(Quote) Jim-624621 said: That's very true, Paul, but the point I was making is that the ORIGINAL texts of the books of ...
(Quote) Jim-624621 said:
That's very true, Paul, but the point I was making is that the ORIGINAL texts of the books of the Bible were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. These are very precise languages in that there are endings to denote gender on every noun, and the adjectives that modify them follow the case of the nouns. There is little to guess what gender specific nouns were written to be. How they are "translated" today, if different from the gender in the original text, is simply erroneous. It doesn't matter who translates it, even if it is the Vatican or the pope himself.
True, but also understand that in the original language, despite the specific use of a gender form, the intent/meaning was to encompass both sexes. So it is not erroneous to translate the intent.
An example in English: Men could mean a group (large or small) composed entirely oif males. But it also has the more generic meaning of mankind. So to change the usage to people, would not be incorrect. Ofcourse that is an exampleof alanguage that is in constant flux
Since I am not student of either Greek, or Hebrew (by the way the texts of the Bible were written either in Greek or Hebrew. Aramaic not included, although Aramaic is an off shoot of Hebrew. It was translated by ST. Jerome into Latin, the Vulgate, completed in about 405.
I have often heard FR. Pacwa, a Hebrew and Greek scholar, often expound on the fact that especially in Hebrew there are words that have two distinct and unrelated meanings depending on the gender form used. And that often, the feminine form is in fact referring to a male and the male form of the word referring to something else entirely.