Talk:The Bible and homosexuality

Section "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?"

appears to violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Unless sources are provided that shows that scholars/theologicans have summarized the Bible´s view of homosexuality in this way, it should be removed (or substansially re-edited). It is also WP:UNDUE to solely include the liberal position and not in an equal way present the conservative/mainstream position, held for instance by the Catholic church. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't a very good section. The reason it's currently there is, ironically, precisely because of users who wanted to make sure that the article insisted that the Bible condemned homosexuality - it used to be balanced with the conservative interpretation elsewhere in the article, but was moved to a position of less prominence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I support its removal. It was I who moved it there from the lead, but only through a lack of boldness. StAnselm (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't support its wholesale removal - I think it needs to be better integrated, as it was before. Fundamentally it is a summary of interpretative issues, and should probably be restored to the lede, albeit perhaps in condensed form. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I like to add this link to the talk page: http://imgur.com/gallery/LAanQfj 85.220.16.234 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

People have mentioned the fact that Jesus didn't discuss homosexuality, but we do need a reliable source if we're going to mention it in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Unclear

The article states: "Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code."

This is inaccurate. In fact Chapter 18 does not mention the word "Holy/Holiness" even once (although it does mention to avoid the ways and the impurity of the Nations like Egypt).

To be more percise: Both times that it is stated "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" - come in the midst of prohibited intercourse's.

Here is an English translation of all the verses [1][2][3]

• The first time, in Chapter 17-18, there are a total of 17 prohibited intercourse's. It begins with prohibition for one to have intercourse with a parent, father's wife, sister etc.. It ends with prohibition to have intercourse with an animal. The "statement" "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" is number 16 in the list.

• The second time in chapter 20, there are a total of 12 prohibited intercourse's.

The statement "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" - is number 4 of in the list the twelve prohibited intercourse's. The second time however the section does begin with Holiness, followed by prohibition to curse one's parents followed by the twelve prohibited intercourse's. However the word Holiness is not as prominent ans the prohibited intercourse's.

Therefore I am correcting the inaccurate/poorly sourced above statement of the verse.Caseeart (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I wikified to Incest in the Bible which states that "These prohibitions are found predominantly in Leviticus 18:8-18 and 20:11-21". That article uses the term "lists the prohibited incestuous relationships" I was not sure if that term is better.Caseeart (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of the Holiness Code, because that section is very much a part of the Holiness Code. I left your link to incest, though, with some tweaks to language. Please check out WP:No original research; this will help you figure out what to avoid as far as reading your own analysis into primary texts, such as the Bible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Mankind" or "Male"

Mankind usually refers to the "Human Species". Or The "human race in its entirety"[4] which includes women. However the bible states "זכר" which means a "male" as in this source [5] (I understand that this Religious source cannot be used as strong evidence to the meaning but there is no argument that זכר means male). Check out these dictionaries [6][7][8] or complete your own google search Caseeart (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of the common usage of the word "mankind," but we're directly quoting the King James Version in our quotations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• זכר does not mean "mankind" since mankind includes women and זכר means male. Obvious things don't need quotations similar to Common knowledge policy.

• Why don't we look at majority of sources and see what how most people translate it, like the one I brought. Here is a List of English Bible translations, maybe we should take a look. Check out this one [9] it also uses the word "man". This one [10] and the one I brought earlier [11] state "male".Caseeart (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you would like to propose a specific translation to replace our use of KJV, go ahead. Contrary to your claim, "we have to alter a direct quotation from a significant translation of a key text because it's wrong" does not fall under WP:BLUE. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right about that we need to look at the sources and not original research. In this case we should probably go after majority. The 3 I found were translated Man and Male.

We should look at more sources. However in an event that a source quotes clearly false material (such as a false translation of a word) -and there are no other sources - it is a big question how to go about it. That would require a thorough look into Wikipedia's policies.Caseeart (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, there are reasons we use the KJV. Would you like to propose a specific translation to replace it with? If you keep speaking vaguely like this, we can't have that conversation, and your goal of changing the quotation will not be achieved. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the reason for your rejection of the English Standard Version with the addition of a link to a variety of English translations? Esoglou (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to being convinced, but I'd like to hear an argument for any change of translation that doesn't come down to "it reflects the modern anti-gay Christian perspective." KJV is at least standard. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I still don't understand your objection to changing from

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" to

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"

Don't they mean the same, the only difference being in the change of English usage in 400 years?

And it seems to be the same for the change from

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" to

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them".

The English Standard Version is highly reputed for accuracy, isn't it? And the reason that "mankind" used to mean a male (זכר) is not current English has already been sufficiently indicated above. Esoglou (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps your comment about "it reflects the modern anti-gay Christian perspective" indicated that you thought "lie with mankind" meant something different from "lie with a male". Surely you didn't think that. Or did you? Esoglou (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a translator, so it's not my job to justify the usage of particular words. I've asked you to make a case for any given translation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have done so. So has Caseeart. What's your counterargument against using a translation into more modern English? Esoglou (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Both of you seem to be making an argument for the use of a different translation because it uses a word that you prefer, rather than on its own merits, and that's not going to fly - that's the opposite order of how we're supposed to work. Basically, while KJV obviously doesn't use the most up-to-date language, it has the benefit of not being a direct result of any modern political debates. Any relevant translation issues get discussed in article prose anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese speaks almost as if she were a follower of the King James Only movement, declaring more recent translations to be "a direct result of modern political debates", an idea that I, frankly, consider to be nonsense. She has refused to indicate whether she does think that the KJV rendering "lie with mankind" meant something different from "lie with a male", again an idea that I consider to be nonsense. I propose now that, instead of having in the article some translation (not necessarily ESV) that uses a less ambiguous word, as Caseeart and I have proposed, we humour Roscelese by having the KJV translation alone, adding to it a sourced indication of the meaning of the word it translates as "mankind". Esoglou (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I just assumed it was obvious that you need a reliable secondary source to discuss translation issues, but I underestimated your dedication to disruptive editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Your insistence on keeping the word "mankind" and excluding any disambiguation is curious. Are you denying that Strong's Concordance is a reliable source for the meaning of the word that the KJV translates as "mankind"? Esoglou (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like you to follow our usual sourcing policies. Your personal beliefs do not grant you an exception to them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatever about your likes and dislikes, and my personal beliefs and disbeliefs, is Strong's Concordance a reliable source for the meaning of the word that the KJV translates as "mankind" or not? Should I ask elsewhere? Esoglou (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Your accusation: "Both of you seem to be making an argument for the use of a different translation because it uses a word that you prefer" is not accurate. If you don't have any preferences - why are you repeatedly inserting a false translation.Caseeart (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The accusation is also a breach of WP:GF: "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." Esoglou (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we are getting off topic. Let me first clarify and reinforce previous comment-

זכר is only used in the bible to specify male gender and rule out female gender. It is used to identify both male humans (adults or children) and male animals. I will reference to an Hebrew/English version.

The first time זכר was used, was in when Adam and Eve were created Genesis 1:27 "male and female He created them".

The second time זכר was used is was for male animals. Noah was instructed to gather both male and female animals into the ark. Genesis 6:19 "And of all living things of all flesh, two of each you shall bring into the ark to preserve alive with you; they shall be male and female".

Here is a list of 5 translations:

• King James Version: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" [12]
• Bible in Basic English By professor Samuel Henry Hooke: "You may not have sex relations with men, as you do with women: it is a disgusting thing"[13]
• New International Version: “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" [14]
• English Standard Version By Dr. Lane T. Dennis(?): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. [15]"
• Judaica Press: You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination.[16]

• Update A few editors in the RFC noted "use the version used by the reliable source that is making claims in reference to a particular verse". The "Homosexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia" book translates: "You shal not lie with a male as with a women; it is abomination."[17]

(I want to add general discussion about this book but this is not the place).

The First Kings James version is the only one to use the term "mankind". It is also a false translation (at least in current English) since "mankind" refers to both male and female. In addition, "Thou shalt" is outdated English. Update/Correction: In modern English the translation "mankind" would constitute a false meaning. (I apologize to all the users of KJV for previously using the term "false translation").

All other 4 use either "male" or "man" which are similar. The "Bible in English" is the easiest to read and understand but is not accurate, since it uses the term "man" and not "male". The same with the "New International Version".

• The English Standard Version seems the most accurate since it uses the term "lay" and the term "male". This translation also emphasizes on literal translation. I will reference to the English Standard Version.

Update A few users in the RFC pointed out to "use the version used by the reliable source that is making claims in reference to a particular verse". The source uses the same translation as ESV. Caseeart (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Lesbianism

The verses and sources brought all point to Male intercourse with Male. Although commentaries and scholars assert certain verses in the bible to lesbianism - Since nowhere in the Bible does it ever mention (openly) against lesbianism - I think there should be a section about that the bible does not prohibit lesbianism. However I was not able to find any reputable source yet. Before I go further about researching and adding such a section - I want feedback.Caseeart (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What about Romans 1:26? Esoglou (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I was referring to the original "old testament". In the old testament it is not mentioned even once. We could specify the "Hebrew Old Testament". However if this is a Christian article - than maybe it should just leave it out.

Since I see that this article is also part of Judaism - I think that it is WP:WEIGHT to clarify that the "Old Testament" does not prohibit or even mention Lesbianism (although Talmud compares it to the acts of Egyptians - ). Caseeart (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

To: Caseeart-Why should The Hebrew Old Testament be left out? The Old Testament of The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, and was translated into Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.153.183 (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment. I was saying that if this article would be specifically pertaining to Homosexuality within the Christian religion - then as Esoglou pointed out - that lesbianism is clearly prohibited in the "new testament". In that case there is no place for a lesbianism section.

However this article is also a project of Jewish Religion that strictly follows the old testament - it could be pointed out that nowhere in the old testament is lesbianism prohibited. (Neither is a gay relationship quoted anywhere (if there exist such a type of gay relationship). - Only actual intercourse is mentioned- ). However for now I am leaving this article since some users make it very difficult for legitimate edits. Caseeart (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation of a quoted word

Is it not allowed in Wikipedia to ask for disambiguation of a word in a quotation? The question concerns in particular the word "mankind" in the KJV translation of two verses in Leviticus 18 and 20. I do not accept User:Roscelese's claim that disambiguation requires altering (i.e., falsifying) the quotation. The word could be disambiguated either by citing other translations or by giving information on the Hebrew word that the KJV rendered as "mankind". User:Roscelese has straightway deleted each of these. She has also refused to accept that, in this context, "mankind" means the same as "male" (see #"Mankind" or "Male" above), and this is what gives rise to the need for disambiguation, for if the word does not mean "male", what does it mean? Esoglou (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

An uncontroversial piped link could disambiguate, without thereby altering the quotation. Esoglou (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Neutral POV - not pro or against homosexuality

I think that this article needs a cleanup. The article should bring sources that analyze WP:NEUTRAL POV of homosexuality in the bible.

Instead I am seeing false traslations and selective sources which seem to focus on specific viewpoints. When I try to replace clearly false information (that seemed to have been added intentionally to prove a certain POV)- the edits are repeatedly reversed - even after placed accurate sources in the talk page.Caseeart (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Which translation of the Bible to use?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which translation of the Bible should be used for the biblical quotations in this article? Please specify a translation and not a word in any given quotation; the article contains a number of quotations and we should probably try to use the same source for all of them, and additionally, attempting to translate a quotation yourself is likely to fall foul of WP:NOR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• ESV - I note that this was suggestion, and works well enough as a modern, literal translation. The short quotes will not constitute copyright violations, as far as I know. Obviously, with some of these verses it will be helpful to include a number of translations - as the article does with 1 Cor. 6, for example. StAnselm (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• (Updated) - The translation which is used in the source of the article which is identical to ESV. This is also the best presented translation. - Three reasons as noted above: *This is the most accurate and literal translation. Literal translation is essential for this article that analyzes homosexuality in the bible. *This translation is in line the majority of other translations. *This translation uses current English language. However if at any time, a user presents a more literal translation I am open to change. Caseeart (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• KJV - While the translation is less than perfect, it is far and away the most common translation used in the English speaking world, and the one that most readers will likely recognize. Further, as the KJV article notes, "... it is still the most popular translation in the United States, especially among Evangelicals." Of all schools of Christian thought, American Evangelicalism is the largest and most vocal school pushing the theology that homosexuality is incompatible with the Bible; using the ESV, the RSV, the NIV or some other translation would misrepresent the Scripture upon which this theology is based. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Although the KJV is popular in the US and Evangelicals, the translation on this verse differs significantly from the literal meaning. As noted earlier in the talk page - that while the biblical text uses the word "Male" (זכר), the KJV on the other hand uses the word "Mankind" which in current English - includes human males and females. This alters the meaning and may be inappropriate in this article that analyzes the biblical text.Caseeart (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, a widespread basis for much of the anti-gay sentiment in Anglophile Christendom. It's impact should not be discarded. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Doesn't "mankind" in the KJV translation in fact mean the same as "men", "males", "blokes"? (If you see something else that it can mean, please enlighten me.) So why should a translation that means the same thing be considered a basis for anti-gay sentiment? Is it just that some (few, I suppose) wouldn't understand what KJV is saying? Esoglou (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your question would be better addressed to the people who continue to use the KJV as their principle translation, and who use the KJV phrasing to justify their doctrines on homosexuality. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were attacking ESV as homophobic. It seems that it's the version that you prefer for use in the article that you consider to be a basis for anti-gay sentiment. Esoglou (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:TechBear's point that this translation is widely used among mainstream groups of Christians - is notable. However literal neutral (non religious motivated) translations are important in THIS article since the article is not about translation or religion, rather it is about analysis on the text. Caseeart (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not possible to do textual analysis (or to discuss other people's textual analysis) of the English translation of a non-English text without taking account of the translation. The only way to avoid the issue of translation is to analyse the text in the original language. No translation (of any text) is completely 'neutral' or 'literal' - of necessity, every translator makes choices. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• No translation should be canonized as the one and only version to use. Wikipedia supports neither the King James Only Movement nor the fans of any other translation. In this concrete case the question is about which is better: a translation that uses the ambiguous term "mankind" in contradistinction to "womankind" (i.e., KJV), or a translation that uses the unambiguous term "male" (i.e., ESV). In this concrete case ESV is clearly the better. Whichever version is used, access to other versions should be facilitated as in this edit, if disagreement has arisen among editors about which version to present in the article. Esoglou (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a good point not to support any specific translation. We should also not lock in on any translation. If at a later time a user presents a better translation - we should be open to change. I will update my vote.Caseeart (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I still decidedly support ESV as the better translation for use in the 21st century. I just wanted to point out also that, if there has been disagreement, even the best translation should not lock out access to others, and that if an inferior or ambiguous translation is used, there is even more reason to provide access to other translations. Esoglou (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• KJV - This seems to be the version most often quoted from when discussing homosexuality in a biblical context. I also support TechBear's apt reasoning. Context is important though, and there may be some cases where a source uses another version in a specific analysis. - MrX 11:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Possible compromise - Esoglou makes a good point. Perhaps we can use the JKV for the parts of the article that reference Christianity, and an equivalently widespread Jewish translation (not the ESV, which is a Christian translation) for the parts of the article that reference Judaism? With relevant verses already quoted in both sections, it would give the reader an opportunity to see the text in differing, relevant contexts. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you see any difference in meaning between what KJV says and what ESV says? Do you see any difference between what either of them says and what CJB says in the first and the second verse? Esoglou (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The accuracy of the translation is entirely beside the point. The King James version is the most popular translation in the English speaking world, and it remains especially popular among Evangelical Protestants, the school of Christian thought most associated with promoting the doctrines that are the focus of this article. But to show that I am willing to compromise on the issue, I would also accept the Vulgate, to reflect the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, or the Russian Synodal Bible, which is the official translation of the Russian Orthodox Church. Given that these are in Latin and Russian respectively, I do not believe they would be acceptable for the English language Wikipedia. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• we use the version used by the reliable source that is making claims in reference to a particular verse. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. This isn't for editors on Wikipedia to decide. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)ink
    • Every article or book I ever seen about Biblical matters uses one translation all the way through. I think this would be very poor style. The cheerful dwarf (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
      • our "style" issues take second place to WP:V / WP:OR and every other content policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Everyone else is doing it wrong. Your brainstorm is the one true way. The scare quotes around the word "style" are a nice touch. Do you think I made the concept up? The cheerful dwarf (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
          • If everyone else is doin it wrong by putting sources and content above "style" - I say lets be naughty and join them! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom</ thspan> 05:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
            • What a treat! More stupid, sarcastic jokes. Do you get them cheaper if you buy by the dozen? Perhaps Wikipedia needs a Manual of "Style" instead of a WP:Manual of Style. The cheerful dwarf (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
              • I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom. We should use the translation from the source that is brought for this section of the article. The source uses a literal translation identical to ESV. We should not give any priority or preference to any translation and make it the official translation of Wikipedia. Caseeart (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to agree with this. I feel like picking which translation would provide the clearest picture of what we think is going on in the Bible verges on WP:OR, but obviously not as much as translating it ourselves. I'm not familiar with biblical study, but shouldn't we use the version that is either most commonly used in academia today or the one that the cited source uses? Why is the version the source uses not good enough? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 03:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Question / Comment The RfC says we should probably try to use the same source for all of them.

• Why?
• Isn't the idea that more than one translation of the original text is possible quite important in this context? Is that really something we should gloss over? The RfC seems to beg the question.
• If we were only to use one translation then it seems to me that the decision about which translation to use could become mired in accusations of POV-pushing. Clearly some translations are more favourable to certain viewpoints than others.
• The social and historical context of each specific translation should not be ignored.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. Different translations may for different reasons be better at different points. At the point in question, nobody has said that there is any divergence in meaning. Even if at other points another translation is used, the better one here is the unambiguous ESV text. Esoglou (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition we may want to stick to the translations brought in each source (or if a translation is absent - the best translation for that context). Caseeart (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• ESV. This is a revised and modernized version of RSV. RSV was a landmark project and the translation widely acclaimed. It was published in 1952 and was standard for both worship and academic use for many years. ESV has been endorsed by various Evangelical leaders. We should use a single translation so readers don't get distracted by translation trivia. It's not a translation comparison article. The top five Bible translations are NIV, KJV, NLT, NKJV, and ESV.[18] Of these five, ESV easily comes in first place as the modern language translation suitable for scholarly study. The cheerful dwarf (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What about the point that user TheRedPenOfDoom brought that we should use the translation that was "used by the reliable source that is making claims in reference to a particular verse." The source for this section of this article uses the ESV[19]. Why are we preferencing which translation should be used on Wikipedia (as other users pointed out)? Caseeart (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Scholars writing about the Bible generally use one translation consistently through an essay or book. This is the standard in field, the way it's done. Changing translations for no reason apparent to the reader looks sloppy. Rick Warren certainly gets a lot of flak for doing it. Style is all about following standard formats so that the reader can focus on the content of the article. Every editorial decision means that you preference one thing over another. There is no way to avoid making choices in life. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice," as the old song puts it. If a translation is controversial, you might want to compare NRSV and ESV. Then you get both the liberal and conservative spins on the passage. I doubt that's an issue for any of the passages quoted in this article. If it's not, why clutter up the article with translation trivia? The cheerful dwarf (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Question. Would any supporter of using KJV in the section that gave rise to this discussion object to adding to the KJV translation a note about the meaning it there attaches to the word "mankind"? (ESV and the like need no such explanatory note.) Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I had initially added a caveat to the RFC about possibly not being consistent in our use of a translation, but ended up leaving it out. I do think we should be consistent because, as I'm sure we will immediately find if we implement "use whatever translation the source uses," different sources use different translations. In cases where there are concerns about the translation, as with arsenokoitia, we can and do discuss translation differences in the article text, but I think The cheerful dwarf is right: it's poor style to jump from translation to translation when we're not actually talking about translation, and it will immediately backfire. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • While it won't look right if we change the translation each time we quote the *same* verse as The cheerful dwarf - pointed out, (especially if we mix ancient English translations with modern English translations) - it doesn't seem that it will be a problem if we stick to the translations of the sources when quoting *separate verses*. Most sources use current English. (If the same verse is quoted twice - we would then need to choose which single translation to use both times as The cheerful dwarf asserted).
    • This remark seems quite correct. I support it. Esoglou (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • If we will pick out and choose one translation for the article - how will we address the concerns of the other users Such as POV and that we are not to preference decide any translation to Wikipedia (for this article and for any articles).
  • Even the sources of this article including the book "Homosexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia" on page 66 uses the ESV translation for both verses of Leviticus, and on page 68 the book uses a different translation (not ESV) when referencing Mark 10.[20] This did not seem a problem in style since the book was sticking to literal current English. Caseeart (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Surely such translation jumping is just carelessness? The concept of POV is not meant to apply to style issues. There is no NPOV method of determining paragraphing, the size or placement of images, the organization of the article, etc, etc. What if there is more than one source and they use different translations? Writing should be about communicating to the reader, not pointless hairsplitting. Update I checked the Mark 10 translation. It is from NRSV. The difference between NRSV and ESV is pretty small beer. But if you mix KJV with a modern translation, readers will certainly notice. The cheerful dwarf (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Different sources use different translations, as The cheerful dwarf says. And there is no need to force adoption of just one single Bible version throughout an article (unless the article is about a group that prefers to use that version). That could give rise to POV disputes about the choice of version to use, as Caseeart says, disputes that would not necessarily arise when choosing a version for a particular verse within the article. Esoglou (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with "use the version used by the reliable source." Since this is a discussion about the "Bible and homosexuality" not what religion A, B, or C says about homosexuality or what group A, B, or C says about homosexuality, limiting the discussion to a particular translation will bias the article to the viewpoint of a particular group. As long as the translation is one of the translations that are normally accepted (i.e NIV, KJV, NLT, NKJV, and ESV from above), then it can be used. Unless a specific point is being made about a non-traditional translation, non-traditional ones shouldn't be used.Marauder40 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In this concrete case a specific point is being made: that the ambiguity of KJV's "mankind" should be avoided. (I am unsure about the meaning of your terms "traditional" and "non-traditional": into which category do the non-KJV versions that you say are normally accepted fall?) In this concrete case do you think it permissible or even advisable to use a version other than the KJV that Roscelese wants to be the only one used? Esoglou (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I was addressing the overall question since it seemed to be applying to the entire article, not a particular case. When I mean traditional version non-traditional I am implying things like, if someone wants to include something from a Bible used by Mormons, Johovah Witnesses etc. and even translations made by people not even associated with a religion as a primary translation they shouldn't be used unless in Wiki voice something is said like "Johovah Witnesses believe x and base it on their translation of the Bible included here." I don't think we should rely only on one translation, that is limiting the scope and putting an authority on one version which WP shouldn't be doing. It would in effect be saying that everyone that believes KJV bible is the authoritative version is correct, but everyone else isn't.Marauder40 (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
      • In either case there is no argument here since the *source* that brings this specific verse of Leviticus does not use KJV. This book chose to use ESV, which is also the most accurate and literal translation I have found for this verse. Caseeart (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Esoglou:"In this concrete case a specific point is being made: that the ambiguity of KJV's "mankind" should be avoided."

Then I would suggest using more than one translation at that point in the article, to allow the reader to understand that different translations say slightly different things.

That seems the most informative approach to me.

If it's important enough to really go into detail then IMO it would not be inappropriate to quote the specific word(s) used in the original language and give the possible translations of it/them.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No objection whatever on my part. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• ESV - It has pretty much become the standard English version.--TMD (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion - By default I would use one version that is widespread (either KJV or ESV). But if - in particular cases - other versions provide a text translation that changes the meaning of the text significantly, I would mention that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.