Parallel Bible Passages, Allusions, Phrases, Metaphors, Echoes and Types, etc., ARE ALL O.K.

from:
Quotations on Biblical Interpretation.

“[Dynamic equivalence] translations (again, most Bibles today)
often change the language, images, and metaphors of Scripture
to make understanding easier.

"But for serious study, readers need a translation
that is more transparent to the ‘otherness’ of Scripture.

"We need a translation that allows the Bible to say what it says,
even if that seems strange and odd to readers at first glance.

"If God is ‘other’ than we are, we should be willing
to work at the ‘otherness’ of the Bible,
in order to understand what the Lord is saying through his Word.

"The purpose of the Bible is not to make Jesus like us, but to make us like Christ.
The Bible is designed to change us, to make us different,
heirs of Abraham according to the promise fulfilled in Christ (Acts 2) ...

"By seeking familiar modern meanings, these newer translations
make it much harder to see the deep biblical pattern of Paul’s thought.
They obscure the words and metaphors by which the Spirit
has woven a coherent tapestry of meaning that stretches from Genesis to Revelation.

"This practice removes the information we need to understand
because it hides the Bible’s dynamic unity and coherence ...
Biblical metaphors drop into our hearts like a seed in soil and make us think,
precisely because they are not obvious at first.

"The translator who removes biblical metaphors
to make the text ‘easier’ for readers
may defeat the purpose of the Holy Spirit,
who chose a metaphor in the first place.

"Metaphors grab us and work on us and in us. They have the spiritual power
to transform our minds. The abandonment of basic biblical metaphors
in many translations follows naturally from [dynamic equivalence] theory,
because the target languages may not use such expressions.

"But it is the foreignness of metaphors that is their virtue.

"Metaphors make us stop and think, Now what does that mean? ...

The Bible creates a vast context of meaning through cross-references
and allusions, phrases and metaphors, echoes and types.

"For readers to discover this type of biblical meaning in their translations,
translators of the Bible must be constantly aware of parallel passages,
expressions, and images.

"Where this does not happen,
much of the text’s actual meaning may be lost,
often to be replaced by modern meanings.”

—Raymond C. Van Leeuwen,
“We Really Do Need Another Bible Translation,”
Christianity Today, Vol. 45, No. 13 (October 22, 2001), p. 28.

 

Boy, oh boy.

Man, oh man. If they'd have been here, you would have surely gottem today!

 

You're not asking me.

And whoever you are asking better know the difference
between this trick question attempting to bring justification
to there being complete and utter changes in Species,
from One Species to Another, on one account,
by being asked a question that would have an answer regarding
Variations-Only (if you will) Within a Species, on another subject entirely,

and in so doing, would deceptively be trying to equate
A Change from One Species to Another,
TO BE THE SAME AS Variations-Only (if you will)
taking place Within a Species.

They better.

They better know what they are getting into.

It's a trap.

Set to snap.

But check out these Crocodile tears
in this 'sincerely' forlorn 'appeal', to sucker me back in.

YOU TALKIN' TO ME?

Ask a Third-Grader.

 

You already know from their essay to the readers about the first part of your question, I believe. While they did take special care with rendering some particulars with specific meanings intended consistently (in red, below), their Artistic License inherent in their calling (as they may have felt led by The Lord) and chosen profession, as Translators/Writers, afforded them the prerogative to obligate themselves to be tied, or "not tied", as they said to, a strict "uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words", (in blue, below).

The Translators to the Reader.
The Best Things Have Been Calumniated.

Reasons Inducing Us Not To Stand Curiously upon an Identity of Phrasing.

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way.

"Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty.

"But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladness, etc.

"Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?

"A godly Father in the Primitive time showed himself greatly moved, that one of newfangledness called krabbaton skimpouV, though the difference be little or none; and another reporteth that he was much abused for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had been used) into Hedera.

"Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words.

"For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always, and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be banished forever, we might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, To be partial in ourselves and judges of evil thoughts.

"Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us."

This was, in my mind, to avoid the "letterism" and "woodenness"
that they had read in other translation efforts.

It was simply an Executive Decision favoring the use of a device,
in "writing style".

"Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savor more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

"Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words."

"...we might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely,
"To be partial in ourselves and judges of evil thoughts."

"...we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God Himself; therefore He using divers words, in His holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that He hath given us."
...

 

On the other hand;

While the second part of the question again asks about, "variation", and how it is viewed with regard to "other translations", being "wrong", is actually introducing a very different concept with which Bible believers find to be of great concern, although, within the question, it is referred to by using the same word, "variation".

Beats me. Ask them.

Why don't ya?

I found it to be attempting to equate and therefore confuse two unrelated issues.

The invalidity of assuming that there can be a "consistent application of the same "exact measures/standards" is because the two arenas within which those "exact measures/standards" would be applied (the KJV vs other translations) is not the issue, but what it is that is being termed a "variation", and whether "variation" is the appropriate term to describe both situations being observed and "measured".

There is no intention on the part of Bible believers to apply "the same exact measures/standards", "consistently and justly" when their concern is not regarding the same category of subject matter.

They do not attempt to employ "the same exact measures/standards",
"consistently and justly", to a tree as they would an apple.

They are two very different classifications in horticulture
(one a member of the tree family vs an edible vegetable) and would need to be evaluated very differently, of necessity of course.

Ah! Hah! There we have it. Despite the regard we may have for the Critical Text, the subject matter being investigated is "textural matters", about the concerns raised by Bible believers over differences found between the KJV and other translations, and not the issue of employing the stylistic "variation" of translating different words into English that derive from the same word in the source language.

So, we can't expect to ask about;

(the stylistic "variation" of translating different words into English
that derive from the same word in the source language)

to get an answer involving;

(differences in words derived from one underlying original text manuscript(s) in one instance (the KJV), in contradistinction from words under consideration in the other instance (in other translations) which have been derived from another underlying original text manuscript(s) entirely.)

That is the "principal determinant" that must be adopted toward leveraging a resolution to this standoff dilemma.

re:

And in light of the inestimably monumental ill-advised decision that has transpired in The History of Christianity by the wholesale abandonment of the Bible Doctrine of The Preservation of the Scriptures, bringing down with it the counterpart of this Twin-Doctrine, The Divine Origin and Inspiration of The Original Autographs, as being Directly God-Breathed Scripture,

even the foremost proponents of the Westcott and Hort influences on the resulting Critical Texts would readily confirm and confess and admit that there is a differentiation of "The Flesh" and "The Spirit" between the very nature and characteristics of the two completely divergent schools of thought and philosophies in translation,

and the conflicting collations of underlying original language manuscript evidence,

The Byzantine text-type (also called Majority, Traditional, Ecclesiastical, Constantinopolitan Text), which underlies the Textus Receptus used for the King James Version, as one example,
vs
The Eclectic Critical Text-type used for the Modern translation editions that conform more often to the Alexandrian text-type.

All of which makes the deliberation in discussion and exemplifications
brought out from between the two, to be an Eternal Matter, of no small moment, obviously.