[quote=@Legend] What are you even talking about? That doesn't make any sense; it means that if you don't understand something or question the meaning of a word, you just look somewhere else and see how it's used there. It's all but objectively the most accurate. They took the original and painstakingly converted it to English. While you have no evidence for this and part of it is just incorrect, I'll entertain it a bit. Most of the New Testament was written by Paul (who happened to write more books of the Bible than any other person). "Although we know from his biography and from Acts that Paul could speak Hebrew, modern scholarship suggests that Koine Greek was his first language." Citation: Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1977), Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 43 Dale Martin 2009. Introduction to New Testament History and Literature, lecture 14 "Paul as Missionary". Yale University. I really think you're just making this up because it sounds right to you, despite the sources saying the exact opposite. Greek has about as many meanings as English; it's really not that hard to figure out when you see how it's used. When I say "I shot an arrow from a bow," it's clear that I'm referring to a bow and arrow, not a bow tie. You also make a plethora of demonology claims on the basis of you being an expert or something, but I never see cited sources. You can't prove that there's an error when you assume that one side is correct to begin with. [/quote] You and I are talking about different things here. Again, the greek is only the original for... I can't remember how much. I think it was over half, but again, I can't remember. Is Paul the one who made up words too or was that another one? [hider=My Hider] Let's say I want to translate "iris" from english to japanese and back again. This is much more direct than the many translations that happened in the OT and few translations done in the NT, but is a good show for what it was like to translate into greek. In english, "iris" can refer to both a part of the eye and a type of flower. Several types of flowers, actually. Now let's say I want to say "the iris bloomed beautifully." Now let's hand it off to someone else who naturally spoke japanese and had a loose understanding of english, similar to the situation of turning the OT and beginning of NT into greek. (I'll get to the fact that it was many people in a moment.) They come back with "... kousai ..." Then we hand the same thing to several other people, with varying degrees of understanding of english but all a deep understanding of japanese. We get back "... hanashoubu ..." "... kakitsububata ..." and "... ayame ..." as well as several more examples of "... kousai ..." Alright, now we hand these off to someone in charge of compiling the translated texts, this line included, into the final version. People on this level decide WHICH translation is to be used. Now, they can compare the usage of this word to other usages and use context to see which is most likely, but there will end up being people in this position who choose each of the possible translations, resulting in several, different versions. Again, this mirrors the translation into greek, with several versions with differences ranging from minor to major. Now the text gets popular, and someone has to decide which is the "official" version. Let's say they go with the "hanashoubu" version. There are still people who use the other three, but the most popular is this one. Now all of them spread across various lands and cultures and languages, trying to remain as direct as possible. But we're saying we're translating directly back. So now you have to choose which of the "original" versions you want to believe to be the best. Since the "hanashoubu" version was the most popular, it's the most likely to be used 2000 years later as the "original" version. So now let's have some modern, bilingual people translate it back. "Hanashoubu" can mean either "japanese iris" or "blue flag." Alright, let's look at the context and usage of the same word with their context. Except, uhoh, "Hanashoubu" wasn't used for every instance of "iris" because several passages referred to specific kinds of iris, while this one didn't. We can't really use the context of the other uses now. Alright, we've got translations about this sentence from this version and other ones, and the general consensus is "the ... bloomed beautifully." Guess what? Either meaning of the word could, theoretically, be used to complete that sentence correctly. But, in this case, they choose to go with "iris." So we've successfully translated one way and back. Except, there are other people who swear by THEIR version of the "original" who disagree with this version. Each one has historians backing them up as "the original." Again, this is a parallel. The historians for the most part admit that there is no way to know which of the versions is the true "original" because they were all translated around the same time and were all translated to the best of the ability of the translators. Now you have a version that says "the iris bloomed beautifully," one that says "the rabbit's ears were beautiful," one that says "the rainbow shone beautifully." And yes, those are actually plausible translations for those japanese words. Any of them COULD be correct, because they were all translated correctly. The only difference is which you believe to be the "original." But it gets worse than that for christianity, because now you have all these separate authors, separate books and stories, and are deciding which of these stories are important based on which ones the compilers of the texts that were then translated felt were important. [/hider] It's not a matter of original language > new language > english. It's a matter of Language + language + language + language (etc. the various types of aramaic that the stories were written in) > new language (hebrew) + language + language > new language (hebrew) > new language (greek) > new language. (english) I'll also point out that your quote didn't refute anything. His first language doesn't change what language he wrote in. Given a record of them, I could provide a source for each one you give that says the exact opposite, the only difference being that yours came from christians a lot more often than mine. Which could mean bias in either direction. That's because I don't collect sources very often for my demonology stuff. When I'm bored in class or after school or whenever else I was free but not in my room, I didn't want to write down paragraphs of citation multiple times for every fucking thing. I looked for things confirmed by at least two trustworthy sources, ie not those shitty "oh satan is so cool we're demonologists lol" sites, and then wrote down that information and remembered it. All my demonology stuff is in physical notebooks that are somewhere with my school stuff across the years. Citing my sources is impossible because of this. I HAD several sources saved in a notes app on my old phone, but I no longer have access to those links, and they would only cover certain things. For example, I had saved the link to the explanation of Cain, which I really wish I still had because I really liked the explanation given, but I don't have it anymore. I can all but tell you exactly what the error was with Lucy into Satan but you wouldn't believe me anyway since it happened during the translation into greek, which you consider the "original" version.