TIL the adjective 'daily' in the lord's prayer is actually written in the original Greek as *epiousion*, which occurs nowhere else in known history - eviltoast

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

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • roguetrick@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        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.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Jehovah’s Witnesses have an update process they call “progressive revelation” so that they can keep retconning their doomsday prophecies.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      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…”