I know that, but it wasn't considered incest until much later when the population had enough people and there was no need to. Of course, that sounds weird and disgusting to our feeble minds these days, but like it or not, that's the way it was, amigo.
after the great flood, i guess noah and his family had to resort to some serious incest to keep us going as well right? i would say something snide here, but this is my (our) ancestors we are talking about.
I'm sure they were ready after hanging out with a pair of every animal on the planet for forty days and nights.
Here is the most overt translation error in the bible and my personal favorite. "Thou shalt not kill". Ancient Hebrew only had about 8,000 words as opposed to modern English with over 120,000 words. It was difficult to express nuances without placing a word in context, especially in an oral tradition. They just didn't have the words for executions, battle deaths, suicides, homicides, fratricides, etc. But clearly the commandment was intended to mean "thou shalt not murder". The original Hebrew of the sixth commandment is lo tirtsach. Tirtsach can mean to break in pieces, kill or murder. Lo is the Hebrew negative. After all, what did Moses do when he came down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments and found the Israelites worshipping an idol? He had 3,000 of them killed! In fact, in the first five books of the bible, death by stoning is prescribed for breaking any of the first 7 commandments except possibly the second. Surely the commandment did not include killing by execution. David and Solomon were beloved of God yet they slew "thousands and ten-thousands" in battle. Surely the commandment did not include killing in battle. "Thou shalt not murder", while not traditional in the King James Version, is actually the proper translation of the Sixth Commandment. It just did not survive multiple translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English unscathed.
And the King James is a very poor translation. Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible used murder, as does the Duey Rheims, Jerusalem, New American, and nearly every other Catholic translation. And again when the Bible is read in context the meaning is not changed.
This is good to know. Those translations are not very familiar to me. Why do you suppose the KJV is still held in such high regard in light of this?
It really isn't held in to high a regard by Bible scholars. In fact most Masters and Doctorate programs do not endorse it. I think it is popular amongst Protestants for the simple reason that it was not the work of the Catholic Church.
Sadly, because the Catholic church and non-Catholic pastors (another abused and improperly translated word in the KJV) of today still use it to further their own agendas. I use NASB which is considered the most literal by many, but there are still some things that the translators missed. I like the Hebrew/Greek-English interlinear(sp?) also.
how could you know what is translated poorly and what isnt? are you experts on hebrew or aramaic or whatever? who cares anyways? cant you just pick up any random nonsense book and believe that if you want? why do you care specifically about the bible? you should try L ron hubbardism, at least that way you could have the original words of the lunatic that wrote them, in the original language. maybe the book of mormon works that way as well.
