More New KJV-Only Arguments (Part 2 of 3)

Ross's argument is that since some portions of the Greek are difficult to understand by those who learn it, that the English translation ought to emulate that difficulty in different ways, grammatically speaking, than the original Greek or Hebrew does. Suffice it to say that I'm not quite sure he ever read Strunk & White's The Elements of Style, nor is he conversant with Twain's admonition "Never use a five dollar word when a fifty cent word will do.", or the college warning "Eschew Obfuscation!", or finally "if you can't blind them with brilliance...".

There is a very real debate to be had about whether a translation ought to try to translate words precisely, or meaning precisely, but translators should not be seriously arguing for complexity for difficulty's sake. It's not scholarly, but rather pretentious, and it's a practice that seasoned writers avoid for good reason.

A side note--possibly related--it that Ross really needs to learn to speak like a human being. What is up with that sing-songy, nasal voice?

I read through my Greek NT every other year. I find Luke, Acts, Hebrews, and 1&2 Peter to be the harder books to read. The difficulty for me in Luke / Acts is due to vocabulary. Hebrews and 1&2 Peter are more difficult because of word order.

That said, for the native Koine Greek reader, these books were probably not as difficult as we think they are today. Maybe like the difference between reading a newspaper article versus a Harvard review article.

And, regarding the Message ... I read the Message and was uncomfortable at the many instances Peterson changes what is in the underlying text to something else unrecognizable.