show of hands: how many believe that when the bible was translated it wasn't correctly translated?

Answer 1

The bible is a collection of writings from various periods in history dating from the days when the Hebrews were slaves in Babylon. It has been translated many times and adapted to the purposes of various religions. Naturally, it has lost something in the many translations that have taken place.

Answer 2

I don't think that's the issue so much. It depends on more than one thing.
1. Translation from the language itself. This is kind of like someone telling a joke from another language and it isn't funny. "Something gets lost in the translation." One language might say one thing one way, and another language does it differently. Example: Esperanto does not say "I have lived here for two years." In Esperanto, you would literally say, "I am living here for two years." This isn't the best example, but I think you can undertand this.
2. The above leads to how a translator translates the material. Some translate something more literally, others will go with trying to make the translation closer to what the original author is trying to say.
3. The documents being translated from. Archaeologists are finding older and older documents, presumably closer to the original document. Discrepencies are often found between the document (the Revised and New Revised Standard Versions do a good job of pointing out the various discrepensies). Also, the Revised Standard Version (like the King James Version) translated the Apocrypha. Scholars discovered over 100 missing verses from the apocryphal II Esdras (probably deliberate). These verses were added to the RSV's translation.
4. Another thing to take into account is the date of the translation. Many insist on using the KJV only. Their arguement, the Bible hasn't changed. This may be true, but our language has changed, and some words no longer have the same meaning as they once did. For example, the word "nice", now a compliment, was once an insult.
Taking all this into consideration, if you think something was improperly translated, the best thing to do is to consult a different translation.

Answer 3

Although there have been mistakes that have caused theological issues, such as translating "young girl" as "virgin," there's not a lot that can be done about it now, after all these years. Other mistakes are probably not very important to the whole thing - things like translating a word for an unknown item as "potter's vessel." We know what it means, so...

The Bible was translated quite a few times, also, and some things got in and some things didn't, and that was entirely a political matter - who was in, who was out, who had what Emperor or king or whatever on his side....

Answer 4

If the Bible was truly written in code for certain individuals than everything else is just cover stories. It has been suggested that the book of Isaiah has some interesting secrets. I don't believe that what someone thinks is simple translation equates interpretation in this regard. But, it would play hell with any alleged code. Any scripts true to the code would have been hidden somewhere safe and intact. Believe whatever makes you happy about your translation errors.

Answer 5

Which translation? It has been done over and over. Some translations are based on other translations, so yes I find it likely that there has been some information changed. Not to mention that what was included was only bits and pieces chosen from longer works, which in their original text might have had very different connotations. Also, many sources were left out entirely.

Answer 6

YES. there are words in the current english version of the bible that dont even have the same meaning from the original bible(faith, heaven). The bible has not only been incorrectly translated but i believe that its been tampered with, added to, and some things were removed.

Answer 7

Depends which translation you mean -- there are many. And certainly a lot have errors. One trouble is that, to translate the bible from the original texts, I believe you need to speak 3 different dead languages.
Certainly any Bible that refers to "Lucifer" is incorrect -- that's King Nebuchadnezzar they mean to be talking about. So... I suppose I technically have a hand up on this.

Answer 8

It is known that the catholic church has heavily edited the bible, for example taking out all mention of re-incaration. The jehovahs witnesses have made large incorrections in translation (i say incorrections as a polite way of saying they purposely decieve their followers by changing the bible to suit their own devices) Yes the bible has been incorrectly translated and edited constantly through history.

Answer 9

Not only do I not know if it were translated correctly, I don't know that it is what they say it is. It was written by men decades after Jesus death, and compiled into a book in the 1500s by the Jewish and Catholic religions. When they compiled the book they decided not to include some books which all the books of the bible were really letters to the churches struggling in the decades following the Crucifixion. Anyway they decided not to include everything. Why.

Answer 10

To the above poster - how can you review a book you haven't read? That's just stupid, I'm sorry.

I don't believe it wasn't correctly translated, but there are a lot of ambiguities. Some people like to point to the Gospels saying different things as being "contradictions", but they're not. Let's say Fred and I went to the grocery store and the gym on Saturday. I talk to Bob on Sunday and he asks what I did yesterday. I say, "I went to the gym." Fred talks to Joe on Monday and he asks the same thing. Fred says, "We went to the grocery store and the gym." Do our two statements contradict each other? No.

THAT'S the fundamental error in logic that people fail to grasp about the Bible.