Hahaha it’s half-funny, half-sad to think that my mom also hated that song for the exact same reason.
Jon P
OK, I thought I had heard this story previously. I can almost slightly understand the parental point of view, but I do have to LOL at the resolution they came up with.
Jen Aside
So I guess you don’t have Kendra Wells’s parents’ reaction:
KW: “I did this Smut Peddler porno, are you ashamed of me”
KW’s parents: “Not for THIS”
David M Willis
I have not spoken to my parents yet about my porn. I don’t plan on bringing it up, either!
though if it comes up i do have this photo of the first check i got, that should work
Shadow12000
So, wait, they’d consider that kind of thing a sin, but then look the other way cause of cash? See, my parents would probably do the same thing, but they’re also not the type to flip their shit over Whitney Huston.
Swerve
Yeah, that does sound contradictory to me. Wouldn’t that make it twice as bad to them?
I suggest using a different tactic: change the subject, then run. Or engex. Lots of engex.
TheLurkerAbove
At this stage, maybe C4 might not be a bad idea…
Tawdry Quirks
Two words: Prosperity Gospel.
Well, I don’t know if his parents are that kind of fundie, but there certainly are a lot of fundies who do believe that possession of gobs of cash is a sign that God favors *them*.
Another way to look at it is intent. Doing something for a paycheck means it’s under orders and to put food in your belly. Doing something for free means your making sacrifices for its sake. Not every person can work for companies that are completely in line with their beliefs.
David
No, don’t look the other way because of cash. The cash is God’s reward. So, uh, God is happy that David got all of this out of his system. Or something.
And it will be a much more comfortable bed he will be gasping his last breath out on than otherwise, and he won’t have to wrack his brain in vain about finding something to repent for and get pardoned.
I mean, this is still the I-did-not-inhale U.S.A. we’re talking about, right?
“Your honor, I did not draw sex with this woman.”
Because it’s not actually a woman but rather six gerbils with nipple tassles in a sexy Ninja costume. Prove me otherwise. It’s a cartoon.
lightsabermario
Speaking of which, don’t let them know about the crowbars you’re doing, either.
Jen Aside
haha, I was gonna say, are you using an alias, or are you confident they won’t Google you
Ivan
Every once in awhile I read a story that reminds me how lucky I was to have parents that were completely indifferent to indoctrinating me into any given belief system. That was one such story.
Biggest side benefit: masturbation without guilt.
RadtheCad
All of the yes. Not being indoctrinated is the *best*. Another side benefit is that in later life, you definitely won’t be ashamed of spouting religious nonsense when you were young!
You’ll just be ashamed of spouting completely mundane/antireligious nonsense when you were young! YAY!
Ray, when someone asks you if you’re a god, you say “YES”!
Drunken Nordmann
I really liked this book – I once found the long version in a “Wühlkiste” (didn’t find a sound translation for the last word).
Shadow12000
*looks at gravitar* Oh hi god.
Squiggles
thrift shop?
Drunken Nordmann
It’s not a shop, just a box full of price-reduced books – mostly 3 € per book. They’re very common and I mostly get my fixes from them because there are some very good books hidden between all the old biograpies and ‘female literature’. I also get more books for less money this way, as most newer books cost 10 to 12 € around here. But we do have a thrift shop for books in my hometown.
caesaria82
‘bargain bin’. If the word ever comes up again in your life, now you know it in English 😉
Drunken Nordmann
Ah, thanks. I saw saw this word in an online dictionary, but I didn’t use it because it’s a word I mostly associate it with garbage. That’s why I use the German word in quotation marks, if I don’t know or can’t find a good English equivalent.
I’m strange like that.
Deanatay
As the phrase ‘bargain bin’ tends to imply something that you think is garbage, but that you hope someone else might find valuable, your association is not inaccurate.
garaden
Eh, in American English you throw garbage in the “trash” or “trash can”, never the “bin” (though for some reason it’s always “recycle bin”, never “recycle can”?). So “bin” just means a reasonably-large plastic container, without trash connotations, though probably “junk” connotations, since anything you want to throw in a bin without really organizing it probably isn’t very valuable.
Ubermensch? Uberwomensch? Or perhaps Überwomensch?
(I clearly do not know German.)
Rabid Rabbit
Überfrau.
Drunken Nordmann
Well, Mensch means human, so you’d call women Übermensch, too.
Jen Aside
Das Überbraun
vlademir1
I was under the impression that Mensch most precisely meant “person” but that in practice that meant it most oft gets used as “human” except in certain sci-fi and fantasy contexts. I’ve long used it in that context when the stupid at work hits critical mass and the shit hits the fan by muttering “Ich hasse Menchen hier.” while fixing the problems (fixing the stupid somehow ends up being 25% to 50% of my job)
David
“Ich hasse Menschen hier.” would be “Here I hate humans.” You’d have to say “Ich hasse die Menschen hier.” to arrive at “I hate the people around here.” If you are talking about a more specific set, you’d probably use “Leute” rather than “Menschen”, but it’s really a small semantic nuance.
“Menschen” is used for both “humans” and “mankind”, whereas the etymological similar “Menschheit” is more like “the humanity”.
You’d never translate something like “man and animal” with “Mann und Tier”, by the way. In German, males cannot really represent the whole family. It is “Mensch und Tier”.
That’s a pretty old sentiment, older than Christianity. One of Socrates’s dialogues is about how a poet can’t orate well on his own, but is possessed by a god when he does so.
I had an ex who was annoyed that all football players’ praise goes to God/Jesus, but all screw-ups are one’s own. No one ever says, “Jesus made me miss that pass!”
Pat
God clearly wants the other team to lose.
3oranges
I wonder if it would have been more or less annoying for them to blame the devil.
Starscreamer
That ex was a George Carlin fan….that’s one of his bits 🙂
Especially when most of Jesus’ miracles are things that different Roman gods did. It’s almost as if they knew who they were trying to make it sound like “Oh man, did you know that there’s this one guy who could do all the things your gods do? One guy!”
JJ
Wait, what? Where did you get that from?
You better quote an actual historian or I’m calling BS on your statement.
StClair
“Which means you only have to make one set of sacrifices! That’s a savings of at least 11 burnt offerings per annum! BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE!”
In the same vein, equally mysterious to me is the idea that Joyce’s beliefs all come from some crazy minority sect of Christianity. Some bits and pieces are, but the core of the crazy is right out of the bible and subsequent Catholic dogma (official term).
If Joyce looks crazy to you because she’s talking about being a slave for god, or how the bible is literally true…it’s because she’s closer than you to the ‘official’ beliefs, not further away.
WaytoomanyUIDs
Biblical literalism hasn’t been Catholic dogma since at least Vatican II (note this is a different concept from the message being true, Biblical inerrancy). It’s more a fundamentalist and evangelical protestant thing.
WaytoomanyUIDs
Oops, just fact checked, I’m seriously rusty and made a serious error. There are actually 3 concepts, literalism (the Catholic dogma), inerrancy (the Protestant dogma) and infallibility (which is that it’s true with regards to matters of faith, i.e. the message is true) Honestly, as a layman I can find very little difference between literalism and inerrancy.
ProfessorZoot
That should have been catholic dogma, as distinct from Catholic dogma. But I is an American and so for me Christianity means whatever a self-proclaimed Christian wants it to mean at the time of proclamation. If an American tells you that he or she is a Christian, that person has contributed a net zero amount of knowledge about her/his personal belief system.
Chris
Taking the Bible literally is always a strange concept to me because it’s a text that’s been highly summarized and edited, hundreds or thousands of years after the events described, and in different political times and often under a deadline. So many ancient manuscripts describe things in much greater detail, like the flood or Jesus’s deeply metaphorical philosophies.
David M Willis
Yeah, it sounds nuts if you describe it that way. Unfortunately, many folks learn it was written by eye-witnesses and that by being God-inspired its faithfulness is maintained despite its heavy translation.
You know.
Lies.
Matthew Davis
I’m a professional medievalist (really, the words after my name and everything — my specific degree is in English literature) and something I’ve talked about in my research is how in the middle ages scripture was more fluid than it became post-Reformation. It was more a collection of accepted practice, commentary, and the Bible rather than the Bible alone. Bible stories were considered to be both literal and allegorical.
This is still true today, but because of the Reformation and the assumption that you should cross-check everything against the Bible everything shades into literalism in some really unhealthy ways when it comes to American evangelical movements.
IncandescentFlame
As far as anyone should be concerned, Christianity IS faith in the Bible. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. I can understand many people’s skepticism, but I’ve heard (from people who study this exclusively) that the Bible is incredibly accurate. The only errors that we know of so far since the Dead Sea scrolls are punctuation errors. That’s ridiculously improbable, but it happened.
The thing that most people forget when applying science is that improbability doesn’t mean impossibility.
David M Willis
Christianity being faith only in the Bible sounds an awful lot like idolatry to me.
And it depends on what you mean by “errors.” If you mean inconsistencies, then there are many. On what day was Jesus crucified? Who were his disciples? Who went to the empty tomb on Sunday and who did they see? Who did Jesus first appear to? Did Paul immediately seek out the Apostles in Jerusalem once he was converted or did he leave for Arabia for several years first?
Or if you mean transcription errors, then we’ve got a few to talk about here as well. What about the several verses added on at the end of Mark’s resurrection story? What about the added-in story of Jesus and the adulterous woman? What about half of Paul’s letters not actually being written by Paul but by forgers? What about the letters claimed to have been written by Peter and Jude but most certainly were not?
tl;dr: The people I’ve heard from (from people who study this exclusively) say the opposite of what you do.
Some1udontknow
Ok, for the gospels, Luke and Matthew were based off of Mark, and for Paul’s letters, it was the custom in the day that if you studied under or respected a person greatly, you would put their name in your teachings because it was not your knowledge but theirs that allowed you to have this information.
David M Willis
Yes, Luke and Matthew both have parts of themselves cribbed from Mark. (And also likely from a hypothetical document called Q.) But they also moved stuff around and changed them and ultimately contradicted their source material because they had divergent narratives and agendas. Saying that Luke and Matthew were based off Mark doesn’t solve the original problem of why they conflict with each other on very important details — it actually kind of makes the problem worse. If Mark is supposedly inerrant, then why was it altered by the other two authors for their own works? And if the whole of the Gospel is inspired, why would God let those changes happen in the first place?
And I laugh a little at the second part. The letters that claim to be by Paul but were actually written by other people were written in the second century AD, a hundred years after Paul was alive. No one who worked under him wrote them, and if any of them respected him, they wouldn’t have contradicted so strongly with what his genuine letters preach. That’s part of why we know stuff like Timothy 1/2 and Titus aren’t his — they’re so different in theology (not to mention word use). No one who forged a letter in Paul’s name respected him. They used his reputation to push ideas the real Paul would have been aghast at.
And while that sort of thing was indeed common at the time, it was in no way condoned. It was considered forgery and deception. It was supremely dishonest, which is a quality I’m pretty sure God isn’t supposed to be in favor of.
Garth Wallace
And then there’s the fact that surviving early copies of New Testament texts come in many different versions, usually grouped into “Alexandrian text-type”, “Byzantine text-type” and “Western test-type”. Which you use as a source for a translation makes a big difference! The King James mostly uses the Byzantine text-type (specifically a collection called the “textus receptus”), but more recent translations usually use the Alexandrian because most scholars believe it is earlier.
Then you’ve got the Comma Johanneum, which may have been a marginal note that some scribe accidentally included in the main text of the First Epistle of John when making a copy.
And that’s just New Testament stuff, not getting into the four sources hypothesis for the Pentateuch.
khambatta
Even the tiniest translation errors can completely subvert meaning. The example given to me referred to a seed, appropriately, & changed the word ‘have’ to ‘had’. Written one way it was a message of hope, the other way it becomes scornful, & changes our understanding of the character of the participants.
We can’t even translate modern languages that accurately, never mind centuries-old spoken dialects.
Jen Aside
The “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle” thing comes to mind.
[“camel” being mistranslation of “thong”]
David M Willis
I would like to hear more about that, ‘cuz it’s the first I’ve heard of it! Google isn’t helping, either.
Rex Hondo
“Needle” being a mistranslation of “thong” would be even more awkward and awesome.
Chris
Sounds like the greek word kamelos (camel) vs kamilos (rope) confusion (which I only just now googled). But apparently the “rope” (mis?)translation appears only in later copies. The earliest manuscripts are all about the camel.
298 thoughts on “Mysterious”
Jen Aside
EEW YOU WANT CREDIT FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS WHUT
Jen Aside
wait what Whitney Houston song
saltchocolate
The Greatest Love of All
TheOthin
I really want to hear this story now
TheOthin
oh – http://itswalky.tumblr.com/post/17583392748/whitney-houston
David M Willis
http://itswalky.tumblr.com/post/85385223372/whitney-houston
Lamachine
Hahaha it’s half-funny, half-sad to think that my mom also hated that song for the exact same reason.
Jon P
OK, I thought I had heard this story previously. I can almost slightly understand the parental point of view, but I do have to LOL at the resolution they came up with.
Jen Aside
So I guess you don’t have Kendra Wells’s parents’ reaction:
KW: “I did this Smut Peddler porno, are you ashamed of me”
KW’s parents: “Not for THIS”
David M Willis
I have not spoken to my parents yet about my porn. I don’t plan on bringing it up, either!
though if it comes up i do have this photo of the first check i got, that should work
Shadow12000
So, wait, they’d consider that kind of thing a sin, but then look the other way cause of cash? See, my parents would probably do the same thing, but they’re also not the type to flip their shit over Whitney Huston.
Swerve
Yeah, that does sound contradictory to me. Wouldn’t that make it twice as bad to them?
I suggest using a different tactic: change the subject, then run. Or engex. Lots of engex.
TheLurkerAbove
At this stage, maybe C4 might not be a bad idea…
Tawdry Quirks
Two words: Prosperity Gospel.
Well, I don’t know if his parents are that kind of fundie, but there certainly are a lot of fundies who do believe that possession of gobs of cash is a sign that God favors *them*.
John Merklinghaus
Another way to look at it is intent. Doing something for a paycheck means it’s under orders and to put food in your belly. Doing something for free means your making sacrifices for its sake. Not every person can work for companies that are completely in line with their beliefs.
David
No, don’t look the other way because of cash. The cash is God’s reward. So, uh, God is happy that David got all of this out of his system. Or something.
And it will be a much more comfortable bed he will be gasping his last breath out on than otherwise, and he won’t have to wrack his brain in vain about finding something to repent for and get pardoned.
I mean, this is still the I-did-not-inhale U.S.A. we’re talking about, right?
“Your honor, I did not draw sex with this woman.”
Because it’s not actually a woman but rather six gerbils with nipple tassles in a sexy Ninja costume. Prove me otherwise. It’s a cartoon.
lightsabermario
Speaking of which, don’t let them know about the crowbars you’re doing, either.
Jen Aside
haha, I was gonna say, are you using an alias, or are you confident they won’t Google you
Ivan
Every once in awhile I read a story that reminds me how lucky I was to have parents that were completely indifferent to indoctrinating me into any given belief system. That was one such story.
Biggest side benefit: masturbation without guilt.
RadtheCad
All of the yes. Not being indoctrinated is the *best*. Another side benefit is that in later life, you definitely won’t be ashamed of spouting religious nonsense when you were young!
You’ll just be ashamed of spouting completely mundane/antireligious nonsense when you were young! YAY!
GoldStarz
“Doesn’t the mean that all criminals are god? And that you are god. Oh god I just said Joyce was god.”
Tunaro
What?
Yotomoe
God dangit!!
derf
Thou art God?
Kennerly
Ray, when someone asks you if you’re a god, you say “YES”!
Drunken Nordmann
I really liked this book – I once found the long version in a “Wühlkiste” (didn’t find a sound translation for the last word).
Shadow12000
*looks at gravitar* Oh hi god.
Squiggles
thrift shop?
Drunken Nordmann
It’s not a shop, just a box full of price-reduced books – mostly 3 € per book. They’re very common and I mostly get my fixes from them because there are some very good books hidden between all the old biograpies and ‘female literature’. I also get more books for less money this way, as most newer books cost 10 to 12 € around here. But we do have a thrift shop for books in my hometown.
caesaria82
‘bargain bin’. If the word ever comes up again in your life, now you know it in English 😉
Drunken Nordmann
Ah, thanks. I saw saw this word in an online dictionary, but I didn’t use it because it’s a word I mostly associate it with garbage. That’s why I use the German word in quotation marks, if I don’t know or can’t find a good English equivalent.
I’m strange like that.
Deanatay
As the phrase ‘bargain bin’ tends to imply something that you think is garbage, but that you hope someone else might find valuable, your association is not inaccurate.
garaden
Eh, in American English you throw garbage in the “trash” or “trash can”, never the “bin” (though for some reason it’s always “recycle bin”, never “recycle can”?). So “bin” just means a reasonably-large plastic container, without trash connotations, though probably “junk” connotations, since anything you want to throw in a bin without really organizing it probably isn’t very valuable.
[/self-absorbed English detour]
TFC
“No” “Then DIE!” ¡ZAP!
Tunaro
Feels. ( p′︵‵。)
Opus the Poet
yay! Joyce having a personality of her own!
Jim
Joyce is growing.
GoldStarz
Soon she will ascend beyond the limits of mere man.
Tunaro
She shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
timemonkey
If you only knew the power of the Joyce Side.
GoldStarz
ReJoyce in this latest happening! Praise the Joyce’s Power!
TJ Baltimore
Ubermensch? Uberwomensch? Or perhaps Überwomensch?
(I clearly do not know German.)
Rabid Rabbit
Überfrau.
Drunken Nordmann
Well, Mensch means human, so you’d call women Übermensch, too.
Jen Aside
Das Überbraun
vlademir1
I was under the impression that Mensch most precisely meant “person” but that in practice that meant it most oft gets used as “human” except in certain sci-fi and fantasy contexts. I’ve long used it in that context when the stupid at work hits critical mass and the shit hits the fan by muttering “Ich hasse Menchen hier.” while fixing the problems (fixing the stupid somehow ends up being 25% to 50% of my job)
David
“Ich hasse Menschen hier.” would be “Here I hate humans.” You’d have to say “Ich hasse die Menschen hier.” to arrive at “I hate the people around here.” If you are talking about a more specific set, you’d probably use “Leute” rather than “Menschen”, but it’s really a small semantic nuance.
“Menschen” is used for both “humans” and “mankind”, whereas the etymological similar “Menschheit” is more like “the humanity”.
You’d never translate something like “man and animal” with “Mann und Tier”, by the way. In German, males cannot really represent the whole family. It is “Mensch und Tier”.
Rouge Mage Nick
She will become Adaptus Soritus?
Khyrin
She-of-the-Triangle-Smile?
The Sound Defense
That’s a pretty old sentiment, older than Christianity. One of Socrates’s dialogues is about how a poet can’t orate well on his own, but is possessed by a god when he does so.
Lel
The idea to Christianity is somehow unique among beliefs is pretty mysterious to me, yet a lot of people seem to believe it.
Jen Aside
I had an ex who was annoyed that all football players’ praise goes to God/Jesus, but all screw-ups are one’s own. No one ever says, “Jesus made me miss that pass!”
Pat
God clearly wants the other team to lose.
3oranges
I wonder if it would have been more or less annoying for them to blame the devil.
Starscreamer
That ex was a George Carlin fan….that’s one of his bits 🙂
Jen Aside
My ex was a bit-stealer!
Shadow12000
Especially when most of Jesus’ miracles are things that different Roman gods did. It’s almost as if they knew who they were trying to make it sound like “Oh man, did you know that there’s this one guy who could do all the things your gods do? One guy!”
JJ
Wait, what? Where did you get that from?
You better quote an actual historian or I’m calling BS on your statement.
StClair
“Which means you only have to make one set of sacrifices! That’s a savings of at least 11 burnt offerings per annum! BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE!”
Deathjavu
In the same vein, equally mysterious to me is the idea that Joyce’s beliefs all come from some crazy minority sect of Christianity. Some bits and pieces are, but the core of the crazy is right out of the bible and subsequent Catholic dogma (official term).
If Joyce looks crazy to you because she’s talking about being a slave for god, or how the bible is literally true…it’s because she’s closer than you to the ‘official’ beliefs, not further away.
WaytoomanyUIDs
Biblical literalism hasn’t been Catholic dogma since at least Vatican II (note this is a different concept from the message being true, Biblical inerrancy). It’s more a fundamentalist and evangelical protestant thing.
WaytoomanyUIDs
Oops, just fact checked, I’m seriously rusty and made a serious error. There are actually 3 concepts, literalism (the Catholic dogma), inerrancy (the Protestant dogma) and infallibility (which is that it’s true with regards to matters of faith, i.e. the message is true) Honestly, as a layman I can find very little difference between literalism and inerrancy.
ProfessorZoot
That should have been catholic dogma, as distinct from Catholic dogma. But I is an American and so for me Christianity means whatever a self-proclaimed Christian wants it to mean at the time of proclamation. If an American tells you that he or she is a Christian, that person has contributed a net zero amount of knowledge about her/his personal belief system.
Chris
Taking the Bible literally is always a strange concept to me because it’s a text that’s been highly summarized and edited, hundreds or thousands of years after the events described, and in different political times and often under a deadline. So many ancient manuscripts describe things in much greater detail, like the flood or Jesus’s deeply metaphorical philosophies.
David M Willis
Yeah, it sounds nuts if you describe it that way. Unfortunately, many folks learn it was written by eye-witnesses and that by being God-inspired its faithfulness is maintained despite its heavy translation.
You know.
Lies.
Matthew Davis
I’m a professional medievalist (really, the words after my name and everything — my specific degree is in English literature) and something I’ve talked about in my research is how in the middle ages scripture was more fluid than it became post-Reformation. It was more a collection of accepted practice, commentary, and the Bible rather than the Bible alone. Bible stories were considered to be both literal and allegorical.
This is still true today, but because of the Reformation and the assumption that you should cross-check everything against the Bible everything shades into literalism in some really unhealthy ways when it comes to American evangelical movements.
IncandescentFlame
As far as anyone should be concerned, Christianity IS faith in the Bible. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. I can understand many people’s skepticism, but I’ve heard (from people who study this exclusively) that the Bible is incredibly accurate. The only errors that we know of so far since the Dead Sea scrolls are punctuation errors. That’s ridiculously improbable, but it happened.
The thing that most people forget when applying science is that improbability doesn’t mean impossibility.
David M Willis
Christianity being faith only in the Bible sounds an awful lot like idolatry to me.
And it depends on what you mean by “errors.” If you mean inconsistencies, then there are many. On what day was Jesus crucified? Who were his disciples? Who went to the empty tomb on Sunday and who did they see? Who did Jesus first appear to? Did Paul immediately seek out the Apostles in Jerusalem once he was converted or did he leave for Arabia for several years first?
Or if you mean transcription errors, then we’ve got a few to talk about here as well. What about the several verses added on at the end of Mark’s resurrection story? What about the added-in story of Jesus and the adulterous woman? What about half of Paul’s letters not actually being written by Paul but by forgers? What about the letters claimed to have been written by Peter and Jude but most certainly were not?
tl;dr: The people I’ve heard from (from people who study this exclusively) say the opposite of what you do.
Some1udontknow
Ok, for the gospels, Luke and Matthew were based off of Mark, and for Paul’s letters, it was the custom in the day that if you studied under or respected a person greatly, you would put their name in your teachings because it was not your knowledge but theirs that allowed you to have this information.
David M Willis
Yes, Luke and Matthew both have parts of themselves cribbed from Mark. (And also likely from a hypothetical document called Q.) But they also moved stuff around and changed them and ultimately contradicted their source material because they had divergent narratives and agendas. Saying that Luke and Matthew were based off Mark doesn’t solve the original problem of why they conflict with each other on very important details — it actually kind of makes the problem worse. If Mark is supposedly inerrant, then why was it altered by the other two authors for their own works? And if the whole of the Gospel is inspired, why would God let those changes happen in the first place?
And I laugh a little at the second part. The letters that claim to be by Paul but were actually written by other people were written in the second century AD, a hundred years after Paul was alive. No one who worked under him wrote them, and if any of them respected him, they wouldn’t have contradicted so strongly with what his genuine letters preach. That’s part of why we know stuff like Timothy 1/2 and Titus aren’t his — they’re so different in theology (not to mention word use). No one who forged a letter in Paul’s name respected him. They used his reputation to push ideas the real Paul would have been aghast at.
And while that sort of thing was indeed common at the time, it was in no way condoned. It was considered forgery and deception. It was supremely dishonest, which is a quality I’m pretty sure God isn’t supposed to be in favor of.
Garth Wallace
And then there’s the fact that surviving early copies of New Testament texts come in many different versions, usually grouped into “Alexandrian text-type”, “Byzantine text-type” and “Western test-type”. Which you use as a source for a translation makes a big difference! The King James mostly uses the Byzantine text-type (specifically a collection called the “textus receptus”), but more recent translations usually use the Alexandrian because most scholars believe it is earlier.
Then you’ve got the Comma Johanneum, which may have been a marginal note that some scribe accidentally included in the main text of the First Epistle of John when making a copy.
And that’s just New Testament stuff, not getting into the four sources hypothesis for the Pentateuch.
khambatta
Even the tiniest translation errors can completely subvert meaning. The example given to me referred to a seed, appropriately, & changed the word ‘have’ to ‘had’. Written one way it was a message of hope, the other way it becomes scornful, & changes our understanding of the character of the participants.
We can’t even translate modern languages that accurately, never mind centuries-old spoken dialects.
Jen Aside
The “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle” thing comes to mind.
[“camel” being mistranslation of “thong”]
David M Willis
I would like to hear more about that, ‘cuz it’s the first I’ve heard of it! Google isn’t helping, either.
Rex Hondo
“Needle” being a mistranslation of “thong” would be even more awkward and awesome.
Chris
Sounds like the greek word kamelos (camel) vs kamilos (rope) confusion (which I only just now googled). But apparently the “rope” (mis?)translation appears only in later copies. The earliest manuscripts are all about the camel.