps the question is this: are we trying to translate what Paul's readers would have understood when they heard the word, or are we trying to expose the building blocks that gave rise to the word?
Those are related goals, but they are not necessarily the same goal.
I think your method excels at the second.
The challenge is determining when that also serves the first.
That's why I find your project interesting, even when I might choose a different English rendering.

That gets to the heart of the matter.
Being a Greek speaker and hearing someone say καταλλάσσω in ordinary usage, I would not be consciously thinking, "down-another-exchange," any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."
Native speakers tend to hear the meaning of a word rather than analyzing its parts every time it is used.
That said, the components of the word are not irrelevant.
Sometimes they can shed light on why a word developed the meaning it did.
So I think your approach has value as a study tool because it reminds readers that these words did not appear out of thin air.
They have roots and history.
My hesitation is simply that etymology and meaning are not always identical. As a Greek speaker I would understand καταλλάσσω primarily as the restoration of a relationship, while rarely pausing to analyze the compound itself.
So perhaps the question is this: are we trying to translate what Paul's readers would have understood when they heard the word, or are we trying to expose the building blocks that gave rise to the word?
Those are related goals, but they are not necessarily the same goal.
I think your method excels at the second.
The challenge is determining when that also serves the first.
That's why I find your project interesting, even when I might choose a different English rendering.

(OMC)
any more than an English speaker hears "understand" and thinks "stand under."

(Robin)
Not that I got into that particular rabbit hole, but think about it ... to understand .. to stand under ... you are under the facts and the facts are coming down on your thoughts, covering you mind with an outside insight ... standing under the cloud of data, the vibes of wisdom, as it covers you mentally ... I could go with just a simple understand, becuase I am standing under it and grasping what is being told to me ...

 

[biblestudent78]

Hello Bible Student78, I've never seen or heard of such a "requirement" (before I read your OP today, that is). So, please link us to some examples of these requirements (that are found in all of our denominations and/or churches) so that we can,

1. see what you're talking about and then,​

2. compare/contrast the "unique brands" of literal Bible reading from our various churches and/or denominations.​

Thanks

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy:
I will give it a shot. While not exclusively Baptist, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (and its companion statement on Hermeneutics) heavily shapes conservative Baptist doctrine. Article XIII explicitly asserts that literary categories like myth or poetry cannot be used to deny the factuality of biblical events presented as history. This standard mandates treating narratives like the creation account in Genesis or the account of Jonah as literal, historical truth.

A monumental figure in Baptist history, Criswell pastored the First Baptist Church of Dallas and served as SBC president. His highly influential 1969 book, Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True, became a cornerstone text defending literalism and inerrancy against progressive theology and any other approach to understanding the bible because it is literally true.

Progressive and Mainline Baptists (such as the American Baptist Churches USA or Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) reject mandatory literalism, opting to view many ancient narratives contextually or allegorically while still upholding the spiritual authority of Scripture.

Many independent non-denominational, Bible-believing, or pentecostal churches emphasize strict literalism and biblical inerrancy (the belief that the Bible is without error in history, science, and faith).

Seventh-day Adventists: Hold a high view of scripture that includes a literal six-day creation account.
Jehovah's Witnesses: Apply a distinct, direct interpretation to prophecy and scriptural commands.
Churches of Christ: Emphasize a restorationist view, attempting to follow New Testament patterns and commands literally

A literal interpretation that separates Christian is consubstantiation (or a physical real presence), believing Christ's true body and blood are present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine for all who receive it. About 1.45 Billion Christians hold this literal view.

Some Christians interpret Genesis literally. Everything that exists in the universe was made in 6 days. Sexually mature male angels came down from heaven to breed with human women. God destroyed all life on earth but for one small family and from 2 to 7 kinds of animals, birds and thing that crawl on the ground. The earth and the universe is between 6,000-10,000 years old. God made the world by speaking it into existance rather than a a step-by-step scientific or journalistic timeline.

Building on John Darby's 1830 inspiration, many literally interpret apocalyptic imagery, numbers, and visions in Revelation and Daniel as a strict blueprint for future, blow-by-blow geopolitical and end-times events. Symbolic/Genre View: Others view apocalyptic literature as highly stylized, symbolic Hebrew or Hellenistic writing meant to encourage persecuted early-century Christians through metaphorical imagery rather than a literal calendar of the future.

Some bible literalist groups attempt to apply ancient cultural commands (such as head coverings, specific gender roles, or silence in church) as timeless, literal rules. Contextual/Historical Application: Other Christians argue those commands were bound to specific ancient Mediterranean cultures and should be translated via underlying principles (like love or mutual respect) rather than followed as rigid literal laws.

Literal interpretations must be taught. Teachers in church supported seminaries are required by contract to teach exactly in alignment with their denominations statement of faith. For those churches that believe the bible must be viewed as literal truth their teachers may not suggest any other perspective or detial of approved hermeneutics.

I'm sure if i thought more about it I could come with a few more examples of literalists vs Non-literalists.