sure, but are you talking about the word of god, or the words in the bible.
I was going off the KJB, as derived from Hebrew, so it would make more sense to look at the original Hebrew.
I'm not sure why you pay more attention an translation produced by an American businessman in the 70s; The previous link I provided even discusses the issue of "ḥāzaq" vs "tāpas". The WP page for the NIV even details the various scholars taking issue with it, e.g.:
> Mark Given, a professor of religious studies at Missouri State University, criticized the NIV for "several inaccurate and misleading translations" as many sentences and clauses are paraphrased, rather than translated from Hebrew and Greek.
Therein lies the rub. All translations have critics. All of them are wrong in some way according to some expert. Pick the one you like. Pick the translator you like. While you quote a professor who knows much more than me it doesn’t mean much since equally qualified experts were involved in writing the NIV and every other version. And they translated it differently than this professor would have. What we have is a bunch of experts disagreeing with each other.
What I’m left with is one immutable fact: the Bible - whichever version you choose - is wrong according to some expert who is a Christian.
I don’t care about the Bible. I’m not particular about any versions of it. I picked NIV because its translation was different than the one you liked. I was making a point. I think you must be deliberately missing it.
1. Experts were involved in making NIV. Those experts were Christians.
2. You have a Christian expert who doesn’t like their translation.
Put those two facts together and you have, necessarily, ambiguity. It’s not that I think there is ambiguity on what constitutes what scripture says it’s that there is ambiguity. I’m not even talking about different interpretations of what the collection of words mean. There’s ambiguity in what the words actually are.
Then there’s the fact that the Catholic Bible is different than the Protestant one which is different than the Coptic Christian Bible which is different than….etc.
Your knowledge of the history of the inspiration and canonicity of the Bible is quite poor.
If you were to be real honest with yourself you will realize that the reason you like one expert over another is because their belief about the proper translation is more palatable to you. This is an example of picking and choosing what to believe when it comes to religion. Which is what I said in the original post I made.
What do you mean by "liked"? The christian expert didn't "like" their translation, because it was inauthentic.
> it’s that there is ambiguity
ok, then doesn't this undercut your claim that the bible says women must merry their rapists?
> Your knowledge of .. is quite poor.
You decided to make an entirely different point about the bible. In fact you previously implied the bible was the word of god, why is it my knowledge that is poor?
> the reason you like one expert over another
how do you figure? what do you know about me? how are you able to judge two experts; you haven't responded at all in the meat of the issue, the post about the Hebrew KJB is based on, just repeating "experts experts experts" like it's some damming logic puzzle - it's not, experts can be wrong, biased, or not experts at all.
> This is an example of picking and choosing..
like picking "1 + 1 = 2" over "1 + 1 = 3"? you have to demonstrate I picked one interpretation because of personal bias rather than merit, which you haven't. Rather, it is ironically your bias, waiting to make this point, that has resulted in you interpreting things this way.
A person who believes the bible is the word of god has to decide what they mean by bible. They have to decide on which translation to use, then which version: coptic, catholic, protestant, orthodox - they each differ on what the books of the bible are. Once they decide which collection of words constitute “the word or god” they have to decide on what they mean. The criteria used to decide this usually, mostly boils down to which one is the most palatable to them personally.
You and others believe NIV is a bad translation but the people who made the translation believe otherwise. All of this, including everything I wrote above, results in ambiguity and confusion for the masses. If god does exist then he is profoundly incompetent at delivering his message. He is a moron who is very bad at writing clear instructions and is incredibly immoral given the laws he had the Israelites follow. All versions and translations of the bible contain immoral rules and are poorly written and unclear.
sure, but are you talking about the word of god, or the words in the bible.
I was going off the KJB, as derived from Hebrew, so it would make more sense to look at the original Hebrew. I'm not sure why you pay more attention an translation produced by an American businessman in the 70s; The previous link I provided even discusses the issue of "ḥāzaq" vs "tāpas". The WP page for the NIV even details the various scholars taking issue with it, e.g.:
> Mark Given, a professor of religious studies at Missouri State University, criticized the NIV for "several inaccurate and misleading translations" as many sentences and clauses are paraphrased, rather than translated from Hebrew and Greek.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version
Here is something similar in NIV without the word rape: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A16&...
see https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/dooq5l/the_ni...