When I look at the particular word that Bellows has translated as "sinless" in the various translations in the various languages that I speak, I can clearly see what has happened. Bellows couldn't translate word for word or he'd have lost the flow and the meaning, so in a sentence like this, instead of saying something like "You are not free of guilt", the translator has chosen to say the same thing in a different way - "You are not guiltless" - he's used the opposite word to explain the original word, turning the sentence around but making the outcome the same. That works with a word like "guilt", in the example I just used, but it didn't work with the word he needed to use. The word he needed to use takes on a different meaning when you turn it like that, to it's opposite, in English. The word in Swedish is "vanära". Ära means honour, and adding the prefix "van-" to something means one has made something bad (pejorative) as in dis- or mis- in English. One uses the prefix in words such as vanpryda=make ugly, from van- + pryda, which means to decorate, or vanvård= negelct, from van- +vårda= take care of tend to, or vantrivsel= discomfort, from van- + trivsel= comfort, vanföreställing= delusion, fallacy from van- + föreställning, idea, concept. "You are not entirely free of dishonour" would work, sort of, but it still doesn't give an exact translation, and it ruins the flow of the verse. I have a feeling that in the day and age that Bellows used the word "sinless", it would probably have been the word more commonly used in this context, but in yours and my context, in our day and age, it makes no sense, because we (you and I) have assigned religious meaning to the word "sin". "Sin" as you and I interpret the word, doesn't exist in asatru, but I think Bellows meant it in an un-religious sense, as in "she is not entirely free free of guilt and her name is not completely un-smudged".