are there any translation errors in the bible??

Question

I mean i know in french there are some words that dont translate exactly to something in english

Answer 1

Not only direct translation issues but also human mistakes! Ever play the phone game in kindergarten? Mistranslations and misinterpretations are quite common!

Mistakes in the bible is the crux of this classic joke:
A neophyte scribe was being instructed by a priest. The priest was explaining to the neophyte about the importance of accuracy in making copies of the Bible, and associated religious works. The neophyte was amazed that these documents had been accurately transcribed down through the centuries laboriously by hand. The priest explained to him that it was in fact so, there were numerous safeguards, everything was triple checked to ensure accuracy. The neophyte was still skeptical however. The priest said he could go back and check things in the library and see that everything was in fact accurate as far back as there were records. Some weeks later, the neophyte came across the priest in the library, with his head in his hands, looking very dejected. He asked the priest what was the matter. After a long pause, the priest said, "The word was 'Celebrate'.... 'CELEBRATE'"

Answer 2

Yes, there are, but the Scriptures were written in Hebrew, Chaldean, and Koine Greek. The Greek language is very
colorful compared to English. But the best English translation
is the New American Standard. My Pastor studies and teaches
from the original language. Bottom line though, it does NOT change the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. The translations that may differ are slight in some areas. This is the reason there are so many Protestant denominations. Small errors caused major difference with people. Pastors are to
teach and study God's Word, it is one of the gifts that was given
to the "Church". You must have a humble spirit to be taught.
Ps. 34:2. God loves a humble person and He opposes the proud. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth, which glorifies
Jesus Christ. Hope this helps you.

Answer 3

You have touched upon a very delicate subject. It might help if you looked into the history of the Bible. There are many different versions each claiming to be the 'true voice'. The Catholics have one Bible the protestants another. They share many things but yet they are different in what books they include to represent the 'Holy Word'. Many scolars have looked at the scriptures that were chosen, amongst many, some 400 years after the death of Jesus to jointly represent the Roman Catholic faith. They analize the texts with literary tools to check for style, historic facts and consistency. They have come up with many inteligent questions and doubts. Martin Luther some 1200 hundred years later questioned the very choice of the founding fathers and gave birth to full fledged protestantism. An interesting story where diferences show up. Even profound diferences. Each must make up his own mind as to the validity of the claims presented. What remains clear is the fact that the Bible is by no means one voice.

One interesting point is the fact some of the original texts that served as material for the later translations were written in Aramaic; this is a language which in its written form poses a challenge to the reader beyond what we would encounter in modern languages. They wrote without a space between words which demanded that YOU DECIDE whether the last word belonged to the previous phrase or whether it was the beginning of the next. Even for single letters it had to be decided whether they comenzed or finished a word. So you can see how tricky it could be to translate the exact meaning. I shall give you an example: ThesononlyFather. This could be read as the 'only son of the Father' or it could be read as the 'son of the only Father'. Both renderings make sense and yet they give profoundly different meanings. The chuch chose the 'only son of the Father' whereas contemporary mystics or Gnostics throughout the ages believed in the 'son of the only Father'. This last option allows for many sons; 'as many as are led by the Spirit of God they are the sons...' (Romans 8:14)

Enjoy your search; He knows we are searching. We are all searching for Him.

Answer 4

Yes, there are a few but these are minor and do not contribute to differences in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

1. It is my understanding (subject to correction : I'm not a Hebrew scholar) that Hebrew does not have vowels. The Hebrew YHWH becomes Yahweh, Jehovah, Jeshua, etc.
2. In the King James version, small words are added to make the original read smoothly, e.g. Fear God and give glory to Him for this is the whole duty of man (original does not have 'duty of').
3. Punctuation marks were not used in the original. Did Jesus say to the dying thief on the cross, "Verily I say unto you today, You will be with me in paradise" or , "Verily I say unto you, Today you will be with me in paradise'"?
4. Sometimes, there is no exact corresponding word. When Jesus said that He will send another comforter, the word used for comforter in the original Greek meant soldier B (who fights back-to-back with soldier A - on the same side - against enemy soldiers).
5. Minor details : did Jesus die on a tree or on a cross? For crying out aloud, what was a cross made of? Concrete? And while some may debate what it was He died on, they are not questioning that HE INDEED DIED.

Such errors account for less than 2 % of the Bible.

Answer 5

There are no translation problems in the original scriptures.

There are not enough so-called errors in translation to make a difference.

The Jehova Witness book is an unholy translation based on the doctrine of Russel.

The bible was changed to suit the doctrine instead of the doctrine changed to suit the bible. Hence unholy translation

Answer 6

absolutely there are translation errors in the Christian bible

that's what happens when you take a text that is in Hebrew and Aramaic and translate it into Greek and then Latin and then whatever other languages you want

not to mention the fact that people would go and edit it however best suited THEIR purposes instead of what was originally said

Answer 7

No errors, but knowing the original Latin could help you understand some things...i.e. the word "love" we use to day has only one word, but in the original language it had three forms
"Agape" meaning God's intense love for us
"Aeroes" meaning like sensual, lovey-dovey love
"Phileo" meaning brotherly love

In English, all those words are simply translated "love.'
It's not an error, but knowing the Latin could help you gain a deeper understanding of what the writer initially intended.

Answer 8

One in particular comes to mind, Isaiah wrote in Hebrew that "a young woman will bear a child." When the Hellenic Jews translated that to Greek, they used the word "parthenos" which had the meaning "virgin," yeilding what would be "A virgin will bear a child."

Oooops.

Answer 9

yes, tons.. for example, the word "alma" in Hebrew means young woman.. bible translators turned that into "virgin".. you can imagine the complications that one has wrought.

Additionally, monk's notes got added into the English translations such as "thus he made all foods clean".. ramifications- people think that god gave them permission to eat unclean foods now.

I could go on, but lengthy responses tend to get overlooked.

Answer 10

Yam Suph means Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea