Outta Here

You might need to check some basic rules on the use of the English language as well as for the Greek prepositions, then try and discern what Rev 5:10 is referring to. I am sure you will get there in the end one way or another, bit like SS did. Thinking of your astute observation re SM, about those who appear to be one and the same, you wouldn't have a twin would you? Or maybe a doppelganger or even a clone? I am sure I recognise something in your cut an' run style of argument from somewhere...........🤔 BTW, @Anna has pipped me to the post with her excellent doctrinal/contextual points above. So much so, there is really no need to elaborate further on this question. 🙂

Well done!

New International VersionYou have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth." New Living TranslationAnd you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth.” English Standard Versionand you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” Berean Study BibleYou have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign upon the earth.” Aramaic Bible in Plain English“And you have made them a Kingdom, Priests and Kings to our God, and they shall reign over The Earth.” There is a fault in the logic here. The statement itself could be true. BUT, the list of cited scriptures preceding this statement, for which it is presented as a conclusion, refer to rulership, not domicile. The reality however is that a king can rule "over" or "on" a territory without personally being there. So, there is actually a disconnect between the conclusion and the citations presented as the supporting evidence. The citations merely indicate that different translators have decided on what they consider to be a contextually appropriate rendering for the preposition epi. The end result of the rendering serves either to clarify or slightly obscure the meaning, which itself still remains apparent either way. It is just a question of reasoning effort on the part of the reader which is reduced by the translator rendering epi "over" as opposed to "on". Either rendering is acceptable as the meaning itself is not altered. So, in answer to the OP, a translator is perfectly at liberty to make a choice between words in their rendering a text into another language where such choice is extended by the nature of the original language. In answer to "Why?", then for the sake of clarity of the meaning of the text is the reason. In this case, the translator's word choice is quite acceptable according to the various dictionary definitions cited. The understanding of the text is enhanced, not altered. Either rendering epi as "on" or "over" does not change the meaning of the text. It is just that "over" is a better word choice for the sake of style and economy of the effort to comprehend.

Oh, by the way, just a passing thought on Rev.5:10. The scripture appears to be about rulership, not geography. In that case it would appear that epi is appropriately rendered in connection with the extent of rulership, rather than the geographical location of the rulers in question. The option of a contextual understanding of this preposition appears to have been exercised at Rev.9:11 and 11:6, and also by other translators in their rendering of the said Rev.5:10. (Courtesy www.biblehub.com). Just my "version", of course.

No. Only when "people" assume that their "version" is my "version". To that I have an "aversion". No. That not my "version". Who cares? It is only a portal, like a public library. There are many.

More lame logic. Trust in men is presented as some sort of extreme error. There is nothing wrong in trusting men.

What I have realised with many of the critical comments from some on this forum, is that they have rejected their own versions of what they think are the beliefs held by JWs. That is why it is so difficult to understand where they are coming from. Their perceptions are alien because they are personal. They assume they must be shared by all, hence the paucity of explanation, and the irrationality of their criticism. And judging from the murky glimpses of those perceptions through the sarcastic and complicated reasonings they present, little wonder they rejected them!

That is your cart before horse

You seem to be cart-before-horse-ing.

There are many versions of this diagram available. You can see hows the word epi is used in scripture. Interpret it as you will according to context.

That is rather poor research then. I know JW with Bibles with 4 different translations for that verse, and that is just looking through 10 Bibles of the many available. So, as you are already aware of Biblehub, then why not make your own mind up?

Don't need to puzzle over this surely??

Check Eph 4:6

No.

"porneia" is not the only type of sexual misconduct that could result in disfellowshipping is it?