Is the Union Version not a direct translation of KJV?

-1 votes

1 answer

130 views

                          The translation to Chinese by Union Version of Bible at [this website](https://www.o-bible.com/cgibin/ob.cgi?version=hgb&book=1ti&chapter=1)  says:

> **提 摩 太 前 书 1 Timothy**
> 
> 1:10	  	行 淫 和 亲 男 色 的 ， 抢 人 口 和 说 谎 话 的 ， 并 起 假 誓 的 ， 或 是 为 别 样 敌 正 道
> 的 事 设 立 的 。

The corresponding part in KJV at [this website](https://www.o-bible.com/cgibin/ob.cgi?version=kjv&book=1ti&chapter=1)  says

> **1 Timothy**
> 
> 1:10	  	For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

If I am correct, "whoremongers" isn't gender specific. Where did "亲 男 色 的" originate?
Is the Union Version not a direct translation of KJV?

Asked by Tim (387 rep)

Sep 22, 2023, 04:24 AM
Last activity: Sep 22, 2023, 03:18 PM

Is the Union Version not a direct translation of KJV?

Related Questions