Du Toit, Andreas B.2010-09-302010-09-302010-09Du Toit, A.B., 2010, ‘Some more translation headaches in Romans’, Verbum et Ecclesia 31(1), Art. #385, 5 pages. DOI: 10.4102/ ve.v31i1.3851609-998210.4102/ ve.v31i1.385http://hdl.handle.net/2263/14944Following on a previous article, three more problematic lexical items which occur repeatedly in Romans are discussed: summarturewv , ta; eq[ nh/eq[ nh and logizv omai. Typical of the old, etymological approach, translators are often inclined to attach too much weight to the preposition sunv in summarturewv . In Romans 8:16, for instance, it would be more appropriate to translate summarturewv in the sense of ‘affirm’: ‘[t]he Spirit of God affirms to our spirit that we are God’s children’. Despite all objections, rendering ta; eq[ nh as ‘Gentiles/Gentile nations’ still remains the best option. In certain contexts in Romans, it would be advisable to translate logizv omai as ‘I realise/am convinced’. Thereafter some ad hoc problems in Romans 12:6–8; 14:4 and 15:17 are discussed.en© 2010. The Authors. Licensee: OpenJournals Publishing. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.Bible translationsCharismataRomansEtymological fallacyTranslation equivalentsTranslating and interpretingBible -- TranslatingBible -- N.T. -- Romans -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.Bible -- CommentariesGentiles in the New TestamentWitness bearing (Christianity)Article