In properly and correctly translating The HOLY BIBLE, which is more important: the words.....or instead the context?
In asking you this, I am defining acceptable parameters here, which are that you are not allowed to choose both - you must choose either the answer "words" or instead the answer "context."
IF you presumed or said: "the context," you are wrong and wicked, either deliberately rebellious or stupidly ignorant. Moreover, you are probably headed for hellfire and eternal torture therein. Thus the case, why read any further what follows?
IF, on the other hand, you are curious as to what truly-Christian genuinely-saved saints believe and know, or are already knowledgeably intelligent and righteous, thus answering: "the words," read on.
As you can readily see, it does come down to black OR white....not compromising shades of gray.
The other day, I was browsing in one of our local Christian bookstores (as contrasted, I suppose, to some XXX-"adult" books/mags/videos store) and perused the new "Bibles" (or is it instead: "bibles" or "pseudo-bibles?") and Biblioparaphrases recently published and on display.
I checked two of my pet litmus-test Bible references (i.e. First Corinthians 6:9 and First Corinthians 11:16) in many of the above-named versions, seeing if they had the precise words effeminate and sodomites for I Cor. 6:9....and no such custom for I Cor. 11:16.
What I lamentably found to my disappointment was only partial accuracy in MOST of them (or partial in-accuracy, depending upon your point of view). It was generally hit and miss...and mostly miss overall.
When we really think about it, "God's Word" is only and exclusively composed of.......words !. [Duh] It does NOT consist of ideas, concepts, thoughts, contexts, interpretations, and so forth. Without the precise verbatim words, there is not only no idea, concept, thought, context, nor interpretation possible to express, but also no RELIABLE nor REALISTIC idea, concept, thought, context, nor interpretation to deduce, come up with, and elaborate upon. There is no place nor room here for non-scientific immentally-indolent whatchamicallit morons with a careless and impatient "Quit legalistically nitpicking on minute unimportant details...It doesn't really matter....Hurry up and let's get on with it" attitude. So what seems so trifling and obvious to airbrains as to not even mention it....is the ONLY thing worth mentioning at all at this time.
Case in point.
The words malakoi and arsenokoitai are only mentioned ONCE in the Greek-Text New Testament (whether in the inerrant Scrivener/Trinitarian Greek Text or even the partially-corrupt Nestle Greek text). They only and always mean: effeminate and sodomites, respectively....and never ever mean ANYTHING else, always!
EVERY "bible" translation (with the exception of Young's Literal Translation and the Wesley New Testament) replaces one or more of the exact two English words (i.e. effeminate and sodomites) of the two precise Greek-Text words with such related-but-errant English-word/English-phrase substitutes as:
That weird and far-too-vague King-James-Version euphemism "abusers of themselves with mankind" (whatever the duce that could or could not sexually, OR non-sexually, infer) grossly and seriously misses the point. Simple, accurate, precise, and consistent words have to relentlessly and consistently be used in efficiently and effectively witnessing against both effeminate [people] and sodomite [people] (which EXACT Scriptural words also directly address the issues of transvestitism, cross-dressing, self-sodomizing masturbation, and bestiality besides lesbianism and male homosexuality in supporting anti-homo proofs of the executing-homosexuals reference of Leviticus 20:13 plus the unnatural-lust reference of Romans 1:26-27)
WHY did the newer "bible" authors and publishers [mis]-print such inaccuracies pertaining to I Corinthians 6:9? WHY do "christian" bookstores have such for sale? Did they fear losing homogay customers or homogay friends of regular or visiting bookstore customers? Did they fear losing book and other-item sales from those clean-shaven-and-beardless self-righteous religious who pride themselves in being "tolerant," "loving," and "non-judgmental?" Did they fear homogay lawsuits from indignant and insulted homogays using attorneys and lawyers registered with the State and consequential court settlements bankrupting bookstore owners and operators with "civil"-"rights" violations against "sexual"-"orientation" nondiscrimination statutues?
The next and final case.
The overwhelming majority of "bible" translations have "no OTHER custom" instead of "no SUCH custom" for their misrendition of First Corinthians 11:16. A number of them self-contradictorily have "no OTHER custom" in their main text, but "no SUCH custom" in their bottom-of-page footnote. Obviously, according to sane and sensible understanding of Webster's dictionary of the English language, "no OTHER" is THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of "no SUCH." Mega-confusion, which NO one benefits by !
WHICH is it: "no SUCH" or instead "no OTHER?"
The difference is clearly crucial when it comes to determining [in the context of First Corinthians 11:1-16] if or if not long hair on a man is degrading to him....if or if not a woman should have and consider her long hair glorious....and whether pornographically-indecent mopheadedness on a woman is or is not adequate as a public prayer covering !