Re: Worst Translation of the Bible? (DeepSeek)

Christ Rose <[email protected]> wrote in news:359d0103-b435-4d72-
[email protected]:

> ========================================
> Fri, 04 Sep 2026 02:14:54 +0000,
>   <[email protected]>
>   Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
> ========================================
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> You said "by men who were not there". They said,
> 
>       “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made 
known
>        to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we
>        were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16, ESV)
> 

   There was no Peter. 


"According to bible scholar Craig Blomberg, 
the Gospel of Peter is pseudepigraphical 
(bearing the name of an author who did not 
actually compose the text).

The true author of the gospel remains a 
mystery. Although there are parallels with 
the three synoptic gospels, Peter does not 
use any of the material unique to Matthew 
or unique to Luke. Raymond E. Brown and 
others[who?] find that the author may have 
been acquainted with the synoptic gospels 
and even with the Gospel of John; Brown even 
suggests that the author's source in the 
canonical gospels was transmitted orally, 
through readings in the churches, i.e. that 
the text is based on what the author remembers 
about the other gospels, together with their 
own embellishments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter




> 
>>>> 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"?
> 
> 
> It depends on the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins. That 
> understanding was not hidden from us or lost in translation.

      
     Everything you know about the Bible 
is a translation.