Steve Stanley’s Reviews > Why I Trust the Bible: Answers to Real Questions and Doubts People Have about the Bible > Status Update

I like to refer to words as having a bundle of sticks, with each stick representing a different (and sometimes related) meaning. One of the sticks may certainly be larger than the rest, representing the most used idea of the word, or . . . as ‘the gloss,’ but it's only one among many. So if you are producing a ‘literal’ translation, how will you decide on the literal meaning of a word?

Does a single word have a ‘literal’ meaning? What does the word *key* literally mean? The answer is that it has no literal meaning. ‘Did you lose your key?’ ‘What's the key to the puzzle?’ ‘What's the key point?’ ‘What key is that song in?’ ‘Press the A key.’ ‘Не shoots best from the key.’ ‘I ate my first key lime pie in Key West in the Florida Keys.’

The fact of the matter is that there is only one literal Bible. The literal Old Testament is written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the literal New Testament is written in Greek. However, if you want to read the Bible in English, there is no such thing as a literal translation, nor is one even possible.

Languages are not codes; a word in one language has no exact equivalent in another language. Therefore, we have a second interpretive stage, but now we are interpreting English.

Words have what are called a ‘semantic range.’ Few (if any) words have just one meaning; they have several meanings. The Greek word . . . (doulos) can mean ‘servant,’ ‘slave,’ or ‘bondservant.’ . . . Are Paul and Timothy ‘servants’ or ‘slaves’ of Christ Jesus [Phil 1:1]? This is an interpretive stage, and different translators will interpret the meaning of the words differently.

The author would have proofread the written document and, if necessary, made corrections. We also believe that in many cases a copy would have been made by the amanuensis. One of these manuscripts would then be sent to the recipient, and the second kept as a backup.

As a general rule, the amanuensis would have been given some freedom as to what he wrote word choice, grammar, style. This would explain the unusual frequency of medical imagery in 1 and 2 Timothy, since Luke was a physician.

We use the term autograph to refer to the original document written by the author. In most cases, it would have been dictated and written down by an ‘amanuensis’—that is, a secretary. Paul used Tertius to write Romans (Rom 16:22), and Peter may have used Silas (also named Silvanus) to write 1 Peter (1 Pet 5:12). I'm convinced that Paul used Luke to write 1 Timothy and perhaps 2 Timothy and Titus.