Cherry-Picking Mistranslations

cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Cherry-Picking Mistranslations

 I've noticed for a long time that Christian apologists refuse to concede that there are several glaring mistranslations in the bible that completely change the meaning or intent of a particular verse (e.g.: Leviticus 20:13). A verse such as this (which condemns homosexuality as an "abomination&quotEye-wink is operative in the political and social worldview of the modern Christian, with the defense being "the word of god is the word of god." Despite any argument that the word "abomination" does not hold the connotation they believe it does (or that homosexuality is genetic, for that matter), Christians stay resolute.

However, any phrase that may make Christianity look like, say, a bunch of fairy tales, is immediately chalked up to poor translations. One good example is the "unicorn and the satyr" question. Here's an article defending the mistranslation theory. They even cite Isaac Asimov!

"It is evident once again that the Bible does not lower itself to superstitious mythology."

Like the existence of two arch-enemy super-beings in a perpetual, metaphysical battle for our immortal souls?

At any rate, my question is: If there can be proven to be discrepancies between the original text of the bible and the translation into English (as the last link shows), why is it so hard for Christians to admit that they may be wrong about passages related to ideology?

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
 Ignore the winky face.

 Ignore the winky face. That was an auto-filter. Balls. 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Which of the 15 (or so)

Which of the 15 (or so) versions of the bible are you referring to?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cervello_marcio wrote: I've

cervello_marcio wrote:

 I've noticed for a long time that Christian apologists refuse to concede that there are several glaring mistranslations in the bible that completely change the meaning or intent of a particular verse (e.g.: Leviticus 20:13). A verse such as this (which condemns homosexuality as an "abomination&quotEye-wink is operative in the political and social worldview of the modern Christian, with the defense being "the word of god is the word of god." Despite any argument that the word "abomination" does not hold the connotation they believe it does (or that homosexuality is genetic, for that matter), Christians stay resolute.

However, any phrase that may make Christianity look like, say, a bunch of fairy tales, is immediately chalked up to poor translations. One good example is the "unicorn and the satyr" question. Here's an article defending the mistranslation theory. They even cite Isaac Asimov!

"It is evident once again that the Bible does not lower itself to superstitious mythology."

Like the existence of two arch-enemy super-beings in a perpetual, metaphysical battle for our immortal souls?

At any rate, my question is: If there can be proven to be discrepancies between the original text of the bible and the translation into English (as the last link shows), why is it so hard for Christians to admit that they may be wrong about passages related to ideology?

Quote:
I've noticed for a long time that Christian apologists refuse to concede that there are several glaring mistranslations

There is no such thing to the apologist. It's called "moving the goal posts". Trying to get them to see contradictions, WHICH ARE REAL, is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

It is like time traveling backwards in time to tell the ancient Egyptians that the sun is not a thinking being. Good luck, you'll have an easyer time to get the gullible to sip the Kool Aid.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Rob H (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The problem with trying to

The problem with trying to find acceptance of homosexuality in the Bible, is that under the Law (of which Leviticus is apart of), sexual relations were forbidden outside of marriage.  The law only had provisions for heterosexual marriages, and no provisions for gay marriage, thus even if we excluded the versus that forbad homosexuality, we could still support the ban by inference.  Furthermore, suppose newer translations skewed the original intent, the historical record, oral Torah, and traditions don't support evidence that ancient Jews embraced gay relations and/or marriages.