• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Some say the original words for that crap were about kids and whatnot, not so much homosexuality. The book’s been rewritten and translated so much it really shouldn’t be viewed as anything except an anthropological artifact.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’d think an all powerful, knowing God would make sure his perfect book stays perfect… 🤔

    • Gestrid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You do have to keep your eye out for versions that are translations of translations (for example, The Message version is a paraphrase, not a word-for-word or literal translation), but, from what I know, the NIV version, which seems to be the version they quoted, is pretty close to the original text.

      The ESV version, which is generally considered to be closer to the original than the NIV, says basically the same thing with different phrasings:

      For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.