Revelation tells us that there is a Temple of God in Heaven, and that in that Temple is the Ark of his testament. Revelation 11:19 KJV > And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. God directed Moses twice to make sure that he built the Tabernacle after the pattern God had shown him on the Mountain. Exodus 25:9 KJV > According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. Exodus 25:40 KJV > And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the Mount. The word translated here as *pattern* could have just as easily been translated *model*. >H8403 תַּבנִיתּ tabniyth (tab-neeth') n-f. >1. structure >2. (by implication) a model, resemblance >KJV: figure, form, likeness, pattern, similitude. Are there any theological suppositions about this?

Matthew 1:23 uses the word [G3933 - parthenos](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3933/kjv/tr/0-1/) . Thayer's Greek Lexicon says it can mean: - a virgin. - a marriageable maiden, or a young (married) woman. He is quoting Isaiah 7:14, which uses the word [H5959 - ʿalmâ](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5959/kjv/wlc/0-1/) . This Hebrew word is defined as: - young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married). Almost all English translations render it as "virgin". Whether it's "virgin", "maid", "marriageable maiden", "newly married", or whatever, it really doesn't make much difference, as Matthew clearly provides the detail that *is* significant: - 1:18 "*with child of the Holy Ghost*". - 1:20 "*that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost*". It's obvious why the Catholic Church (Roman or Orthodox) would want "virgin" to be the translation, but why do any other Christian denominations care about it? --- # Note that this is not asking about the Roman/Orthodox position, nor is it asking for what the "correct" translation is. (Yes, I know it's bad form to shout like that, but too many people don't seem to notice it otherwise.) It is asking why *non-Catholic* denominations also seem to believe the "virgin" translation is important and significant. It is similar to, but not a duplicate of [*Why was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2414/why-was-it-necessary-for-mary-to-be-a-virgin) , as that was too broadly scoped, and was doctrinal rather than about translation.

In **1 Corinthians 6:9–10**, Saint Paul lists behaviors and types of people who “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” The relevant portion reads: > Μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται > οὔτε πλεονέκται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε μέθυσοι οὐ λοίδοροι οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. A common English rendering is: > Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor *malakoi*, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. My question concerns the meaning of **μαλακοί (*malakoi*)** in verse 9. Modern translations vary widely. Some render it as: * “effeminate _men_” (KJV and ASV) * “male prostitutes” (NLT and ISV) * “catamites” (NKJV footnote) * “homosexuals” (NKJV) * “boy prostitutes” (NAB) * “passive homosexual partners.” (NET) The NIV, NASB, CSB, and ESV seem not to translate it at all. Here is an excerpt from the NIV for an example: _"the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers [malakoi missing here] nor men who have sex with men"_. This is quite strange considering it is found in the Greek editions of Nestle-Aland, Westcott-Hort, and Robinson-Pierpont. Regarding translating *malakoi* as _"homosexuals"_ (as the NKJV does), the term immediately following (*arsenokoitai*) is understood to refer to male same-sex relations (from *arsen* meaning *"male"* and *koite* meaning *"bed"*). Therefore, translating *malakoi* as homosexual seems redundant. When consulting lexicons such as **LSJ** and **Abbott-Smith**, I primarily find meanings related to **“soft”**, either physically or metaphorically, such as “morally weak” or “lacking self-control.” These sources do not clearly support some of the more specific sexual translations. Strong’s Concordance mentions the term as a euphemism for a catamite but does not provide a cited source. Another interesting footnote is that Saint Jerome (chief translator of the Latin Vulgate) seems to have translated this very literally as _molles_ or _"soft"_; whereas the Syriac Peshitta uses ܡܚܰܒ݁ܠܶܐ (mḥabble’) meaning _"destroyed"_ (although this word is used to refer to topics as broad as a "deflowered" girl or a miscarried child.) **Question:** What is the most defensible translation or interpretation of *μαλακοί* in 1 Corinthians 6:9 based on lexical evidence and historical usage? How was the term understood in contemporary Greek literature and in early Christian interpretation?

Searching from different bible translations, I had looked deeply into Douay-Rheims version. > "And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth." - Luke 1:40 From this passage, we can see that it ends with a period. This event is finished. A casual greetings can be inferred on this passage and nothing much, it's like Mary saying "Hi! or Hello!" to Her cousin Elizabeth, who knew nothing, about what happened to Mary in the annunciation and Her, having conceived the Messiah. Moving on to next verse... > And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? - Luke1:41-43 The word ***"and it came to pass"***, meaning, this event is separated from v.40, where the casual greetings occured. This salutation is much different, it delivered a profound effect on the child in the very womb of Elizabeth, who never knew the Blessed Virgin Mary. The greeting in v. 40 compare to v. 41 can be seen as two separate events. Luke described that it was Elizabeth who heard the salutation and not the infant in her womb. Elizabeth was overjoyed, cried out in a loud voice...this unexplainable feelings was then felt by the child in her womb, that made the infant leaped, as if he shared in the joy that Elizabeth her mother was experiencing at that very moment, that made him leaped. Could it be, that the ***"greetings or salutation"*** that Elizabeth heard at that moment from Mary while praying, is the **Magnificat**. Hearing the words from the Magnificat, was the cause, and the instrument that made her filled with the Holy Spirit. Because Mary's Magnificat was uttered, having overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, the very words of Mary are inspired by the Holy Spirit, to praise the Father in spirit and truth. Elizabeth heard Mary's Canticle, and had realized that Mary was pregnant with the Messiah, and hearing Mary saying, ***"All generations shall call me blessed..."***, Elizabeth reacted,and she is the first one who praised Mary, saying ***"blessed are you among women..."***, and also the first one who proclaimed ***"Jesus is Lord"*** by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognizing, the child as her Lord, the way she knew the Lord as the chosen People of God, addressed God in the Old Testament. John the Baptist in Luke1:15 had been prophesied to be filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb of his Mother, and Luke's gospel described the moment, how it happened in v.44 > *For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.* - Luke 1:44 From the discernment above, we can see that the *"greetings"* in Luke 1:40 is different from the *"greetings"* in Luke1:41, the two greetings are a separate event. The other is obviously a casual greeting and the other is a mysterious greetings. In view of the above, I am looking for a commentary or writings from Catholic sources or Christian sources,biblical even extra-biblical showing that the "greetings" in Luke 1:40 and Luke 1:41 is a separate event and different from each other. Elizabeth didn't need to hear Mary's Magnificat to know that she was pregnant with the Lord. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, who was perfectly capable of conveying that knowledge. Elizabeth's intuition was very manifest here.

I've noticed occasionally, people use slightly different names for the books of of the Bible (especially in older literature). For example, sometimes Revelation is called Apocalypse. In the Orthodox Study Bible, the books of Samuel-Kings are titled 1-4 Kingdoms, and 1-2 Chronicles are called 1-2 Paralipomenon. The Wycliffe bible has "Deeds of the Apostles" instead of "Acts of the Apostles". Based on this neat article on Wikipedia , I'm guessing that part of this goes back to the differences between titles in KJV and Douay-Rheimes. In other language versions of the Bible, I've also noticed some differing names for the books of the bible. For instance, in Chinese Bibles, the book of Exodus is titled "出埃及" (literally, "exiting Egypt"). That's a pretty good title; it's short and descriptive. This all got me thinking: **What considerations do translators make when deciding what to title Biblical books?** In English, we largely now follow the precedents set by the King James, but that doesn't explain the KJV's translators reasoning originally. It seems that the books that are named after people/places (the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Prophets) are pretty uniform across languages, but other books less so. For the other books, I don't see much of a pattern regarding the usage of **transliterations or common vs. uncommon vs. archaic words** for these translations. ------ Here's few other variants in meaning I see between the Bibles of the three languages that I speak (with my non-expert translations to English; I am a native speaker of English so please correct me if I've misunderstood anything in Chinese or Mongolian). I've also noted when some words are uncommon or archaic (neither of the Asian languages are using transliterations other than for the books named after people/places): | English | Chinese | Mongolian | translation of Chinese name | translation of Mongolian name | | ------- | --------- | --------- | --------------------------- | --------------------- | | Genesis | 创世记 | Эхлэл | "Record of the creation of the world" | "Beginning" | | Exodus | 出埃及记 | Гэтлэл | "Record of exiting Egypt" | "Conquest" - this is not a common word in Mongolian (it's not in the most popular English-Mongolian dictionary at all); It is the noun form of the verb "гэтлэх" meaning to conquer/overcome (also not the most common word for this concept). | | Deuteronomy | 申命记 | Дэд хууль | "Record of the repeated commands" - using an archaic meaning of the character 申 as "repeat", which in modern Chinese means "stretch", "announce", or "request". | "Secondary law" | | Psalms | 诗篇 | дуулал | "poems" | "anthems" (it's a rare word for "song", otherwise mainly used to refer to the national anthem) | | Ecclesiastes | 传道书 | номлогчийн үгс | "Book of preaching" | "words of the preacher" | | Song of Songs | 雅歌 | Соломоны дуун | "Elegant song" | "Solomon's song" | | Acts | 使徒行书 | Үйлс | "Book of the Apostles' Actions" - same as the full English title. I've included it because it is abbreviated to "disciples" (徒) instead of "acts" like in English | "acts" | My Mongolian Bible (Mongolian Bible Society 2019 version) includes brief introductions to each book, but they don't explain the choice of words for titles (especially, whether to use a common, a rare word, or an archaic word). Interestingly, for the book of Exodus it does explain the origin of the *Greek* title, but not why the specific Mongolian word 'Гэтлэл' was chosen. Please note I'm not asking *specifically* about these three languages, but rather a more general question about the kinds of logic that translators use to make these decisions. Some examples from other languages that I don't speak would still be a good answer. ----- P.S. For more documentation, and just for fun, here's some interesting examples other users have pointed out: * In Finnish bibles, the five books of the Pentateuch are simply titled "First book of Moses", "Second book of Moses", etc. (suggested by user JiK) * Song of Solomon in the Russian Synodal Version has the title "Song of Songs of Solomon" (suggested by user Seggan)

There is a new United Bible Society Greek New Testament coming out in June. Someone I follow posted something that implied the editorial committee may include atheists, unbelievers, and Resurrection-deniers. I cannot for the life of me find out who is on that committee to verify if that is true or not. Does anyone here know? Thank you.

Prior to Westcott and Hort influencing the Revision Committee which produced the 1881 [Revised Version](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version) (the supposed 'revision' of the Authorised Version which, in fact, replaced the Received Text with a new Greek Text - that of Westcott and Hort) these two gentlemen intimated that they would refuse to be on the Committee if the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith was not permitted to be a part of the proceedings. >Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott's suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. **The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset**. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee. Nesher Resources I have read, somewhere (and it escapes my memory where) that 'thousands' objected to the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith being on the Committee which would oversee the 'revision' of the bible. Yet, somehow, the above mentioned 'storm' and the 'thousands' I have read of, did not result in Vance Smith, Wescott and Hort being removed from the committee. Had they been removed, Professor Scrivener and the other members would have done as was intended and would have adjusted the known defects of the Authorised Version, rather than replace the Received Text with an altogether new text comprising of over ten thousand (seven per cent) alterations, omissions and additions. Why were the 'storm' and the 'thousands' ineffective ? Whose influence was it that overcame the opposition ? EDIT NOTE : The Protocol, referred to, here, by Dean John Burgon in his book 'Revision Revised' indicates the original intent of the 'Convocation' : >That [pg 003]“a Revision of the Authorized Version” is desirable; and the terms of the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, that the removal of “plain and clear errors” was alone contemplated,—“whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same.” Such were in fact the limits formally imposed by Convocation, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,) on the work of Revision. Only necessary changes were to be made. The first Rule of the Committee (25th May) was similar in character: viz.—“To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version, consistently with faithfulness.” Dean John Burgon - *Revision Revised*

This will be my first post on the Christianity Exchange. My question involves people who confront me on the basis that they were told by secular causes that certain Koine words like "arsenkoitoi", which historically has referred to a male-male coital relationship and also transliterates to "man-bedder", are now being told that the original meaning is misunderstood to mean things like "pedophile" or "sodomy" but not to same-sex attraction. I see the same attention to the Hebrew word "zakhur", which I've seen translated as "male", but others are trying to tie it to "boy", again to refer to Jewish teachings to prohibit only pedophilia and not homosexuality. Based on the translations I've seen and examples of these words in other texts, the context suggests that the original translations indicate the case that same-sex relations are not allowed. How do I better support the truth about this when people are tugging at doubt to allow for sin?

Some people believe the King James Version of the Bible is the only version English-speakers should be using, as it is the only inspired translation. (This is referred to as "KJV-onlyism.") Basically, the KJV-only position is that: - The Bible is God's word - God promises to preserve His word * E.G., [Psalm 12:7 (read this article)](http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/does-the-second-them-in-psalm-127-refer-to-gods-words) - This preservation is accomplished via a perfect translation (one per language) - The KJV is His perfect, preserved translation in the English language - The reason other English Bibles differ from the KJV is because those other Bibles have been tainted by sin and error **What are the main counterarguments to this view?** I am specifically looking for answers which would be convincing to an English-speaking Protestant with a high view of Scripture.

I have the 2012 edition of the New American Bible published by Catholic Bible Press. It's rather interesting in that, the Old Testament, this translation doesn't use quotation marks when God speaks, but there are quotation marks for human speech. For instance Genesis 1:3 says > Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light. whereas Exodus 3:11 reads > But Moses said to God, "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?" The juxtaposition is especially striking in passages such as Exodus 3 wherein there is a dialogue between God and a man. As some have pointed out in comments, there are some translations that do not have quotations anywhere. But the NAB uses quotation marks for speech of humans and angels, only not for God. I'm curious what the reason for this is. In the New Testament however they do include quotation marks, for instance in John 12:28 > ...Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it and will glorify it again."

There some Christians who consider, for various reasons, the KJV to be the only legitimate translation of the Bible.**I am wondering if there are any movements like that surrounding another translation, whether to English or some other language.** To be specific, I'm not asking about the *textus receptus* but rather the translation specifically, as some "KJV-only" people defend it for no other reason than that it is a translation of the *textus receptus* and would accept other translations of TR (at least theoretically). I am also not asking whether any of these people or movements are correct.

Each Gospel has an account were Jesus references Isaiah 6:9-10. Paul also references those verses in Acts 28:26. >*9 And he replied: Go! Say to these people: Keep listening, but do not understand; keep looking, but do not perceive. 10 Make the minds[c] of these people dull; deafen their ears and blind their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their minds, turn back, and be healed.* John 12:40 appears to be the only account that clearly says that God does the hardening (Every Bible on BibleGateway has translated it in this manner). >*He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts….* But I noticed that the original Greek does not have “God”, or the pronoun “He”.….they’ve been added in translation. The translation of Acts 28:27 does not attribute the hardening to God….it says that “they” have shut their eyes. >*For the hearts of these people have grown callous, their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes* Again, the original Greek does not have a pronoun “they”, yet every Bible translates it in that manner. It doesn’t even appear that Isaiah Ch 6 clearly attributes the hardening to God. Verse 10 says *“make the minds of these people dull”*. Who/What makes them dull? Verse 9 could answer that question. It says people that listen, but do not understand….and people that look, but do not perceive. (Makes me think of fellow Christians that just go through the motions. I know….I used to be one). So I guess it’s a 2-part question. I do not study or understand Greek, beyond clicking on a verse and viewing the word for word translation. So, what is it about the original Greek that translators unanimously agree to add “God” or “He” to John 12:40, and add “they” to Acts 28:27? What is causing the hardening, God….or our own actions? The above translations imply both, yet they both reference the same verses in Isaiah. Shouldn’t the understanding be one or the other, based upon the understanding of the verses in Isaiah?

The Hebrew text of the Bible contains the Tetragrammaton many many times. This is used as a name, not as a title. And yet, the vast majority of Bible translations render this as LORD, not as a name. Prominent exceptions are the *Jerusalem Bible*, which uses *Yahweh*, and the *New World Translation*, which uses *Jehovah*, [the traditional rendering in English](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/6193) . There are very few translations which [transliterate or otherwise retain the Tetragrammaton](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/65691) in their text. I believe that the intent of most translators is to imitate Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Divine Name; however, Jews do *write* the name in their holy texts. Similarly, Catholic practise is [not to pronounce the Name](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3720) , but the Catholic *Jerusalem Bible* still contains it in written form. Why do most translations omit it?

The Latin Vulgate is considered to be the official version of the bible of the Roman Catholic church. I'm wondering if this means it is only the official version of the Roman Catholic Church, or does it include the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. If it is only the official version of the Latin church, do the individual Eastern Catholic Churches have their own official versions as well? (Eg. Perhaps the official Melkite version is the Septuagint, while the official Chaldean version is the Peshitta etc)

**Context:** Many Protestants overstate the claim that the Catholic Church “chained the Bible to the pulpit,” asserting that the Bible was placed on a list of “banned books” after the Council of Trent. In reality, that never happened. However, the Church did enforce severe prohibitions against what it considered dubious translations of Scripture. Historically, from Trent until the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic faithful were encouraged to read the Bible regularly, but only in certain approved translations of the Latin Vulgate (e.g., the Douay-Rheims). Following the Second Vatican Council, many Catholics have begun to use a wider variety of translations. Some, such as Ronald L. Conte Jr., have even produced personal translations like the Catholic Public Domain Version. Popular Catholic figures on YouTube, including Matt Fradd, have expressed a preference for translations like the KJV or the Orthodox Study Bible, and others—like Jeff Cavins—have suggested that Catholics should read “whichever translation of the Bible you will actually read.” Despite this apparent openness to different translations, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) still maintains a list of “approved” Bible translations. **Final Question:** Are there still prohibitions within the Catholic Church that would make it sinful for the faithful to print, publish, pray with, or study using any English translation of the Bible not on an approved list?

There are many versions of the Bible, such as the: - King James Bible - NIV - NRSV But which is the "correct" bible for Catholics to read?

What are the relationships between the terms 'Bible', 'Hebrew Bible', 'Aramaic Bible', 'Greek Bible', 'King's Bible', 'Torah', 'Tanakh', 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament'? Wikipedia seem to have separate articles for each of them and the discussion is pretty convoluted. Which of these are parts of other ones? The term 'Bible' seems to mean different things to different people. Is the Bible a Christian or Jewish scripture? I would appreciate an overview of how these terms are related.

Quoting Biblical text is technically a dicey proposition. While the original manuscripts are obviously public domain, not every translation is. Indeed, the NIV even posts the following [copyright notice](http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/) on BibleGateway: >Copyright Information > >The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. > >When the NIV is quoted in works that exercise the above fair use clause, notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page or opening screen of the work (whichever is appropriate) as follows: > >THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. > >These Scriptures are copyrighted by the Biblica, Inc.™ and have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or reposting on the Internet is prohibited. These Scriptures may not be altered or modified in any form and must remain in their original context. These Scriptures may not be sold or otherwise offered for sale. Given this, what significant translations of the Bible can I actually quote at length?

While researching for [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/60491/16938) and reading different posts on this site over the past few days, I've come across some criticisms of the NIV I'd never heard before. I've seen articles claiming that it changes the Bible to make it more friendly to homosexuality, but these claims were more general and more significant. For example, the one that stuck out to me the most was where someone said that the NIV translators knew no Koine Greek, just modern Greek, and that they used two secular translators to translate the NT into modern Greek. These are some pretty serious claims. I've never liked the NIV myself, but that’s never been anything but my personal preference. I'd link to the places I saw these claims if I could remember. What arguments exist against the NIV? I'd like to find reliable references if at all possible. I’m not looking for small, minor issues like [a few missing verses](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13962/niv-hidden-bible-verses) . I’m looking for larger, more significant problems that could conceivably affect the integrity of the text as a whole. I'm not just looking for valid arguments; I'd also love to hear about any well-refuted claims against the NIV, so long as they had some intelligent basis in the first place. I know this question seems a bit open, but if any of these claims are true, I want be sure to avoid using an unreliable translation of God's words. I’m sure the same goes for others on this site and across the Internet.

I've been looking specifically for a PDF version of the Martin Luther 1534 translation of the Bible with a Parallel English translation (preferably KJV, but any edition will do). I've been hitting a serious brick wall in finding any such composition. Does such a creature exist? I have a Crossway hard copy edition, but the Martin Luther translation is a revised edition and of course it's physical - I need a PDF for portability and markup purposes (using Liquid Text for markup and note taking):