NIRV is pretty good.

[MrPirate]

I don't see the word rape in there ?



Where is the word rape IN THERE ?



DON'T SEE RAPE THERE.









WHERE IS THE WORD RAPE ?

THOSE ARE 7 WIDELY USED ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS THAT TRANSLATE HOMOSEXUALITY AS AN OBJECTIVE MORAL EVIL OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF RAPE.

Are you more educated and inpired than all those educated tranlators and academic publishers ?

Perhaps you were to busy to read the post and realize it was about Leviticus.

Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for this shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie”… which is the Hebrew mishkabh. Rather we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, man is an abomination to rape a man. And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.


As for 1 Corinthians. There is no mention of homosexuality at all. if homosexuality had been intended to be included Paul would have used one of the several Greek words clearly meaning homosexuality…but he didn’t. he used the word arsenokoites, which writers contemporary to Paul used to mean a man who employs prostitutes or a man who (financially) exploits women for sex.

 

[MrPirate]

maybe you are ignoring the fact that the entire point of translation is to translate foreign or ancient texts into modern meaning ?

Get it ?

The point is to do so as accurately as possible.

Obviously NIRV was not terribly interested in accuracy

 

[GeorgeFox]

maybe you are ignoring the fact that the entire point of translation is to translate foreign or ancient texts into modern meaning ?

Get it ?

See, that's great and all, but if the "modern" words don't even approximate the meaning of the ancient text, then the translation is unfaithful and false. How does the modern word "effiminate" even come close to approximating the word "malakos" when every native Greek speaker you find will tell you that the most correct translation of that word into English is "Masturbator/Jerk-off."

I have no problem with translating texts into modern languages...I do have a problem when they translate them using words and meanings that don't exist in the text...Thus, my whole problem with the "homosexuality is sin" line. You cannot make the ancient text say a word or concept that the text isn't referring to. That isn't translation, that is butchery.