Are the mistranslation in the Bible deliberate?

Question

The Bible was incorrectly translated from Hebrew to Greek. The word 'young woman' was changed to 'vigin' (as in the prophesy of the virgin birth in the OT):

From the mainstream British newspaper The Telegraph (link below):
"The doctrine of the miraculous conception and birth of a God-man was based on a remarkable mistranslation into Greek - wilful or otherwise - of Isaiah's original, quite specific Hebrew words."

From Translators Journal, a publication for professional translators (link below): "The Old Testament talks about almah 'young woman,' not bethulah 'virgin.' However, the scholars in the 3rd century BC translated the Hebrew almah as parthenos in Greek."

http://accurapid.com/journal/18review.ht...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main....
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/virgin.htm...
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/matthew.h...

Answer 1

The New Testament was never translated from Hebrew to Greek. It was originally written in Greek. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and St. Jerome translated both, the Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek into the Latin Vulgate.

Now the rest of the translations run the full range of text changing.

Answer 2

Probably on purpose, and here is why................

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel," (Isaiah 7:14).


Isaiah 7:14 says that a virgin will bear a son. The problem is dealing with the Hebrew word for virgin, which is "almah." According to the Strong's Concordance it means, "virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word "almah" does not always mean virgin. The word "occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (”maiden“); Exodus 2:8 (”girl“); Psalm 68:25 (”maidens“); Proverbs 30:19 (”maiden“); Song of Songs 1:3 (”maidens“); 6:8 (”virgins“)."1 Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin: bethulah. If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?
The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. This translation was made around 200 B.C. by 70 Hebrew scholars. In Isaiah 7:14, they translated the word "almah" into the Greek word "parthenos." According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,2 parthenos means "virgin." This word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt. 25:1, 7, 11). If the Hebrews translated the word into the Greek word for virgin, then they understood what the Hebrew text meant here.
Why would the Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah? It was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would also be a young woman.

Answer 3

A. Depends on where you stand concerning the scriptures
B.There are many possibilities that the translation "Vrigin" is correct.

When it comes to the debate, some say that "Almah" means young woman. But turns out the word can mean a young woman, or an unmarried young woman (A Virgin) Just like bethulah can mean a Virgin or a woman of marriable age. So no one can really support the claim that this is a mistranslation, just depends on how you interpret the scriptures.

Answer 4

I think this explanation is a bit naive concerning the interpretive traditions in operation in the first centuries C.E. Classic Jewish interpretative methods were quite extensive, and involved serious interaction with the broader interpretive traditions in existence at the time (there are voluminous Hebrew interpretive texts that are extant as proof of this). Therefore, to suggest that the virgin birth narrative is based purely upon a mistranslation is way to simplistic to be academically compelling, even for those who would advocate that the virgin birth is entirely mythical. If anything, the narrative of the virgin birth would have been rooted in a broader interpretive tradition of the Isaiac texts---otherwise, the Scriptures written to largely Hebrew audiences would have been rejected outright as clear misrepresentations of the interpretive traditions in existence within the Hebrew cultural milieu of the time. That is, the claims of Christians concerning Jesus were not rejected by Jews because they were teaching something completely unheard of in Jewish tradition; rather, they rejected the claims concerning the person of Jesus himself and the proposition that God dwelt in him.

Answer 5

i in my view trust that the Bible is not any more beneficial actual than Greek Mythology. i'm baffled all too regularly as to how a splendidly smart human being can twist his/ her reasoning to the type of degree that they could verbally state they purchase into the tale written years from time to time centuries after the so suggested as reality. except for, why is it that Christians , in the adventure that they want to stay a existence of myth also must make certain that their neighbor believes an similar concept? I advise what large difference does my idea or disbelief in habit and the afterlife have any impact on my neighbor. The human mind is honestly no longer very advanced at the same time as emotionalism can overpower sparkling reason. I do bear in mind besides the undeniable fact that at the same time as i grow to be 10 and that i highly a lot knew there grow to be no Santa Clause through deductive reasoning. i grow to be besides the undeniable fact that immature sufficient to stir myself right into a emotional myth that I felt it more beneficial relaxing and comforting to easily fake that i presumed. it type of feels e will continually be draw close of I (emotion/ mind) because the former takes a lot less attempt and honesty. kurt Niziak

Answer 6

This is nonsense, and the truth is absolutely the opposite.

The Jews later adjusted their sacred writings to avoid concordance with the Christian teachings.

The original Hebrew, as noted by St. Jerome, in the 4th century, faithfully agreed with the Greek Septuagint on all the major points held by Christians.

Answer 7

I think there were several mistranslations which took place. Think of all the monks the bible went through before it was printed and the like. It is logical that some mistakes/ mistranslations were accidental, some on purpose. It went through several hands. You could have people missing words here and there, you could have some people who on purpose change things because it doesn't go with what they personally believed. Still, all being done, I would assume that the book is correct in most parts, and is still the word of God.

Answer 8

Actually Almah means "virtuous woman" which doesn't necessarily mean virgin, but Mary was not married. So if she was a virtuous woman, she had to have been a virgin, and because she was so young.. And it was known by the Early Church that she was a virgin, and in Luke she says "I have not known a man." This is a common objection by skeptics, but it is an easily shown incorrect presumption.

Answer 9

There is no mistranslation in the Holy Bible God makes it all true.

Answer 10

No, but they did cause it to gain a lot of popularity, sorta like the whole "All your base are belong to us" thing you kids are into these days.

Praise me, amen.