this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
485 points (95.7% liked)

Today I Learned

17858 readers
28 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

the full line being "Give us today our epiousion bread"

Today, most scholars reject the translation of epiousion as meaning daily. The word daily only has a weak connection to any proposed etymologies for epiousion. Moreover, all other instances of "daily" in the English New Testament translate hemera (ἡμέρα, "day"), which does not appear in this usage.[1][2] Because there are several other Greek words based on hemera that mean daily, no reason is apparent to use such an obscure word as epiousion.[4] The daily translation also makes the term redundant, with "this day" already making clear the bread is for the current day.[21]

i don't think wikipedia mentions this but it has 'pious' in the middle

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 166 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It was an oral history in one language, written down into another by low quality scribes, then translated a couple more times.

Which is why it's always hilarious people say they have to take any translation literally.

[–] [email protected] 94 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But you don't understand! This translation was divinely inspired! Every other one is an act of heresy and blasphemy!

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Catholics go one step further. Both the translation and the tradition of interpreting the translation is divinely inspired. Protestants sometimes vaguely point to something like that but most realize that if they follow the logic train of sacred tradition they should be Catholic or Orthodox.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The book was produced by the tradition. If the tradition is junk, then why would the book not be junk too?

This is one thing that atheists often get wrong about Catholicism. Catholics don't believe sola scriptura, the Protestant principle that all Christian tradition is to be rooted in the text of the Bible. Thus, "Bible contradictions" and the like are not rebuttals to Catholic views the way they are to "fundamentalist" Protestant views.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm an atheist ex protestant, but I generally agree with that theological view. I think Protestantism is very inconsistent in that regard and most arguments amount to hand waving. In the end, though, all denominations pick and choose when councils had sufficient authority to be binding tradition. Unless they're gnostics or some other type of anti-pauIine Christian guess.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Talking about protestantism is a singular thing, lol

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could have added nuance to an interesting discussion. But instead you went for snark.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Evangelicals are all about that inspired, literal, complete, and inerrant word of God stuff. 99% of all evangelical churches have that as a mission statement on their website.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless they realize that each new interpretation is Divinely inspired. In which case the most recent one is the truest, Tradition is dead, and also the Divine changes Her mind a lot.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

"This translation was divinely inspired."

"Oh, dope, so you're gonna sell all your stuff and give the money to the poor?"

"Okay, listen..."

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's a two-thousand-year-long multilingual game of Telephone. How much is it even possible is left from what was originally written? (And none of it contemporary to when it supposedly happened.)

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Textual critics are fairly confident that a fair amount of the texts of the New Testament were reliably copied until we get to the first extant manuscripts, and for the stuff that is very obviously messed up, they have a decent set of analytical tools that help them retroject the likeliest original wording. Not perfect, but decent.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And now we have even better scientific tools that allow us to retroject all the miracles, incorrect dates, absurdly inaccurate numbers/measurements, and the authenticity (very foundation) of it's stories. Proving that it is all fiction.

Reminder: Until the 1800s no Christian believed that the world was older than about 6000. If you went back in time and spoke to literally any Christian at that time and said you were both Christian and believed that the earth was billions of years old they would definitely say that you're a liar: You're not a Christian. You would be declared a heretic.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a difference between saying that one translation is more or less accurate than another and saying that the story that is written is true or not. Don't let your feelings about the subject impact your assessment of the literary work around it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're right: As a literary work is absolute garbage. The chapters are all over the place and it constantly repeats itself, telling the same stories in a slightly different way with no added information or useful insights.

It even makes it incredibly difficult to suspend your disbelief by stating impossible things as simple facts with no explanation whatsoever like someone being swallowed by a whale, fitting two of every animal on earth into a single boat, etc.

1 out of 10 ⭐

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Exactly how much of this has to do with the history of when various parts were written and how accurately copies were made?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

That's not how translation works though. The modern translations come directly from the original Greek and Aramaic.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The texts travelled all over the East and into Europe. So we can compare them. They were very clearly written in their time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

All fakes. The real texts only come in hats.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This gives me the odd realization that, were a method to travel through time ever discovered, there's a chance one use-case for it might be a religious group traveling back to the origin point of their religious texts to correct errors that have made their way in since the original versions were written or spoken.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a novel right there baby

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's been written. I can't remember the name or author, but the crucifixion was very popular, and in the story may have accounted for the large crowds that day.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But then you could just go back and witness the events that the book tries to describe, so the book itself becomes irrelevant outside of just archaeology phd work.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

As in, changing the history to match their text? 🙃

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Imagining the idea of a deeply religious person going back in time over and over again, going further and further back looking for Adam and Eve and finding very modern-looking humans going all the way back 200,000 years...

Nah, they'd probably give up after going back around 50,000 years and accidentally infecting the entire human population with the common cold, nearly killing off the species.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Written down by the Wikipedians of thee day, complete with edit wars.