Why do all English translations of the Bible blatantly mistranslate 1 Samuel?
550502
According to Strong's Concordance, gadal, the word in the KJV that is translated exceeded, pronounced gaw-dal', means:\n\n"A primitive root; properly to twist (compare H1434), that is, to be (causatively make) large (in various senses, as in body, mind, estate or honor, also in pride): - advance, boast, bring up, exceed, excellent, be (-come, do, give, make, wax), great (-er, come to . . estate, + things), grow (up), increase, lift up, magnify (-ifical), be much set by, nourish (up), pass, promote, proudly [spoken], tower."\n\nAccording to Brown-Driver-Biggs Hebrew Definitions, it means:\n\n1) to grow, become great or important, promote, make powerful, praise, magnify, do great things\n1a) (Qal)\n1a1) to grow up\n1a2) to become great\n1a3) to be magnified\n1b) (Piel)\n1b1) to cause to grow\n1b2) to make great, powerful\n1b3) to magnify\n1c) (Pual) to be brought up\n1d) (Hiphil)\n1d1) to make great\n1d2) to magnify\n1d3) to do great things\n1e) (Hithpael) to magnify oneself\n\nNowhere in there is there any indication of David having an erection.  This is a favorite verse of some to "prove" that homosexual activities was condoned in the Bible.  However, there is no reason to conclude that the word, exceeded (as found in the KJV) means that David got an erection.  A man can love another man without it meaning that it is erotic, just as a man can kiss another man without it being erotic.\n\nFor some clarity, I would offer that you obtain e-sword (www.e-sword.net) and get all the versions of the Bible that they offer (for free) and all the commentaries, and then research what this verse means.  It is very clear, in light of the context, that it is not talking about David and Jonathan having a homosexual relationship.\n\nLawrence\nhttp://www.truebiblesermons.com
41050
King James was the King of England.  He isn't the author of the King James Bible, but funded its translation, creation, and printing, going nearly bankrupt in the process.\n\nThe King James Bible was not only translated, but the translators themselves were said to have read out loud the resultant text in English, to ensure it sounded as good as it translated.  As you may know, some passages of the bible are meant to be sung, as in the case of the Torah and Koran, though I've no information whether the translators sang out these sames passages.\n\nThe King James Bible is thought to be a wonderful snapshot of that era's English, equivalent in its beauty to Shakespeare.  The translation is revered for not only the message but for the manner in which it is presented.\n\nThink on that next time you rip through modern translations.
419936
actually even the king james version is currupte (nice try trying to help) the only way you'll get the full effect is reading the hebrew text. the message bible is nice but its more of a study guide to the bible then a translation
472879
I stick to my good ol King James Version.  Here's a site that really lays out the differences in bibles......\nhttp://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html
305138
Because the Bible is only a book, like all others......\neven now all the christians are taking a stone in their hand to throwing it in my direction....there is no more truth in the Bible than in the book of thousand and one night....fairy-tales...\n\nwhy?\nbecause this book had been translated so many times from people who did'nt understood the text's... it is impossible, that there is just one phrase, who is in the original form as he was written thousands of years ago...\nis there just one of the actual living priests who knows the date...when the Bible has been written ? The Bible was already an old Book on Atlantis, more than 40'000 years ago....
375977
Don't you have that backwards? I've met many people who believe every word in the bible even if you can prove that it is a miss translation, or against known facts. The bible can be used to "prove" anything you like if you take it out of context and add your own spin.
657293
Now that we have the dead sea scrolls, we can see how much the old testament was mistranslated.  For instance, there is one really good part, where the original text said, "you will not suffer a poisoner to live" as mistranslated into "thou shall not suffer a witch to live".  Thousands of wise women were killed because of that over the years.\n\nThe new testament was mistranslated in several places.  The original Aramaic described Mary, the alleged mother of Jesus, as a young woman.  This was changed to Virgin.  The Quran, even though they had copies of the original text, kept this mistranslation.  Now, instead of a young woman who may or may not have been married, and may or may not have had sex, is described as a Virgin. Thousands were put to death in the early years of the Christian Church and by Muslims, when others of their respective religions have pointed out that she wasn't a Virgin.\n\nSo, yes, it has.
85773
I've studied both Hebrew and Greek (the original languages of the Bible), and I've seen that most translations are correct. Yes, there are "different" Bibles, but most say basically the same thing. Minor differences in word style occur any time you translate a document. \n\nThis doesn't include translations that are done with a particular slant, like the New World Translation, for example. But the King James, New King James, New International Version, New American Standard, Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, etc are all good.
857358
Sorry, I disagre with you.\n\nThe "Living Bible" is the most horrible translation I've ever seen.\n\nWhen I compared 8 texts I quickly threw the "Living Bible" out of the equation as just bring too off from the rest of the texts I was reading.\n\nAlso, have you studied Ancient Greek and Anceint Hebrew and looked at the scroll and Codex yourself!\n\nDo you AGREE with all the translators!\n\nIf the Quran shows us anything, it shows us how three different translators can't agree on the ancient texts!\n\nThey sometimes come close, but they don't fully agree with all the phrasings.\n\nI'd say the Judeo-Christain Bible can easily fall into the same conflicts!\n\nI came up with a ficitious Diary entry of a Girl in the late 1960s or early 1970s.\n\n"We went to the Dead show at Winterland and had a bitchen time!"\n\nNow, you translate that!\n\nLet's see just how well you know your 1970's trivia!\n\nTELL ME exactly What she said and meant.  DEFINE every word and phrase.\n\nI know the answers, but only Dead-Heads can translate that.\n\nNow, what do you do in 500 years!\n\nThe same exact thing applies to the Bible and Quran!\n\nYou sort of have to be there to know what was REALLY meant!
1179582
A good portion of it is due to the many different translations of the Bible.  Each version varies slightly, but a small change in words can make a big difference in meaning.\nSome sects believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, and others, not so much.  \nReally, though-when you read anything-Shakespeare, Orwell, or another reknown writer-each story means something different to each reader.  Some people interpret the stories slightly different than others.  No two will interpret it exactly the same.
1107115
The King James Version of the Bible is one of the oldest translations in English...there are many newer versions that are easier to read....check out biblegateway.com and you can read the Bible in various different translations.  My favorite is the American Standard Version!  Good luck to you and keep reading God's word...you'll be amazed how it will help you in your daily life and through the rough valleys of your journey.
535813
It has been translated differently in each version on the bible.
1169574
The bible is not to be taken literally.
739717
The KJV was meticulously translated.  By man.  And, no surprise, it isn't perfect.\nThere IS no perfect translation because, even if you have a Hebrew, Greek or Chaldean lexicon, you don't have the meaning of the words from 2,000 years ago.  Meanings change.  Take the word "gay" for example - means something VERY different today than it did 20 years ago.\nWithout taking the time to learn the original languages, then do have the lexicons as well as a Strongs (or other) Concordance.  Read the same passages in different versions for richer comprehension.  A passage read from the KJV, the NIV and The Message takes on new dimension.\nRead it - and read it sloooowly and patiently!  Read it reguarly.  And read it again and again.  What had no relevance (seemingly) last month can suddenly leap out at you today.
228267
Of course.  All of the bible has been translated and re-translated hundreds of times, and all subject to the political and social morals of the monks keeping the records through the centuries. Don't kid yourself about it being "God's Word" and thus unchangeable and infallible.
1155285
SO MUCH  is lost in translation, however much ppl wana deny that, well i guess they can GO INTO denial but it does not alter the fact that so many words are different/ have more meanings in other languages... as you say\n\neg i am welsh, ok and one of the 1st prayer i learnt was 'Ysbryd Glan' -- it can translate as 'Pure Spirit' BUT also ''Clean Ghost' and for years when i was a kid, i was afraid of the 'Clean Ghost'\n\n'Hiraeth' is a welsh word, it takes a whole sentence to get the concept across in english - it is much more than home-sickness, it is a yearning... etc etc\n\nSo, ye, even tho the Bible says than anyone who translates it wrong will be punished ------- they HAVE translated it wrong ........ who knows if they were punished or not? Personally, I believe if it was a genuine mistake, they were forgiven... but that is a matter of FAITH
748634
This is all just a story of fiction, so believe whatever you want to.  The bible has been written, re-written, translated from one language and back again so manty times, it's even more of a work of whoever was writing it and whatever was believed at the time than anything to be taken for "truth".