\subsection{The Translation}
As anyone who has studied a foreign language or a foreign culture knows, 
different peoples have subtly different ways of viewing the world, and many 
of these differences are embodied in their languages. Because of this, the 
translation process is essentially an attempt to reconcile these 
differences. Inevitably a translation is a compromise. Languages do not 
correspond one-to-one.

Virtually all of the great translations of the New Testament take the 
approach of making the sense of the Original fit ordinary English (or what 
was at the time ordinary or proper English). This is certainly the best 
approach for a general-purpose translation. \textit{The Faithful New Testament }tries to \textit{complement} this approach with a 
translation in which English is used just a little creatively to better 
convey the sense of the Original. 

The result, of course, is that the English is a little more awkward. 
Consequently, \textit{The Faithful New Testament} may not be the best choice for quoting scripture passages in 
public worship, for example. In fact, we think the best way to use \textit{The Faithful New Testament} is alongside your favorite translation as a study aid to see more of the detail 
and power of the Original.

\textbf{Example 1}

English uses the one word ``love'' for an enormous variety of types of love; 
the Greek distinguishes them by using different words. The two principle 
words for ``love'' used in the New Testament: are ``agape'' (``ah-GAH-pay'') and 
``philia'' (``fi-LEE-ah''), and the Faithful New Testament translates them as 
``agape-love'' and ``philia-love'' respectively.

Some Bible expositors teach that agape-love is ``God's Love'' and philia-love 
is ``Man's Love''. But consider:

\begin{verse}
Men agape-loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were 
pernicious. (John 3:19, \textit{Faithful New Testament})
\end{verse}

How can you have ``God's love'' for the darkness? And Paul says 

\begin{verse}
If anyone does not philia-love the lord, let him be accursed. (I Cor. 16:22, 
\textit{Faithful New Testament})
\end{verse}

This would seem to indicate that philia-love is as important as agape-love. 

In our view, the difference between agape-love and philia-love is along the 
lines of the difference between ``love as commitment'' and ``love as 
feeling''. But you don't have to take our word for it: the \textit{Faithful New Testament} enables the English reader to know immediately which of these two words for ``love'' is 
used in any passage, which ultimately is the decisive way to understand the 
different meanings. 

Making clear the different Greek words for ``love'' in the English sometimes 
dramatically clarifies otherwise confusing passages. For example, in the 
following passage, the resurrected Jesus is talking to Peter, who had so 
recently denied Jesus three times (bold is added): 

King James: 

\begin{verse}
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, ``Simon, son of Jonas, 
\textbf{lovest} thou Me more than these?'' He saith unto Him, ``Yes, Lord; 
Thou knowest that I \textbf{love} Thee.'' He saith unto him, ``Feed my lambs.'' 
\VS{16} He saith to him again the second time, ``Simon, son of Jonas, 
\textbf{lovest} thou Me?'' He saith unto Him, ``Yes, Lord, Though knowest that 
I \textbf{love} Thee.'' He saith unto him, ``Feed My sheep.'' 
\VS{17} He saith 
unto him the third time, ``Simon, son of Jonas, \textbf{lovest} thou Me?'' 
Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, ``\textbf{Lovest} 
thou Me?'' and he said unto Him, ``Lord Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest 
that I \textbf{loveth} Thee.'' Jesus saith unto him, ``Feed My sheep.'' (John 
21: 15-17)
\end{verse}

Faithful New Testament:

\begin{verse}
When therefore they ate breakfast, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon son of 
John, do you \textbf{agape-love }me more than these? He says to them: Yes, 
Lord, you know that I \textbf{philia-love} you. He says to him: Be feeding 
my lambs. 
\VS{16} He says to him again a second time: Simon son of John, do 
you \textbf{agape-love} me? He says to him: Yes Lord, you know that I 
\textbf{philia-love} you. He says to him: Be shepherding my sheep. 
\VS{17} 
He says to him the third time: Simon Peter, do you \textbf{philia-love} me? 
Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time: Do you 
\textbf{philia-love} me? And he said to him: You know everything, you know 
that I \textbf{philia-love} you. Jesus says to him: Be feeding my sheep. 
(John 21: 15-17)
\end{verse}

The first two times Jesus asks Peter if he \textbf{agape-loves} Him, Peter 
replies that he \textbf{philia-loves} Him; the third time when Jesus asks 
Peter if \textbf{philia-loves} Him (which Peter had already said twice that 
he does), Peter is upset. It's interesting that Jesus questions Peter three 
times --- the same number of times that Peter had denied Him.

\textbf{Example 2 }

To a surprising degree, translators sometimes pass over details of the 
meaning of the Original unnecessarily (in our view). For example, the phrase 
``the kingdom of heaven,'' which appears so frequently in Matthew's gospel, is 
not singular, it's \textbf{plural}: 

Matt.5:3:
\begin{verse}
Blessed are the poor in the spirit                
For theirs is the \textbf{kingdom of the heavens}. \textit{Faithful New Testament}

Blessed are the poor in the spirit                
for theirs is the \textbf{kingdom of heaven}. \textit{King James}

Blessed are the poor in the spirit                
For theirs is the \textbf{kingdom of heaven}. \textit{RSV}                  

Blessed are the poor in the spirit                
For theirs is the \textbf{kingdom of heaven}. \textit{NASB}                
\end{verse}

But in other passages, the New Testament uses ``heaven'' singular, such as in 
the Lord's Prayer: 

\begin{verse}
Your kingdom come, your will come to pass, as in [heaven], so also on 
[the] earth. (Matt.6:10)
\end{verse}

The Faithful New Testament takes the position that details in the Original 
like singular and plural should be translated literally as much as possible --- especially when they can be translated by perfectly normal English --- so English readers can assess the significance for themselves.

\textbf{Example 3}

Greek makes its negatives more emphatic by doubling and sometimes tripling 
them. The \textit{Faithful New Testament} indicates a double negative by underlining the word ``not,'' a triple negative by underlining the word ``NOT'' (all capital letters):

Heb.13:5
\begin{verse}
I will \negd{not} abandon you, and I will \negt{NOT} forsake you.
\textit{Faithful New Testament} 

I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. \textit{King James}

Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you. \textit{RSV}

I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you. \textit{NASB}
\end{verse}

Although double negatives are fairly common, triple negatives are quite 
rare, only occurring a half dozen times in the entire New Testament. To have 
both a double and a triple negative in the same sentence is 
\textbf{extremely unusual}. With the \textit{Faithful New Testament}, English readers can see for 
themselves the powerful emphasis in the Original: ``I will \negd{not} 
abandon you, and I will \negt{NOT} forsake you''. This powerful 
emphasis is completely lost in other translations.

Or consider (Mark 14):
\begin{verse}
\VS{22} And while they were eating, taking bread [and] having blessed [it] he 
broke and gave [it] to them and said: Take, this is my body. 
\VS{23} And taking 
the cup [and] having given thanks he gave [it] to them, and they were all drinking of it. 
\VS{24} And he said to them: This is my blood of the \footnote{insert 
``new'' \koine{} \vulgate{} many; text: \sinaiticus{}BD} contract being poured out in behalf of 
many. 
\VS{25} Truly I say to you that I will \negt{NO LONGER} drink of 
the produce of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of 
God. 
\end{verse}

In this passage, ``\negt{NO LONGER}'' is a rare triple-negative --- the 
strongest negative that can be expressed in Greek. 

\textbf{Example 4}

In various passages, the New Testament is much more forceful than would 
appear in other translations:

\begin{verse}
And behold a leper, having come, prostrated himself before him saying: Lord, 
if you wish it, you are able to cleanse me. And stretching out his hand he 
\textbf{grasped} him saying: I wish it, be cleansed. (Matt.8:2-3)
\end{verse}

Generally verse 3 is translated ``{\ldots} he \textbf{touched }him{\ldots}'', 
which suggests that perhaps Jesus just barely touched the leper. But the 
Original makes clear that he grasped the leper - a truly shocking and 
fearless act. (Imagine confidently grasping someone with a horrifying 
disease that is transmitted by touch.)

Matt.8:3
\begin{verse}
And stretching out his hand he \textbf{grasped} him... \textit{Faithful New Testament}

And Jesus put forth His hand, and he \textbf{touched} him... \textit{King James}

And Jesus put forth His hand, and he \textbf{touched} him... \textit{RSV}

And Jesus put forth His hand, and he \textbf{touched} him... \textit{NASB}
\end{verse}

\textbf{Example 5 }

Matt.13:35
\begin{verse}
I will open my mouth in parables, \\
I will \textbf{shout} things secret \\
From the foundation of the world. \textit{Faithful New Testament}

I will open my mouth in parables, \\
I will \textbf{utter} things which have been kept secret \\
From the foundation of the world. \textit{King James}

I will open my mouth in parables, \\
I will \textbf{utter} what has been hidden \\
since the foundation of the world. \textit{RSV}

I will open my mouth in parables; \\
I will \textbf{utter} things hidden \\
since the foundation of the world. \textit{NASB}
\end{verse}

The verb translated as ``shout'' in the \textit{Faithful New Testament }(and ``utter'' in the others) is used in 
the Greek to describe the eruption of volcanoes and other forceful 
discharges --- hardly a mild-mannered ``utter''!

\textbf{Example 6}

Greek verbs can express ``continual action'' - action that takes place over a period of time, versus ``point'' or ``matter-of-fact'' action - action that takes place essentially at one point in time. For example:
\begin{verse}
``Now Krispus, the chief of the synagogue, believed [``point action'' or ``matter of fact''] in the Lord with his whole house, and many of the Corinthians, having heard [''point action'' or ''matter of fact''], were believing [``continual action''] and were being baptized [''continual action'']. 
\end{verse}
In the case of imperatives especially, the type of action can deepen the meaning considerably. Matt.7:7 is usually translated ``Ask ... Seek ... Knock ... '', implying that one need only ask, seek or knock once, whereas the Original makes it clear that a continual course of action is required: ``Be [continually] asking ...'' (that is, don't stop!) English is perfectly capable of expressing these kinds of distinctions:

\begin{verse}
Be asking, and it will be given to you;be seeking and you will find; be knocking, and it will be opened to you.	Faithful New Testament	Matt. 7:7

Ask, and it shall be given to you;Seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened unto you.	King James	

Ask, and it will be given you;seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.	RSV	

Ask, and it will be given to you;seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.	NASB	
\end{verse}

\textbf{Example 7}

The \textit{Faithful New Testament }also translates ``technical terms'' of the New Testament, such as ``sin,'' 
``justice,'' ``soul,'' by the same English word throughout. The intent is to 
enable the reader to identify the same important Greek word in its various 
contexts, which is the only real basis for understanding its meaning as the 
New Testament uses it. Each Greek ``technical'' term is translated by one 
English word, e.g. DIKE (``DIH-kay'') as noun, verb, and adjective is 
translated ``Justice,'' ``Justify,'' and ``Just.'' ``Justice'' is never used to 
translate any other Greek word. In those cases when it is impossible to 
translate a Greek ``technical term'' by its usual English word, a reference in 
the footnote will indicate what would have been the usual English ``technical 
term:''

\begin{verse}
{\ldots} they have been entrusted$^{a}$ the words of God.
\end{verse}
(footnote:) $^{a}$ from ``BELIEF''

meaning that ``entrusted'' corresponds to the same Greek word which is usually 
translated ``believe.''

\textbf{Example 8}

There are two principle words for ``love'' used in the New Testament: 
``agape'' (``ah-GAH-pay'') and ``philia'' (``phi-LEE-ah''). Since English 
uses the same word ``love'' for so many kinds of love that are distinguished 
in the Greek, the \textit{Faithful New Testament} translates them as ``agape-love'' and ``philia-love'' 
respectively.

Some Bible expositers teach that agape-love is ``God's Love'' and 
philia-love is ``Man's Love''. But consider:

\begin{verse}
Men agape-loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were 
pernicious. (John 3:19)
\end{verse}

How can you have ``God's love'' for the darkness? And Paul says 

\begin{verse}
If anyone does not philia-love the Lord, let him be accursed. (I Cor. 16:22)
\end{verse}

This would seem to indicate that philia-love is as important as agape-love. 
\textit{The Faithful New Testament} enables the English reader to know immediately which of these two words for 
``love'' is used in any passage. (The very few cases where other Greek words 
for ``love'' are used are indicated in footnotes.)

(In our opinion, the difference between agape-love and philia-love is along 
the lines that agape-love is ``love as commitment'', where philia-love is 
``love as emotional connection''. Thus, when an infant is inconsolable at 
3am, her parents may unquestioningly agape-love their child, but they may 
not philia-love her very much in that moment!)

Making clear the different Greek words for ``love'' in the English sometimes 
dramatically clarifies otherwise confusing passages. In the following 
passage, the resurrected Jesus is talking to Peter, who only days previous 
had denied Jesus three times: 

\begin{verse}
When therefore they ate breakfast, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon Peter, 
do you \textbf{agape-love} me more than these? He says to them: Yes, Lord, 
you know that I \textbf{philia-love} you. He says to him: Be feeding my 
lambs. 
\VS{16} He says to him again a second time: Simon son of John, do you 
\textbf{agape-love} me? He says to him: Yes Lord, you know that I 
\textbf{philia-love} you. He says to him: Be shepherding my sheep. 
\VS{17} 
He says to him the third time: Simon Peter, do you \textbf{philia-love} me? 
Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time: Do you 
\textbf{philia-love} me? And he said to him: You know everything, you know 
that I \textbf{philia-love you}. Jesus says to him: Be feeding my sheep. 
(John 21: 15-17)
\end{verse}

\textbf{Example 9}

Words which are implied by Greek grammar but are not, strictly speaking, 
found in the original are in square brackets:

\begin{verse}
But the sting of death [is] sin, and the power of sin [is] law. (I Cor. 15:56)
\end{verse}

Idioms are translated literally when they are comprehensible:

\begin{verse}
And \textbf{boiling} in the spirit, he was speaking and teaching carefully 
concerning Jesus . . (Acts 18:25)
\end{verse}

\begin{verse}
Mary ... was found \textbf{having }\textbf{[life]}\textbf{ in the 
belly} (Matt 1:18)
\end{verse}

