Re: Worst Translation of the Bible? (DeepSeek)
Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.christnet.christnews,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian |
|---|---|
| Organization | ViperNews - www.vipernews.com |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Christ Rose <[email protected]> wrote in news:1199edea-c705-463b- [email protected]: > ======================================== > Thu, 03 Sep 2026 17:39:21 +0000, > <[email protected]> > Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote: > ======================================== > >> Christ Rose <[email protected]> wrote in news:3093e90e-3353-4099- >> [email protected]: >> >>> ======================================== >>> Thu, 03 Sep 2026 02:18:33 +0000, >>> <[email protected]> >>> Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> ======================================== >>> >>>> jimmy alpha GeD <[email protected]> wrote in >>>> news:[email protected]: >>>> >>>>> On 9/2/2026 8:34 PM, Christ Rose wrote: >>>>> >>>>> it has to be the one sightwalker is reading, if it had a good Bible >>>>> being as smart as it thinks it is, sightwalker would know better... >>>>> >>>>>> I asked DeepSeek what's the worst English translation of the Bible, >>>>>> and why? Here is the response: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Problem of Theological Bias >>>>>> >>>>>> Many scholars argue that some translations are not objective >>>>>> renderings of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts but are >>>>>> instead designed to support the particular doctrines of their >>>>>> translators. >>>>>> >>>>>> The New World Translation (NWT), produced by the Jehovah's >> Witnesses, >>>>>> is a primary example. Critics point to the fact that its translators >>>>>> are anonymous and that it has been accused of altering key passages >>>>>> to align with Jehovah's Witnesses' theology—for instance, by >> adding >>>>>> words that aren't in the original text to change the meaning. This >>>>>> lack of transparency and the consistent pattern of changes to >> support >>>>>> a specific doctrine lead many to view it as a poor translation. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> "Everything you know about your Jesus >>>> is from a translation, everything I know >>>> about Muhammed is from the same Arabic >>>> I speak" >>>> >>>> Hard to argue with that........... >>> >>> >>> Jesus rose from the dead after providing an atonement for our sins. >>> Muhammed did not. >> >> >> Everything Muchammad said was written down >> as he said it, in a currently spoken language. > > > Well, congratulations. That means you have a reliable testimony about > someone who did not provide an atonement for your sins, and who did not > rise from the dead. Such a person saves no one. No one has "risen from the dead" That is just your mythology. > > >> Nothing Jesus said was recorded until decades >> later, by men who were not there, > > > False. Name one thing Jesus said that was written down in his lifetime. > > >> in an ancient >>> language that has been dead for centuries. > > > We have reliable translations by people who know the original languages. Why does your religion depend on "translations"?