It's confusing to me the way colons and semicolons are added to the text. I find myself hampered when I'm reading because I have to gloss over the punctuation in order to read what is said. Why is it used to the extent that it's used? Are the translators trying to interpret the scriptures with the use of punctuation? Here are two of thousands of examples.
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (KJV)
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (ASV)
KJV: These two sentences are grammatically correct with no semicolon (because of the word "and") and with one period instead of two. Is the semicolon saying that the earth and the darkness are two independent clauses that are connected? Does the semicolon and the period after "deep" imply that the spirit of God is separate from the earth and darkness? Aren't these all interpretations? To me, it sort of sounds like this translation is saying that the earth and the darkness existed and then God came along.
ASV: With two colons and one semicolon, I can't understand why there is any punctuation.
"And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept." (KJV)
When she opened it she saw the child; and lo, the babe was crying." (RSV)
This sentence is grammatically correct without a colon or a semicolon -because of the word "and." It looks like the colon and semicolon are a way to connect the woman with the baby but, especially with "wept" vs "crying," I can't tell if the sentence is saying that the baby (Moses) cried because he sees the woman or if the baby was already crying. I don't understand why there needed to be a colon or a semicolon for the point to get across.