Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The passage quoted by Soccorsupporter comes from Young's Literal Translation, 1862.
Unlike the KJV, it is a strictly literal translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Unlike other translations, it does not paraphrase or change tenses or articles.
The KJV was published in 1611. It contains a number of translation errors. I have pulled these from here:
What are the ERRORS in the King James Version Bible? - Part 1 of 2 (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html - broken link)
Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!
I believe the pivotal word in the above translation is 'hurt' -- what exactly is meant by that?
We're looking at an ancient text written in an ancient language, handed down over generations and translated countless times. Who is to say what the exact context was of that verse was when first recorded?[/QUOTE]
This statement pretty much summarizes the entire Bible!
The argument runs something like this. If two men are fighting, and the struggle injures a pregnant woman (who perhaps intervenes in an attempt to stop the dispute), so that she miscarries, a monetary fine may be imposed to compensate for the death of the fetus. This infraction, however, was not viewed as a capital case. It is then contended that the implication must be that the fetus was not a human being with rights comparable to an adult person.
What, then, is the passage teaching? Simply this. If two fighting men injure a pregnant woman, causing her to give premature birth, yet no harm follows – to either mother or child – a fine will be levied as a penalty for such carelessness. However, if any harm followed, to mother or babe, justice was to be meted out commensurate with degree of damage. Both the mother and unborn child had equal protection under the law.
This is BS! Women during those times dared not to interfere with anything of men!
This is BS! Women during those times dared not to interfere with anything of men!
So you're saying that back in those days, if a woman's husband was getting the stuffing beat out of him, she would not interfere and try to help her husband?? Never, ever??
I see where you are coming from Contachster, your point makes perfect sense. The only problem is that many believe that the more removed from the King James version, the chances of changing the context of what was originally written is changed.
I personally read the New KJV and sometimes the NIV, because it is easier to understand. But for serious studying, I'll return back to the original King James Version.
I see what you are saying but there are modern translations that were translated from original texts and texts that were discovered since the King James version (like the dead sea scrolls). These newer translations are arguably more accurate than the KJV that went from Greek to Latin to English. A lot can get lost or twisted in translation. These newer translations skipped all the steps leading up to the KJV. Believe it or not some say the most accurate English translation of the original texts is The New World Translation bible. Thats the one used by Jehovas Witnesses.
I don't know what bible you were using, but some key parts seem to have been left out, the following is from the king james version (the one that was written after columbus discovered america)
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit (?fruit or fetus NOT child?)depart from her (?if the fetus aborts?) , and yet no mischief follow (?and she doesnt die?): he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (?result:civil fine?) And if any mischief follow(?if she does die?), then thou shalt give life for life(?result:death penalty?),
Like you said it's YOUR interpretation, not the correct one just yours.
Luke 1:41 (New International Version)
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Disclaimer, I'm not religious, but you think we should findi new versions of books, because those "old ones" are simply outdated, and keep looking for newer ones until we get the opinion from it that we wanted?
I don't know what bible you were using, but some key parts seem to have been left out, the following is from the king james version (the one that was written after columbus discovered america)
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit (?fruit or fetus NOT child?)depart from her (?if the fetus aborts?) , and yet no mischief follow (?and she doesnt die?): he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (?result:civil fine?) And if any mischief follow(?if she does die?), then thou shalt give life for life(?result:death penalty?),
It is talking about the child, not the woman. That is, if a pregnat woman is hit and the child is aborted and yet no serious injury to the child exists, the the man is fined. If injury to the child exists, the man is held to that of "Eye for an Eye".
Read the above versus and think about all the listing of crimes to which it is speaking. If the child was of no concern, it would not need to be mentioned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.