Re: Worst Translation of the Bible? (DeepSeek)

Christ Rose <[email protected]> wrote in news:b93b7bc7-7a76-47da-
[email protected]:

> ========================================
> Sat, 05 Sep 2026 02:36:03 +0000,
>   <[email protected]>
>   Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote:
> ========================================
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> Correct. The text I cited above is from 2 Peter, not "the Gospel of 
> Peter". I do not recognize or believe "the Gospel of Peter" is part of 
> the inspired Bible.
> 
> Also, we are not ignorant of Satan's devices. He has been trying to 
> undermine and promote doubt about the word of God since Genesis 3. The 
> ongoing opposition to truth was predicted, and validates the Bible.
> 
> Historically, the more successful tactics of opposition have occurred 
> when the unwitting tool of Satan pretends to agree it's the word of 
God, 
> but then tries and twist it to a spiritually harmful meaning.



    The whole concept of a "Satan" is 
both silly and dangerous. An all-powerful
god who wants what is best for humanity
would permit a lesser demigod to distort
His message and undermine His work? 

    Preposterous. 

    And the idea that anything that 
disproves the Bible is "of Satan" and 
those pushing it must be killed? How 
many scientists and women were burned
at the stake over this "Satanic" myth?