If the OT/Talmud was written over 2,000 years ago in ancient hebrew that modern hebrew can not completely translate. and the NT was written in Greek 1900 years ago and no original copies exist, why should I believe the english translation of the bible where the word homosexual is used?Since neither language had a word for homosexuals and and the first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymous 1869 German pamphlet.The word homosexual is used in 1cor. 6:9 as translation for moichoi which has no direct definition but is in the family of these words:
moi, the simpler form of emoi - I, me, mine, my.
moichalis, a prolonged form of the feminine of moicoV moichos; an adulteress adulteressmoichao, from moicoV moichos; to commit adultery:commit adultery.
moicheia, from moiceuw - moicheuo; adultery:adultery.
moicheuo, from moicoV - moichos to commit adultery:commit adulter moichos, perhaps a primary word; a (male) paramour; figurative, apostate: adulterer
2006-11-14 13:30:23 · 13 answers · asked by mike g 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
Even if you had the original copy written in the original text, unless you got God's word in your ear yourself, you should still be skeptical of it.
The reason: Not the translations but the editors of it! The people in power, the church, were sure to edit out anything that did not agree with what they wanted people to believe and they "added" or "altered" text to get it to agree with what they were teaching.
Saying "Do this because I said so" doesn't mean alot to people outside of my little circle. But saying "Do it because God commands it" is totally different!
2006-11-14 13:36:33 · answer #1 · answered by neona807 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Translating anything is tough. Just look at the old chinese movies and read the english subtitles. Take a literal translation and you miss the meaning. Tranlate the meaning and you miss the impact of the original words.
What to do?
That's why I read different translations of the Bible. Each translates it slightly different, dependant on the scholar, method and materials used for the translation.
For example. The King James Version is the so called' official translation used by most. Used old style english and is a literal translation.
The New International Version is a more literal version which tries to interpret the meaning of what is supposed to be said.
The Word is a paraphrased version of the Bible.
Don;t even get me started on translations in other languages. That opens another can of worms.
Each translation has it's advantages and disadvantages, but overall each does support each other in meaning.
2006-11-14 13:45:47 · answer #2 · answered by freaky 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Dead Sea scrolls has several intact books of the Old Testament. The wording is nearly identical to the modern Hebrew translations. Only a few words are different, and none of the meaning is changed.
As for the New Testament, much of the original texts are still intact for translations.
The newest translations are by far the most accurate as they were all done by the greatest historians and translators/ linguists.
The wordings you mention are typical of a person trying to discredit the Bible and those that choose to believe it. If you don't believe the bible; leave those that do alone. It is their right to believe.
2006-11-14 13:39:02 · answer #3 · answered by my_iq_135 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are correct that the English translation of the Bible is a translation of a very old document. People, while well-intentioned, sometimes make mistakes in translation. But the Holy Ghost never makes a mistake. He will confirm to you the teachings of the prophets and help you to understand the meaning of the scriptures in the Bible.
As far as homosexuality, that is an interesting question, but as far as our behavior, I think the teaching is clear: there should be no sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman period. This goes for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
2006-11-14 17:05:32 · answer #4 · answered by drshorty 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO it is not even considered a real bible it is a cult document. Bad Translations of the Jehovah's Witness Bible, the New World Translation (NWT). 1. Gen. 1:1-2 - "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters," (New World Translation, emphasis added). 1. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society denies that the Holy Spirit is alive, the third person of the Trinity. Therefore, they have changed the correct translation of "...the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters," to say "...and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." 2. Zech. 12:10 - In this verse God is speaking and says, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son" (Zech. 12:10, NASB). 1. The Jehovah's Witnesses change the word "me" to "the one" so that it says in their Bible, "...they will look upon the one whom they have pierced..." Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems--so they changed it. 3. John 1:1 - They mistranslate the verse as "a god." Again it is because they deny who Jesus is and must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah's Witness version is this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." 4. Col. 1:15-17 - The word "other" is inserted 4 times. It is not in the original Greek, nor is it implied. This is a section where Jesus is described as being the creator of all things. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization believes that Jesus is created, they have inserted the word "other" to show that Jesus was before all "other" things, implying that He is created. 1. There are two Greek words for "other": heteros, and allos. The first means another of a different kind, and the second means another of the same kind. Neither is used at all in this section of scripture. The Jehovah's Witness have changed the Bible to make it fit their aberrant theology. 5. Heb. 1:6 - In this verse they translate the Greek word for worship, proskuneo, as "obeisance." Obeisance is a word that means to honor, show respect, even bow down before someone. Since Jesus, to them, is created, then he cannot be worshiped. They have also done this in other verses concerning Jesus, i.e., Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9. 6. Heb. 1:8 - This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: "But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'" Since the Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with that they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as "...God is your throne..." The problem with the Jehovah's Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as "...Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom." To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with their theology, too! The NWT translation is not a good translation. It has changed the text to suit its own theological bias in many places.
2016-03-28 05:57:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Things get seriously messed up when translating. Keep in mind it was translated from Hebrew to Latin to English.
2006-11-14 13:33:28 · answer #6 · answered by Sarah N 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't worry too much about English translations-they are not your problem.
Your 'facts' are not right either.
2006-11-14 13:34:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ALL OF IT !! ESPECIALLY REV 21:8 AND 22:15!
GOD BLESS
2006-11-14 13:33:12 · answer #8 · answered by thewindowman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually it was written in Aramaic.
Perhaps should get that one.
2006-11-14 13:32:20 · answer #9 · answered by scruff 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
honestly why should you believe in translation of the bible.
2006-11-14 13:41:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋