24 pointsby epsteingpt3 hours ago15 comments
  • ubertaco39 minutes ago
    The Bible is too well-known a text that is too represented in training datasets for this _not_ to be skewed towards poorly reproducing existing translations.

    Beyond that,

    >there are hallucinations and issues

    seems like a deal-killer for a religious text. Yes, all translation by humans is an act of interpretation on some level, and so there's lossiness in all translation – but the difference between a human carefully weighing their reasoning for a particular choice of rendering vs. an LLM that is basically weighted dice that might land totally wrong is a categorically-different thing, not a question of degrees.

    • LarsDu8834 minutes ago
      This is definitely one area where the training set for the LLM is liable to be polluted by existing translations and even straight memorized english biblical text.
    • FrustratedMonky7 minutes ago
      Weren't some pretty critical points of the Bible, Hallucinated originally? What's the problem?
    • snickerer24 minutes ago
      >>there are hallucinations and issues > >seems like a deal-killer for a religious text.

      Very funny sentence, if you are an atheist.

      deal-killer... or basic feature?

      • FrustratedMonky5 minutes ago
        Yes, to complain that a religious text has problems because it was hallucinated is pretty ironic.
  • yayitsweia minute ago
    What's up with these?

    Genesis 1:13, Eve optimal Replace 'Then' with 'And' in optimal ('And the LORD God said') and poetic_daily to preserve narrative vav-consecutive connective consistently.

  • vunderba11 minutes ago
    > but the overall quality surprised me.

    With all due respect, how are you in any position to be able to objectively evaluate the quality assuming you’re not fluent in Hebrew and Greek?

  • indigoabstract23 minutes ago
    I'm not sure how this is accomplished, but I like the "poetic" translation a lot more than the "optimal" one.

    Which reminds me, do you think it's possible that the stories in the Bible are actually mystic symbolism and "veiled truth" (like the sort of stories that you might get in a dream) and people have mistaken it for actual physical history (with which it's obviously incompatible)?

    The parables of Jesus come to mind. They weren't meant to be taken literally but to teach, to get a point across.

  • jtbayly42 minutes ago
    What is the difference between the "Adam" translations and the "Eve" translations? Where can I read about this more?
  • TimorousBestiea minute ago
    Seems heretical.
  • mikemarsh3 hours ago
    > The technology has a lot of benefit for the faithful

    Although written primarily for Orthodox Christians, there are valuable cautions here to consider regardless of your tradition: https://www.jordanville.org/artificialintelligence

    • epsteingpt3 hours ago
      100% agree, like any technology it's neither inherently good nor evil.

      In this instance, I think it has the opportunity to democratize deep religious study in ways that used to be reserved for serious scholars.

      e.g. Do you know what the word "daily" in the Lord's Prayer comes from?

      Questions like these can engage the mind and spirit.

      I hope more people use the tools to fully explore their faith, instead of outsourcing prayer and sermon creation to the LLMs.

      • bwestergard2 hours ago
        You say you "100% agree" with the essay, and then say that LLMs are "like any technology it's neither inherently good nor evil."

        Did you read the essay? It says:

        "Instead of being merely “agnostic” as many argue, digital technology has amplified the ability of the princes of this world to feed the fallen man, to make him more docile and distracted while installing beliefs, morals, and feelings that are acceptable to the secular spirit of this age. AI may be the final technology that is weaponized to create this new man before the Antichrist arrives, who will be the human manifestation of AI---an ever-helpful problem-solver who people mistakenly feel they cannot live without."

        Your position is diametrically opposed to this one.

  • victorbjorklund10 minutes ago
    There is 100% chance there are already translations in the dataset (including texts with Hebrew - English side by side etc).
  • giancarlostoro32 minutes ago
    I would be really interested in this done to the Peshitta Bible, which is roughly as old as the Septuagint. Peshitta is in Aramaic a sister language to Hebrew. Over the years I've found interesting insights about verses that make way less sense in Greek but in Aramaic they make drastically more sense. It seems that somehow the Greek translated from some other source where in Aramaic or Hebrew the word used could have been one of two words, the Greek seemed to pick the worst possible representation in some cases that the Aramaic highlights.

    For example. It is easier for a Camel to go into the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into Heaven. If you read this, it makes it sound like Abraham cannot get into Heaven, wasn't he wealthy? Heck, there's others who were wealthy in scripture, even kings are they all doomed? In Aramaic the same word that in Greek is said to mean camel, can also mean rope.

    If you think about a rope going through the eye of a needle, and what it TAKES for a rope to go through the eye of a needle, aka removing all the threads or layers (humbling the person and forcing them to strip themselves down to their core) in order to make it through the eye of the needle. Or in other words, you must be willing to dethatch yourself from all your wealth. Remember the guy who asked Jesus was he must do to be saved and enter heaven, and walked away when Jesus told him to give away everything he owned to the poor? That is the same exact message.

    There's a few other verses, but that's the main one that always strikes me. Some of them are far more nuanced and I get into hours of debate with people who are ignoring everything I am saying (I don't know why, I try to lay it all out in the most simple way possible) as if I'm breaking the law, but its obvious to me that we don't have perfect copies of the Bible. I still think the overall message is the same though, so nothing wrong with that. It proves yet again that men are all fallible.

    Sorry for the tangent. I used to deep dive translations and their nuances, and the Aramaic based Bibles are very interesting.

    There's also an Aleh Tav Old Testament Bible which is fascinating to me. It adds the Aleph Tav anywhere it would be in the Hebrew into the English.

    • singlow8 minutes ago
      But the Peshitta is 300 years after the Septuagint and the verse you mention was written in Greek in a gospel, not the Hebrew Bible. I don't know how the translators of the Peshitta would have any special access to sayings of Jesus that predate the Gospels we have now. I don't know if there is any hard evidence that the Gospel authors had actual eye witness written sources in the language that Jesus spoke. So you have to assume that Jesus used Gamla in Aramaic and that the Gospel writer mistranslated it when writing in Greek but that the Peshitta gives special insight by retranslating it back to the ambiguous word. Then you have to make another leap to think that it is somehow possible to manipulate a rope to be the size of a thread. Sounds like a lot of histrionics to justify Abraham going to Paradise when the simpler explanation is that it's just a concept of difficulty rather than a logical word problem. This seems less plausible than the Eye of Needle gate theory which many Christian teachers often reference.
    • anonymous34426 minutes ago
      you seem like you know your stuff, so adam and eve=first people. only people? we all descent from them. kain killed abe. kain went exile. but somehow kain had built a city. 1. how and why he built a city when all alone. surely the grandchildren didn't follow him far away into his place of living? 2. how he know how to build a city, people in africa still don't know how to build anything than a simple hut.
      • giancarlostoro15 minutes ago
        I don't fully know, however, I will note that to my understanding, since Moses wrote the fist five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) if you will note... Moses came long after these events. I don't know what his source material was, but if it was word of mouth or other scrolls, its possible people in his time had access to those other scrolls which are now lost to time. If he felt that anyone could read the other scrolls for more information I could understand why there's not more information about these people.

        I have no idea why some people do what they do. I will say I am very jealous of the Amish because they don't have the stresses I have, or half of the issues I have. No money for gas? I don't think they need to worry or care about it.

        The other thing is, what does it really mean that he made a city? It could mean that he started an encampment elsewhere. we don't know how many other people God would have made during Adam / Cains time, I would imagine God would have made Cain a wife at some point.

      • BirAdam11 minutes ago
        Once we get to Cain and Able, it is far easier to understand if we think of these names as tribes of humans, and if we accept that there were other humans outside of the area of Adam an Eve.
  • orasis39 minutes ago
    Is this translation public domain?
  • jqpabc1233 hours ago
    What is the "expanse"?

    Answer: The sky. The ancient people who wrote the bible thought the sky was a solid dome that separated "the water's above" (aka rain) from the water's below. God lived on the other side of this dome.

    This is confirmed later in Genesis with the Tower of Babel story.

    They tried to reach this dome by building a tower. And "god" was so offended by their ignorance and stupidity (which he perpetrated) that he decided to punish them.

    The "faithful" obviously reject this simple interpretation in favor of something more obtuse and mystical.

    • epsteingpt3 hours ago
      Not here to have a religious debate - though given HN, it may turn into one!

      Imprecise language is a common human feature of a lack of understanding - something we all suffer from. We call LLM's "AI" without fully understanding what's artificial and what's intelligence.

      The story of faith is, in some ways, the story about how little we know about the universe. That doesn't mean there's no progress. If anything, it shows there is an end goal.

      The ancient narratives of Babel and Genesis reduce the incomprehensible (Creation, the Divine) into elements we as humans at that time could understand.

      How else could our ancestors have possibly related to the divine?

      • order-matters22 minutes ago
        there is also the unspoken alignment of those people from being of the same age / time period.

        humans additionally have a spectacular ability to use absurdity and loose definitions of things in ways that play with this unspoken alignment to communicate other ineffable ideas and/or build community. I'd go as far as to say we play with this unspoken alignment more so than we say exactly what we mean.

        I would think this behavior, although often seen in meme culture nowadays, would be highly relevant to religious communication and documentation of the past. I think actually trying to write down an exact meaning is a modern phenomenon and is observed in the over articulation and general structure of "legalese", for which I dont think the bible resembles very much in spirit in any way.

      • jqpabc1232 hours ago
        How else could our ancestors have possibly related to the divine?

        There is nothing "divine" in the story to relate to.

        It is a collection of unscientific, erroneous myths and beliefs that were popular in the culture at the time it was written --- by men. The only reason any divinity can still be subscribed to it is that these basic facts have been somewhat obfuscated through translation.

        I truly appreciate the fact that they put this right up front in the book. Interpreted for what it is, it succinctly obviates the need for much further consideration or worry.

        • _justinfunkan hour ago
          I think you would actually find biblical scholarship really interesting. It's way more fascinating than you give it credit for.
  • mcphage41 minutes ago
    Stuck with a "Loading..." message. Too much traffic, maybe?
    • amitav111 minutes ago
      It was slow to load for me but loaded eventually.
  • onlyrealcuzzo19 minutes ago
    Can we do the same - but get The Book of J?
  • gnerd0029 minutes ago
    these books are social in nature.. it takes agreement to make revisions. The agreement process is part of a spiritual path, in multiple ways. One translation by a machine is new but newness is exactly not the point of these works. Stability through generations and resolving open theological questions to some extent, are much more the point than newness. Also, pride and vanity are expressly discouraged. If this is a personal achievement somehow, its not very consistent with the core teachings. You ought to acknowledge your teachers, your spiritual community, their leaders and elders, and other inputs.. because without all of that you would not be able to complete a non-trivial work of scholarship. other ideas missing?
  • golemiprague9 minutes ago
    [dead]