Default Feature Image for Post

Translation: Which is correct? An idiomatic or literal translation of the Bible?

Nothing is wrong with the “original Bible” (in Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek) but there are great problems with the “idiomatic & non-literal translations”.

I’ll give you an example of why I don’t use the same error filled translation as the “eternal hell translations” (idiomatic).

The “eternal-hell” endorsed bible says (idiomatic):

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 7)

But the “literal” bible translation says:

“as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before — an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.” (Jude 7)

Note, folks that in both the above, the difference is obvious.

The error filled (idiomatic non-literal) translation uses the wrong phrase “eternal fire” whilst the correct translation (literal & non idiomatic) one uses the accurate phrase “age-during fire”.

How do we know the “latter” is right?
Simple, There’s no “eternal fire” burning even now in Sodom & Gomorrah till today, how much more “eternally”. It was an age-during fire which burned for a “limited time” fulfilling its purpose (folks, you can clearly see the non-literal context versus the literal context here).

It’s obvious.

Similar Posts