By: u/redheaded_olive12349
In my specific faith, I believe that the bible was mistranslated or misinterpreted over time.
Such things as homosexuality and stuff (you know all kinds of stuff) were never condemned in the original bible.
We believe that early Christians never believed these things and that was the original bible.
You must log in or register to comment.
It was probably mistranslated from the jump, sometimes intentionally.
The book of Acts properly contains a mistranslation in its retelling of the first council of Jerusalem. In it James (I think it was) quotes the Septuagint as justification for converting the gentiles. That passage of the Septuagint is a mistranslation and is quite irrelevant if properly translated.
Oh? I’ve not gotten that far in my translation exploration, I honestly feel it’s more than a lifetime of work, not being a polyglot in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin/Italian. I’d be very interested in learning more, if you care to share.
It is James in Acts 15:13-18 that quotes Amos 9:11-12.
The Septuagint translation says (paraphrased)
I will rebuild the dwelling of David, so that all other peoples may seek the Lord- even all the gentiles over whom my name has been called.
Whereas a better (paraphrased) translation of Amos 9 is:
I will rebuild the dwelling of David, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name.
So the referenced scripture is about a restored kingdom of David (re)possessing what’s left of Edom, and rebuilding Israel. If you look at the subsequent verses, for example: I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them. It’s not about the gentiles seeking the Lord. The mistranslation comes from “Edom” being translated as Adam (no vowels in Hebrew) so a “remnant of Edom” being mistranslated as the descendants of Adam.
I think the idea of James quoting a Greek version of Scripture at the first council of Jerusalem, in a discussion about whether to accept Greeks no less, to be rather suspect. It seems most likely to me that this account is being retrojected from considerable distance.
It’s a fact that any translation is imperfect, and that goes more than double when you’re translating across time and culture as well. There’s a lot of Biblical scholars doing a lot of great analysis of these texts, though, and if you find something that seems dissonant from the core message of the Gospels it’s easier than ever to look up those scholarly analyses and compare them to each other in search of greater understanding.
To paraphrase Aquinas, don’t trust man who only reads one book.
Almost certainly. It’s pretty much an undeniable fact that certain parts were mistranslated on purpose, and as time passes the meaning of words change and the age of the Bible it’s makes mistranslations something we just have to deal with.