can religious books loose their meaning or have words added or deleted if translated?

Answer 1

Yes.

Answer 2

It has happened more than most are willing to admit... One of the reasons I respect the Quran so much even though I'm not a Muslim is because it is one of the few scriptures that has little mistranslation with no real known alterations. The same can not be said for other religious scriptures though. Many of Christ's teachings have been severely perverted.

Of specific mistranslation is Exodus 22:18--"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (KJV) Often, this is the line from which Christians get the notion that witches/wiccans/pagans are inherently evil. The truth is, though, King James was terrified of being hexed and/or cursed. As such, he had the Bible translated in such a way to reflect this fear. "Witch" was translated from the Hebrew word "Chashaph." However, "chashaph" does NOT mean witch, but is the Hebrew word for poisoner. As such, Exodus 22:18 should say, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." That is a very big difference.

Answer 3

the english language looses 10% of its vocabulary on average every 1000 years. Consider that before 1950, "gay" actually meant happy. There are words whose meanings in the vernacular changes. So, considering that, I don't think you can read Shakespeare or the Canterbury Tales without a great deal of struggle, and why would you want to? All the "ye"s and "thou"s are no longer part of the English language. Latin is dead, why would anyone read the Bible then? (Unless you are versed in Latin, not to mention the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls) The first translation was called the "Vulgate" Not because it was vulgar, but because in those days, the word "vulgar" meant merely "common". It was written in the common tongue of the people, so that the Word could be spread.

*Note: back then, not that many people could read.

Answer 4

Yes. Translation is a difficult process, you have to deal with the meaning of a sentence overall, but yet not stray too far from the original wording. And yes, words wind up getting added or deleted, though this is usually done to make it coherent in the new language.

For example (I speak Esperanto, so I'll use that):
In Esperanto, to say "It is Monday", you say "Estas lundo". The word "it" is not translated to Esperanto, but translating it back to English it wouldn't make sense as "Is Monday."
Esperanto also lacks an indefinite article ("a" and "an" in English). So I say, "Mi estas viro," in English that is "I am [a] man." "I am man" isn't right.

Granted these things may not apply to Koine Greek (they don't) or Hebrew (not sure), but do you get the picture?

Answer 5

Most defenitely. But usually the general meaning is the same, even after it's been translated. And don't believe all the people that say the Bible was translated hundreds of times and that's why it could have different meaning. The Bible has actually only been translated once or twice, from hebrew into greek or something, and then into latin, and eventually on through to english, spanish, etc.

Answer 6

Yes, I can tell you that the attacks on the Quran are not because there is mistakes in the Quran, but because there is many bad translations. even one word can change the meaning. but still the Quran is present in its original language, no versions, no additions, deletions in it...
The Arabic language is Rich, just for one word you can find more than 20 meanings. so to pick up the right word you have to be very knowlegable of the arabic language.
There is no book in the world that survived more than 1400 years without any addition, deletion in it. but the Quran, because God said so.

not only translations can change the meaning, but also narrations can be changed and dilluted from people to people. that's why in Islam the hadith is mix with weak hadiths and authentics, but thanks God, from the chains of narrations and comparing the same hadith with others the scholars could find the liars and the fabricated ones.....
God is wise.

Answer 7

Only if God allows them to loose their meaning. I believe that God used men as tools to write HIS Word - the Bible. I believe He was just as capable of using men to translate the Bible so that I could not only understand it in my own language but get the truth out of that translation. If the Bible is divinely inspired, which I believe it is, why would it be so hard to accept that it was divinely translated as well? How cruel would God be to send His Son to die for us so that we might be saved and have eternal life only to allow His "instruction book" on how to receive that salvation be mis-interpreted to the point that I can find Him? He would never let that happen or the sacrifice of Jesus would have been in vain.

Answer 8

i dont see why not some one told me that in the bible the word hell is never used in the originals jesus said gehenna which was a real place and when he said it he was using it as a metaphor thats why the jews say hell is a christian fantasy the same with tthe word almha the jews say it does not mean virgin and that the greeks put the word virgin in there to try to lure pagans into the christian religion seeing as how many pagan myths have demigods born of a human mother and a deity for afather i just say if you want to read the fanatsy that is the bible learn hebrew greek and aramaic then you can read them in the orginal forms in which they were written

Answer 9

Yes, absolutely. I know a little Hebrew, and sometimes a translation just does not do justice to the original. This is true for every language and every holy book.

Answer 10

yes this is who the Quran has not changed ever and is not the Quran if translated only a translation.

There are 2 Qurans still in existence from when Uthman (pbuh) had the first copies made. They are the same as the Quran we read from today

Answer 11

Yes, of course, that is why the Qur'an can never be literally translated.

Because if it ever is, then it will loose so much of it's valuable meanings.