As for your question: "Setting aside the current issue, doesn't the lack of accurate translation from the original terminology allow for mistranslation of the entire Bible? Again, I do not know enough to state anything here."
No and no. First, of course, if you're doing that you might as well pack it up and go become a Buddhist because you've just annihilated your Christianity when you put the entirety of your faith up for grabs.
Second, the only part of the Bible that would be in Aramaic for which no Aramaic exists are the words of Christ (aside from a couple of phrases left in Aramaic like Maranatha, talitha qum or Elohi, Elohi, lama sabachthani in its several variants). The entire Old Testament exists in its original languages and the Pauline letters and other post-Gospel books were clearly originally written in Greek by a Greek speaker based on accounts that were probably already in Greek to the extent accounts were drawn on.
The point is that if you want to question the words of Christ, then you have to have some basis for doing so. I pointed out the only legitimate basis for even having a discussion about our understanding - i.e., when there are odd words and cognates would make more sense. Beyond that, you're stepping squarely into the zone of heresy, trying to twist the received words of Christ into something else to fit your own choices rather than those of the Church. I emphasize the word "choice" because that is the direct translation of "heresy" - the choice to deviate from the received wisdom.
Ok, makes sense. Yeah, I would never want to throw out the Bible and become buddhist, I just did not know which parts would have translation errors possible. I suppose if I'd given it deeper thought, instead of just randomly spamming questions, I would have at least concluded that the Old Testament, which was likely written in Hebrew(?), would be lacking translation issues.
Thanks for your time and explanations. I do legitimately appreciate them.
that the Pope is right 
- 11/12/2017 08:49:35 PM
833 Views