The Worst Translation in History
The Worst Translation in History
Is your Bible.
The Gospel of John, Chapter 1, Verse 1, as we misrecognize it:
In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In the original Greek (transliterated): En archê ên ho logos, kai ho logos ên pros ton theon, kai theos ên ho logos.
“In the beginning” is passable, but the full significance of archê combines firstness with rule, as in monarch = “one ruler.” Archê also lacks an article. Hence, better than “in the beginning” would be “in first-order.”
Pros ton theon: The profoundly wrong reading of pros as “with” has endured for five centuries since William Tyndale’s translations in the 1520s. If you want someone to blame for the fact that you have no idea what the Bible says, Tyndale's the guy. Tyndale would have done better to heed John Wycliffe’s 1395 version: In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. This was in the bigynnyng at God.
If what we mean by “with” were intended in Greek, the text would read “sun tô theô.” The preposition pros followed by a noun in the accusative case is primarily understood as towards, at, against, or facing. The meaning “with” is not wholly excluded, since pros does place two things in a spatial-like relation; but “with” is clearly mistaken.
ton theon: In its first instance, the word for “god” has an article, and its second instance lacks the article. This nuance is completely lost in the customary translation “and the word was with God, and the word was God.” The article enacts a referential distance with regard to the deity, it “conceptualizes” it, establishing the logos as being outside of, distinct from the god. Our familiar translation takes this as a paradox, a cheap version of a “mystical contradiction,” that the word both is with God and is God. This is wrong, a false rendering of the text. Not only does the common translation misread a preposition and delete an article, it reverses word order. The Greek reads: “kai theos ên ho logos.” Preserving word order would give us: “and God was the word.”
This does not say what we take it to mean, that God and the word are the same thing. In truth, God and the word stand united, but in opposition. The Logos can “be” the god only in one way: by referring to God.
Here, therefore, is the correct translation of the beginning of John’s Gospel:
In first-order was the word, and the word was facing/against the god, and “God” was the word.
The beginning, the first order, is a dual relation between “the” God and the Logos, the system of Knowledge/language. The two sides, deity and word, face against each other, not identical but radically distinct. What unites them is what the Word represents, what it says: the Word says, and thus “is,” “God.” The Word is God only in the sense that your reflection in the mirror is you. When first encountering the reflection the recognition is immediate, “It’s me.” But as soon as this recognition is itself reflected, the reflection is no longer you, but an optical effect, a reflection (“of” you) in a mirror.
Verse 2: Houtos ên en archê pros ton theon.
This is commonly rendered, He was in the beginning with God, proleptically reading Logos as a person in foreshadowing of the person of Christ. Such a reading is presumptuous and unwarranted. Houtos means “that (one).” That it is masculine does not indicate that it is personified, only that its gender agrees with ho Logos (and ton theon).
Correctly translated: This was in first-order facing/against the god.
This recapitulates the schema, reminding us that the Word and God are not identical but opposed. The That however, does not refer simply to Logos but to the whole of the prior statement: the primal/dual condition of Logos/Knowledge standing opposite God and reflecting God, is itself standing opposite (and reflecting) God. God is a being that representation cannot approach: Logos can only divide further among its own representations. Logos is always standing opposite (and only in this sense with) God, but it can never access God directly, it can never be in God’s position.
Verse 3: Panta di’ autou egeneto, kai chôris autou egeneto oude en.
Rendering autou as “him” is again unwarranted. It means “that same one,” simply continuing the reference, through Houtos, to the Logos/God schema in the first verse. It is best in English to continue the back-reference with “This.” Egeneto means “became,” but without a predicate that rings awkwardly in English, so we may venture this translation:
All things through this came to be, and outside of this not one thing came to be.
All together now, the correct principles of interpretation according to the Word:
In first-order was the word, and the word was facing the god, and “God” was the word.
This was in first-order facing the god.
All things through this came to be, and outside of this not one thing came to be.
What is crucial is how Mono-theism must be understood in light of this. The common notion of an all-knowing, all-powerful, absolutely unified One God creating the universe is not only wrong, it is not even right according to the Bible!
Under these principles, God was One, but never alone. There was, en archê, a primordial double, God-and-Logos/Knowledge. And not only this, Logos is prior: first Logos, then Logos pros ton Theon, and then, third, the identifying reference between God and Word. First one, then its other, and last the unity of one and other, and then this ternary unification divides again as one from other, and “through this all things come to be.”
The Logos represents God as One, but can never do so without revealing an internal split, namely, the divide between the Signifier and the One of the Referent: Logos constantly displaces itself, eternally oscillating between being the One and facing the One.
The process of the displacement of the Signifier, which we can see very precisely described in this passage once its legacy of mistranslation is cleared away, is generally thought to have been a discovery of modernity, but there is nothing modern about it. Logos is a syntactic principle operative in every instance of Human language and Knowledge. The omnipresence of the displacement of the Signifier is as close to an elementary law of nature is it is possible to come without a numeric unit of measurement.
The Gospel of John, Chapter 1, Verse 1, as we misrecognize it:
In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In the original Greek (transliterated): En archê ên ho logos, kai ho logos ên pros ton theon, kai theos ên ho logos.
“In the beginning” is passable, but the full significance of archê combines firstness with rule, as in monarch = “one ruler.” Archê also lacks an article. Hence, better than “in the beginning” would be “in first-order.”
Pros ton theon: The profoundly wrong reading of pros as “with” has endured for five centuries since William Tyndale’s translations in the 1520s. If you want someone to blame for the fact that you have no idea what the Bible says, Tyndale's the guy. Tyndale would have done better to heed John Wycliffe’s 1395 version: In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. This was in the bigynnyng at God.
If what we mean by “with” were intended in Greek, the text would read “sun tô theô.” The preposition pros followed by a noun in the accusative case is primarily understood as towards, at, against, or facing. The meaning “with” is not wholly excluded, since pros does place two things in a spatial-like relation; but “with” is clearly mistaken.
ton theon: In its first instance, the word for “god” has an article, and its second instance lacks the article. This nuance is completely lost in the customary translation “and the word was with God, and the word was God.” The article enacts a referential distance with regard to the deity, it “conceptualizes” it, establishing the logos as being outside of, distinct from the god. Our familiar translation takes this as a paradox, a cheap version of a “mystical contradiction,” that the word both is with God and is God. This is wrong, a false rendering of the text. Not only does the common translation misread a preposition and delete an article, it reverses word order. The Greek reads: “kai theos ên ho logos.” Preserving word order would give us: “and God was the word.”
This does not say what we take it to mean, that God and the word are the same thing. In truth, God and the word stand united, but in opposition. The Logos can “be” the god only in one way: by referring to God.
Here, therefore, is the correct translation of the beginning of John’s Gospel:
In first-order was the word, and the word was facing/against the god, and “God” was the word.
The beginning, the first order, is a dual relation between “the” God and the Logos, the system of Knowledge/language. The two sides, deity and word, face against each other, not identical but radically distinct. What unites them is what the Word represents, what it says: the Word says, and thus “is,” “God.” The Word is God only in the sense that your reflection in the mirror is you. When first encountering the reflection the recognition is immediate, “It’s me.” But as soon as this recognition is itself reflected, the reflection is no longer you, but an optical effect, a reflection (“of” you) in a mirror.
Verse 2: Houtos ên en archê pros ton theon.
This is commonly rendered, He was in the beginning with God, proleptically reading Logos as a person in foreshadowing of the person of Christ. Such a reading is presumptuous and unwarranted. Houtos means “that (one).” That it is masculine does not indicate that it is personified, only that its gender agrees with ho Logos (and ton theon).
Correctly translated: This was in first-order facing/against the god.
This recapitulates the schema, reminding us that the Word and God are not identical but opposed. The That however, does not refer simply to Logos but to the whole of the prior statement: the primal/dual condition of Logos/Knowledge standing opposite God and reflecting God, is itself standing opposite (and reflecting) God. God is a being that representation cannot approach: Logos can only divide further among its own representations. Logos is always standing opposite (and only in this sense with) God, but it can never access God directly, it can never be in God’s position.
Verse 3: Panta di’ autou egeneto, kai chôris autou egeneto oude en.
Rendering autou as “him” is again unwarranted. It means “that same one,” simply continuing the reference, through Houtos, to the Logos/God schema in the first verse. It is best in English to continue the back-reference with “This.” Egeneto means “became,” but without a predicate that rings awkwardly in English, so we may venture this translation:
All things through this came to be, and outside of this not one thing came to be.
All together now, the correct principles of interpretation according to the Word:
In first-order was the word, and the word was facing the god, and “God” was the word.
This was in first-order facing the god.
All things through this came to be, and outside of this not one thing came to be.
What is crucial is how Mono-theism must be understood in light of this. The common notion of an all-knowing, all-powerful, absolutely unified One God creating the universe is not only wrong, it is not even right according to the Bible!
Under these principles, God was One, but never alone. There was, en archê, a primordial double, God-and-Logos/Knowledge. And not only this, Logos is prior: first Logos, then Logos pros ton Theon, and then, third, the identifying reference between God and Word. First one, then its other, and last the unity of one and other, and then this ternary unification divides again as one from other, and “through this all things come to be.”
The Logos represents God as One, but can never do so without revealing an internal split, namely, the divide between the Signifier and the One of the Referent: Logos constantly displaces itself, eternally oscillating between being the One and facing the One.
The process of the displacement of the Signifier, which we can see very precisely described in this passage once its legacy of mistranslation is cleared away, is generally thought to have been a discovery of modernity, but there is nothing modern about it. Logos is a syntactic principle operative in every instance of Human language and Knowledge. The omnipresence of the displacement of the Signifier is as close to an elementary law of nature is it is possible to come without a numeric unit of measurement.
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: The Worst Translation in History
You are my favorite poster on the internet. More please.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Any sources for this, Dio?
Re: The Worst Translation in History
The traditionally "correct" construals can be found in most any grammar or dictionary of ancient Greek. Besides those, no sources are needed. I am only regarding text as what it is, text.
Issues like translating Houtos or autos as "He" when its obvious referent is (in English) a "what" "this" or "that" are so insidious because they inscribe ideology into the text at the root level.
I would hardly be surprised were someone to point to some well-meaning 4th century Anatolian priest who recommended supplying a personalizing interpretation just to be sure that everyone knows that it's all about Jesus all the time. Something similar happened vis a vis Muhammad and the nature of his "recitation," which Muhammad himself never seems to have bothered to write down, or to take care that it ought to be written. And then there's Talmud, which reaches heights of casuistical absurdity never matched.
The problem begins with a Knowledge-differential: a situation in which someone thinks he knows what something means, but is fixated on the anxiety that others won't know or will wrongly-know. If he is in such a position, he will begin the process of tinkering with the canon of knowledge, and over time the text will become a patchwork of texts designed to cover up the perceived holes in a text (or rather, the holes in the knowledge that it is presumed will be created in the readers of a text.) That's exactly what Genesis chapter 1 is: a covering-over of some of the more alarming implications of the "second" account of creation (the fun version).
Issues like translating Houtos or autos as "He" when its obvious referent is (in English) a "what" "this" or "that" are so insidious because they inscribe ideology into the text at the root level.
I would hardly be surprised were someone to point to some well-meaning 4th century Anatolian priest who recommended supplying a personalizing interpretation just to be sure that everyone knows that it's all about Jesus all the time. Something similar happened vis a vis Muhammad and the nature of his "recitation," which Muhammad himself never seems to have bothered to write down, or to take care that it ought to be written. And then there's Talmud, which reaches heights of casuistical absurdity never matched.
The problem begins with a Knowledge-differential: a situation in which someone thinks he knows what something means, but is fixated on the anxiety that others won't know or will wrongly-know. If he is in such a position, he will begin the process of tinkering with the canon of knowledge, and over time the text will become a patchwork of texts designed to cover up the perceived holes in a text (or rather, the holes in the knowledge that it is presumed will be created in the readers of a text.) That's exactly what Genesis chapter 1 is: a covering-over of some of the more alarming implications of the "second" account of creation (the fun version).
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Dioscuri wrote:The traditionally "correct" construals can be found in most any grammar or dictionary of ancient Greek. Besides those, no sources are needed. I am only regarding text as what it is, text.
Not really. People have been translating and studying this text for about 1900 years, and you're saying that they all got it wrong and you know better. Maybe you're right, I have no Greek or Hebrew. But I have read my share of history and theology, and I'd be interested to see where you are getting this from, or if you're presenting your own original research so to speak.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
The Bible's history in English is rather shorter than 1900 years, and that's all I'm disputing. Strictly, I've only discovered here that English-speakers have been reading an egregious mistranslation ever since the King James version retained most of Tyndale's worst errors.
The basic points are that pros with the accusative does not mean "with," and that Houtos in context means "this," not "he". It's simply grammar and can be easily confirmed.
Theologically, the correct translation of this passage makes the basis of the Trinity quite apparent. The Trinity is doctrine because it is true: nothing can be coherent that is not triadic in form, and this is the essence of Logos. There is never just One: there always has to be an other in order for the One to have its own inside-outside. The very terms of one thing's self-definition always depend upon the referrability of something else, and that in turn is why there can never be just Two either; the components of any Two must bear some relation, and the relation constitutes the third.
The basic points are that pros with the accusative does not mean "with," and that Houtos in context means "this," not "he". It's simply grammar and can be easily confirmed.
Theologically, the correct translation of this passage makes the basis of the Trinity quite apparent. The Trinity is doctrine because it is true: nothing can be coherent that is not triadic in form, and this is the essence of Logos. There is never just One: there always has to be an other in order for the One to have its own inside-outside. The very terms of one thing's self-definition always depend upon the referrability of something else, and that in turn is why there can never be just Two either; the components of any Two must bear some relation, and the relation constitutes the third.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Thanks.Dioscuri wrote:The Bible's history in English is rather shorter than 1900 years
Ok, let me put this another way. Has anyone else noticed the same errors you have and written about them?and that's all I'm disputing. Strictly, I've only discovered here that English-speakers have been reading an egregious mistranslation ever since the King James version retained most of Tyndale's worst errors.
The basic points are that pros with the accusative does not mean "with," and that Houtos in context means "this," not "he". It's simply grammar and can be easily confirmed.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Don't know. What would one google to find that out?
A quick scan of bible directories indicates that translators of most every version of considerable circulation have all internalized their King James.
What can be said? It is the general will, people expect to believe that the Word is a He, and that it's "with" God. People bullshit themselves every day of their lives, and they won't let us stop them, at the moment. If this bothers some dweeb enough to burrow into his Liddell & Scott and poke down to the bottom of the entry, he'll surely find some example from whoever that sometimes pros with the accusative has a meaning closest to "with." And the point will be missed again.
A quick scan of bible directories indicates that translators of most every version of considerable circulation have all internalized their King James.
What can be said? It is the general will, people expect to believe that the Word is a He, and that it's "with" God. People bullshit themselves every day of their lives, and they won't let us stop them, at the moment. If this bothers some dweeb enough to burrow into his Liddell & Scott and poke down to the bottom of the entry, he'll surely find some example from whoever that sometimes pros with the accusative has a meaning closest to "with." And the point will be missed again.
- Endovelico
- Posts: 3038
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm
Re: The Worst Translation in History
This sounds dialectic to me...Dioscuri wrote:Theologically, the correct translation of this passage makes the basis of the Trinity quite apparent. The Trinity is doctrine because it is true: nothing can be coherent that is not triadic in form, and this is the essence of Logos. There is never just One: there always has to be an other in order for the One to have its own inside-outside. The very terms of one thing's self-definition always depend upon the referrability of something else, and that in turn is why there can never be just Two either; the components of any Two must bear some relation, and the relation constitutes the third.
And now, what does this mean in simple English?
"In first-order was the word, and the word was facing the god, and “God” was the word.
This was in first-order facing the god.
All things through this came to be, and outside of this not one thing came to be."
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Generous.Endovelico wrote:This sounds dialectic to me...
Theology aside, doesn't that just sing off the page? Move over KJV.And now, what does this mean in simple English?
"In first-order was the word, and the word was facing the god, and “God” was the word.
This was in first-order facing the god.
All things through this came to be, and outside of this not one thing came to be."
Re: The Worst Translation in History
If God is indeed personal, is it possible that such errors are meant to cause effects within a population in order to get people to believe different things and thereby act in different ways as a result?
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: The Worst Translation in History
The inside/outside dichotomy only becomes necessary, only comes into being really, with the advent of self-consciousness. Without metaphorical language, there is no construction of an interior mental space; without an interior mental space or concept of "I" (as witness and actor) and "me" (imaginary image of oneself as one might appear to others; with which first comes the knowledge that one is naked), there is no need for a Logos to bridge and relate the inner to the outer. It's likely, I think, that our creation myths are not imagined histories of the universe, nor even metaphors for its creation, but a history of the advent and development of human self-consciousness, and its attendant struggles.Dioscuri wrote:Theologically, the correct translation of this passage makes the basis of the Trinity quite apparent. The Trinity is doctrine because it is true: nothing can be coherent that is not triadic in form, and this is the essence of Logos. There is never just One: there always has to be an other in order for the One to have its own inside-outside. The very terms of one thing's self-definition always depend upon the referrability of something else, and that in turn is why there can never be just Two either; the components of any Two must bear some relation, and the relation constitutes the third.
It's important not to mistake that for saying that religion is "merely" psychological; it's nothing less than an account of the current stage of universal evolution.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: The Worst Translation in History
In the beginning there was 1, then 2, and not without 3... from which all the rest cameth.
IvJNeMI5_uQ
However, hesitations between 2 and 3:
o2In5a9LDNg
IvJNeMI5_uQ
However, hesitations between 2 and 3:
o2In5a9LDNg
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Parodite,Parodite wrote:In the beginning there was 1, then 2, and not without 3... from which all the rest cameth.
Thou art so much more eridite than me be (I are?). Once I got to three, this was the best I could fathom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk
- Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:You are my favorite poster on the internet. More please.
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Very apt SMSimple Minded wrote:Parodite,Parodite wrote:In the beginning there was 1, then 2, and not without 3... from which all the rest cameth.
Thou art so much more eridite than me be (I are?). Once I got to three, this was the best I could fathom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk
Found another holy grail item, the TORUS!
CAVEAT re this issue of this thread: A bad translation can accidentally create a statement of truth. Lost in translation, found in translation.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: The Worst Translation in History
So when did a aspiring young, gay(bisexual?) Hollywood screenwriter with a penchant for transgender avatars managed to learn Koine Greek?
Sorry, must have missed something back in the days.
Sorry, must have missed something back in the days.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
The Word was facing God and was God.
Holy lavender, it's me!
Holy lavender, it's me!
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: The Worst Translation in History
I have come to the conclusion that pretty much every person on the various fora that spawned from the SpengFor are atheists.
The notion that God actually communicates empirically with creation on a macro level is something that doesn't even get a response while people quibble over the 'correct' translation of various texts. The idea that we can so totally genuflect up God's communication to us, is to me a sign that someone is an atheist. It is a position of the absolute and perfect lack of faith.
The notion that God actually communicates empirically with creation on a macro level is something that doesn't even get a response while people quibble over the 'correct' translation of various texts. The idea that we can so totally genuflect up God's communication to us, is to me a sign that someone is an atheist. It is a position of the absolute and perfect lack of faith.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
- Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Why can't the fuckers just be wrong, it's more fun that way. Also the view that G_d communicated through and with nature, to us; that G_d's Essence and Will can be know simply through the observation of the world of matter is seriously twisted and messed in the head......'>........
I've thought about this, and no, I'm not (yet) an atheist but I am an unspiritual Christian........
I've thought about this, and no, I'm not (yet) an atheist but I am an unspiritual Christian........
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: The Worst Translation in History
I have always been of the opinion that the form an idea takes in the minds of men is the essential thing, far more important than the intention of the original writer. The intentions of the writer inevitably express the idiosyncrasies of his community and mental set, while the form a legend or myth takes in the mind of mankind smooths out the edges and generalizes it into something that teaches us about the makeup of whole epochs and classes of men. However untrue a translation to its originator's intent, if it didn't resonate with a basic structure in the mind of its hearers, it would simply drop away and be forgotten, like 99.9999999% of all stories ever told have done. The ones that find a home do so because they fit like a key in a lock into the human psyche, addressing questions and concerns universal to a time, or even to all times.Enki wrote:I have come to the conclusion that pretty much every person on the various fora that spawned from the SpengFor are atheists.
The notion that God actually communicates empirically with creation on a macro level is something that doesn't even get a response while people quibble over the 'correct' translation of various texts. The idea that we can so totally genuflect up God's communication to us, is to me a sign that someone is an atheist. It is a position of the absolute and perfect lack of faith.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Words on a page are inert until we supply them with meaning. If we posit that God actually exists, then through faith we may obtain God's guidance toward meaning.
In otherwords, the translation becomes less important than the community of faith that shares the same totem text.
The notion of a God who cannot participate in the meaningful life of his adherents is the definition of 'impersonal'. The idea that a Tabula Rasa child who knows nothing of a work of literature but what pedagogy teaches is responsible for what he believes is preposterous.
The singular miracle in the New Testament goes far beyond any sort of literary analysis. The singular miracle is that Jesus Christ as the report of a real person or as a fictional metaphor provides a guide for moral perfection.
This is not to say that I do not enjoy Dioscuri's pedagogy, it's the right lesson at the right time for his audience. I think that intellectual interest guides the method of how one comes to comprehend these things. Our intellectual desires work not unlike a concentration gradient in a solution. We gravitate toward the lessons that will nourish us. If we do not have the foundation to understand Dioscuri's message, we would not have interest and it wouldn't be meaningful. If we had already consumed and fully apprehended that lesson then it would be ho hum boring and we would move on to the next thing. As it is through a sort of intellectual solution we follow the concentration gradient of knowledge until we find a harmony between our mental needs and the nourishment being provided.
In otherwords, the translation becomes less important than the community of faith that shares the same totem text.
The notion of a God who cannot participate in the meaningful life of his adherents is the definition of 'impersonal'. The idea that a Tabula Rasa child who knows nothing of a work of literature but what pedagogy teaches is responsible for what he believes is preposterous.
The singular miracle in the New Testament goes far beyond any sort of literary analysis. The singular miracle is that Jesus Christ as the report of a real person or as a fictional metaphor provides a guide for moral perfection.
This is not to say that I do not enjoy Dioscuri's pedagogy, it's the right lesson at the right time for his audience. I think that intellectual interest guides the method of how one comes to comprehend these things. Our intellectual desires work not unlike a concentration gradient in a solution. We gravitate toward the lessons that will nourish us. If we do not have the foundation to understand Dioscuri's message, we would not have interest and it wouldn't be meaningful. If we had already consumed and fully apprehended that lesson then it would be ho hum boring and we would move on to the next thing. As it is through a sort of intellectual solution we follow the concentration gradient of knowledge until we find a harmony between our mental needs and the nourishment being provided.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
Re: The Worst Translation in History
This went from linguistics to postmodernism very quickly. Not to say that I disapprove, I'll side with whatever school of textual analysis gets us away from "In first-order was the word, and the word was facing the god, and “God” was the word."
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Oy vey, alright here's an "aesthetic" translation that is still accurate.
In origin was the Word, and the Word regarded the god, and "God" was the Word.
This was originary regarding the god.
Through this all things came to be, and apart from this not one thing came to be.
As for the rest of the cathedral of delusions that has sprouted from the spines of "religious believers" and their equally benighted opponents the "atheists", assistance can only be offered step by step. We're working on this, and the major intervention will have to be carried out against that bastion of incoherence that is called by the European tongues "existing."
Nothing remotely worthwhile about God can be stated so long as we labor under the empire of stupidity that accords "reality" only to the words of which it can be said "so and so exists."
When Humans are made to understand that "existence" is not a property a single one of them actually possesses, we shall begin to unravel the mephitic grandma-sweater in which this race of slaves is swaddled.
In origin was the Word, and the Word regarded the god, and "God" was the Word.
This was originary regarding the god.
Through this all things came to be, and apart from this not one thing came to be.
As for the rest of the cathedral of delusions that has sprouted from the spines of "religious believers" and their equally benighted opponents the "atheists", assistance can only be offered step by step. We're working on this, and the major intervention will have to be carried out against that bastion of incoherence that is called by the European tongues "existing."
Nothing remotely worthwhile about God can be stated so long as we labor under the empire of stupidity that accords "reality" only to the words of which it can be said "so and so exists."
When Humans are made to understand that "existence" is not a property a single one of them actually possesses, we shall begin to unravel the mephitic grandma-sweater in which this race of slaves is swaddled.
Re: The Worst Translation in History
Which means what?Dioscuri wrote:
In origin was the Word, and the Word regarded the god, and "God" was the Word.
This was originary regarding the god.