Discussion With Wishful

[L.B.]

hey, hey... Joaquin and everybody... with all due respect: Fuck all this language-shit. YHWH HIMSELF is the one who made us all have different languages in the god-damned first place, so it's up to HIS sorry ass to give us the PERFECT, INFALLIBLE, PERSPICUOUS WORD of 'god' in ENGLISH. It's not my fault I speak only English well enough to converse and read and comprehend in English and not another language. Why should we, so to speak, have to 'press 1 for English' and hope that the resulting phone-menu computer voice is fluent in an English that is practical and correct? Why not just have a native speaker talk to me? IOW, I don't need to care about what the original Greek says unless there is no way for me to understand the bible in any other tongue but Greek. I speak, write and "think/understand" in English, for lack of a better way to say it. 'God' needs to get off his ass and make sure we all have the truth in our own tongue without having to rely on YET ANOTHER idiot who claims that THEIR work is making the TRUE understanding FINALLY available. Yeah, riiiiight... SURE it is.

 

Y'know, there's a woman in the church I work at who talks like a raving fundie just ike Joaquin about the infallible and perfect bible, on and on she goes... the ONLY reason I can stand listening to her is because she has a DYNAMITE pair of legs that she likes to show off. Seriously, that's the ONLY motivation I can have for giving a shit about the circular, question-begging bullshit we know as Xtian apologetics.

[R. S. Martin]

Yes, so it seems.

 

She said - I translate the Holy Bible PLAINLY - the Greek word into its corresponding English word.

 

The Problem of Non-Equivalence at Word Level

 

 

Translation, whether literary or scientific/technical is defined as "an interlinguistic transfer procedure, comprising the interpretation of a source text and the production of a target text with the intent of establishing a relation of equivalence between the two texts" (Delisle, Lee-Jahnke & Cormier, 1999:88).

 

It means that the Target Language (TL) has a direct equivalent for a Source Language (SL) word (Baker, 1992). However, there are many occasions, in which non-equivalence at word level occurs between the two languages. Baker (1992) specifies the following common problems of non-equivalence:

 

1. The SL uses a culture specific concept, unknown to the Target culture.

2. The SL concept is not lexicalized in the TL.

3. The SL word is semantically complex.

4. The SL and TL make different distinctions in meaning.

5. The TL lacks a superordinate or a hyponym.

6. There are differences in interpersonal perspective, expressive meaning, form, frequency and purpose of using specific forms and use of loan words.

 

To surpass these problems, translators use the following strategies (Baker, 1991):

 

1. Translation by a more general word (superordinate).

2. Translation by a more neautral or less expressive word.

3. Translation by cultural substitution.

4. Translation using a loan word or loan word plus explanation.

5. Translation by paraphrase using a related word.

6. Translattion by paraphrase using unrelated words.

7. Translation by omission.

8. Translation by illustration.

 

Wow! I'm on the right track! I'm forever translating from English to Pennsylvania German and vice versa. I'm at the point where I do it without missing a beat. And I do it exactly as your rules say to do it. I figured it out on my own. I couldn't be bothered with forever explaining the cultural substitutions in conversation so I started coming up with vernacular equivilents from both languages and I'm finding it works like greased lightening.

 

Okay, I don't work as a translator. What I do is discuss ideas or tell about my life in either language. Choice of language depends on whom I am talking with. In telling stories about my life in which I repeat conversation, I will freely substitute cultural vernacular equivilent terms and phrases where transliteration would be wooden or unnatural.

 

Because I know both languages so well, I have sometimes, just for the fun of it, translated German church songs into English. One day, in an effort to better understand what theological tradition my native church belongs to, I showed one of my translations to my one prof. He seemed amazed and kept asking whether I personally had actually translated it. It was as though I'd done something worthy of an honour roll mention or something. I wasn't even sure how accurate the translation was.

 

When Arsenia knows neither language, she is blissfully ignorant of what she is missing. If she is successful in selling her version of the bible we will probably have yet one more denomination--whatever her branch will call itself because surely no existing denomination will accept her bible. Well, I wouldn't know about the denominations that are unique to Asia and the Pacific Islands.

[R. S. Martin]

hey, hey... Joaquin and everybody... with all due respect: Fuck all this language-shit. YHWH HIMSELF is the one who made us all have different languages in the god-damned first place, so it's up to HIS sorry ass to give us the PERFECT, INFALLIBLE, PERSPICUOUS WORD of 'god' in ENGLISH. It's not my fault I speak only English well enough to converse and read and comprehend in English and not another language. Why should we, so to speak, have to 'press 1 for English' and hope that the resulting phone-menu computer voice is fluent in an English that is practical and correct?

 

Excellent point.

[Grandpa Harley]

People like 'The Message' bible... but that only claims to be a paraphrase for a modern time...

 

John 3:16-20 (New International Version)

 

6"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

 

 

John 3:16-20 (The Message)

 

16-18"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person's failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.

 

19-21"This is the crisis we're in: God-light streamed into the world, but men and women everywhere ran for the darkness. They went for the darkness because they were not really interested in pleasing God. Everyone who makes a practice of doing evil, addicted to denial and illusion, hates God-light and won't come near it, fearing a painful exposure. But anyone working and living in truth and reality welcomes God-light so the work can be seen for the God-work it is."

[Grandpa Harley]

BTW, The Message makes my gorge rise

[Deva]

BTW, The Message makes my gorge rise

 

Yikes Gramps, give me my King James Version. That is awful. The content is bad enough anyway, but at least give me beautiful language.

[Grandpa Harley]

Having said that... Romans loses its homophobic edge on The Message... and that's a lot.

[R. S. Martin]

Where has Arsenia disappeared to--this woman who knows it all?

 

Why didn't she do her research before she made her omniscient promises? Had she done some survey of what we know and need, she would hardly have made her blanket statements. Unfortunately, all some people need to see is an indication that here's a batch of people who are not Christians and these exist for only one purpose: to be converted.

 

After all, the bible says so. They sat in great darkness.

[Grandpa Harley]

Well, LuLu is 'vanity press' (although a horror witer I know uses them since he has fully creative control, rather than pissing around with big publishers)

[Dhampir]

Being female, she would be a Filipina.

In the specific yes. In the general though, it's not inaccurate to refer to a female as Filipino, as that's the term to describe anyone of such heritage.

 

Yeah I know, but they can get finiky about it. I'm often reminded that it's better to use Pinoy, especially in the parts of the Fils that I visit.

Ah, yes, that is the word isn't it? I had forgotten about it. Don't worry, I'm finicky about proper word usage too.

[arseniajoaquin]

I believe in the accuracy of THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT as this is the product of so many researches, etc. and they are fully supported written in the footnotes. I also believe in the accuracy of the Septuagint as this is the translation made by 70 Israelite elders who are people of God from the Hebrew. To prove the accuracy of these books would take a long discussion and I will not concentrate in proving their accuracy. It is the accuracy of my translation that I would like to prove.

 

I translate the Holy Bible PLAINLY - the Greek word into its corresponding English word taking into consideration both the Greek and English grammar. The Word of God is simple and beautiful. I would like to help people understand the Word of God. Please tell me any verse which are doubtful and we will check it from the Greek that we may understand the message.

 

My understanding was that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, so what's new? The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. It has been translated many times. Considering the many translations we already have of the Bible, why waste your time doing another one? Are all the earlier translations wrong? If so, in what way, exactly?

 

I said I translate the Holy Bible PLAINLY. The versions of the Holy Bible circulating around the world now are versions, NOT translations and there is a very great difference. In the versions, there are omissions and there are insertions/additions and how it is said depends upon the author or supposed to be translator. In my translation, it is the same as that I translated but only in English. And it's very exciting (for me at least) to read the real word of God. And that's why I like others to know the availability now of such translation. Much as I want to give away free, I am not capable and it should suffice that God has given me the ability and capability to have translated and published His Word (not yet complete though).

 

I am not saying that all the earlier translations are wrong. I was converted studying the existing versions of the Holy Bible. But there is really a big difference. I can't mention all. The businessman in the Holy Bible sold all his possessions to be able to buy the pearl he wanted to own; the pearl is salvation. The Word of God is life - that is salvation.

 

As a meta comment. Any act of translation is a version... For example if I say 'The monkey is in the tree' and have it literally translated by the ever excellent Babel Fish in to French it becomes 'le singe est dans l'arbre ', taking it beck from French to English it becomes ' the monkey is in the tree '... simple. No interpretation needed. However if I have a literal translation of 'She's madder than a wet hen' I get 'elle est plus folle qu'une poule humide ' which re-translates to ' it is more insane than a wet hen ' which is clearly 'wrong' in terms of my talking of a woman who is more annoyed than a wet hen, even though the translation is wholly correct. A straight translation cannot occur. It has to include some opinion of the translator to say what is meant, thus it becomes a 'version' no matter what is your intent. In this case, it becomes the Joaquin version.

 

I said I translate the Holy Bible from Greek to English PLAINLY, not literally. A literal translation is not possible. Plain translation is possible, I have shown it already as I have already finished and published the New Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Iesous (Joshua). I have not any opinion injected or inserted there.

[arseniajoaquin]

The versions of the Holy Bible circulating around the world now are versions, NOT translations and there is a very great difference. In the versions, there are omissions and there are insertions/additions and how it is said depends upon the author or supposed to be translator. In my translation, it is the same as that I translated but only in English.

 

This is simply not true! Popular Bibles such as the New Revised Standard Version and the New International Version are direct translations. Highly educated scholars from a wide range of denominations worked many years on these Bibles, if I have my history straight; anyone can check up on this by reading the preface of these versions.

 

Arsenia, the quality of your English posts here in this thread does not give me confidence that your translations are very accurate. Your false claim of having something unique (a translation as opposed to a version) severely undercuts any confidence I have in your work.

 

Perhaps you are innocent, but you have now been informed. Please do your own research before you do any further false advertizing. Thank you.

 

Just to clarify, I am not in any authority position on this forum but I do know something about the Bible. I also have personal access to Greek and Hebrew scholars and I know how to do a word study. Some members here are more knowledgeable than I am. Don't try to pull any dirty tricks with us.

 

It's easy to learn Greek. Or if you have personal access to Greek scholars, why not ask them and ask them to sincerely tell the truth. You mentioned NIV, come on, ask those scholars what they would say. OK, I write not satisfying your likes. We have our own way of saying things and God has His own way and that's what I translated, including the way how God spoke and it's very beautiful although many English speaking people especially Americans don't like it and they insist their expressions to be used. Their expressions are not of God so why should I follow them? There are many versions around using such way of speaking, buy those.

[Grandpa Harley]

I believe in the accuracy of THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT as this is the product of so many researches, etc. and they are fully supported written in the footnotes. I also believe in the accuracy of the Septuagint as this is the translation made by 70 Israelite elders who are people of God from the Hebrew. To prove the accuracy of these books would take a long discussion and I will not concentrate in proving their accuracy. It is the accuracy of my translation that I would like to prove.

 

I translate the Holy Bible PLAINLY - the Greek word into its corresponding English word taking into consideration both the Greek and English grammar. The Word of God is simple and beautiful. I would like to help people understand the Word of God. Please tell me any verse which are doubtful and we will check it from the Greek that we may understand the message.

 

My understanding was that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, so what's new? The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. It has been translated many times. Considering the many translations we already have of the Bible, why waste your time doing another one? Are all the earlier translations wrong? If so, in what way, exactly?

 

I said I translate the Holy Bible PLAINLY. The versions of the Holy Bible circulating around the world now are versions, NOT translations and there is a very great difference. In the versions, there are omissions and there are insertions/additions and how it is said depends upon the author or supposed to be translator. In my translation, it is the same as that I translated but only in English. And it's very exciting (for me at least) to read the real word of God. And that's why I like others to know the availability now of such translation. Much as I want to give away free, I am not capable and it should suffice that God has given me the ability and capability to have translated and published His Word (not yet complete though).

 

I am not saying that all the earlier translations are wrong. I was converted studying the existing versions of the Holy Bible. But there is really a big difference. I can't mention all. The businessman in the Holy Bible sold all his possessions to be able to buy the pearl he wanted to own; the pearl is salvation. The Word of God is life - that is salvation.

 

As a meta comment. Any act of translation is a version... For example if I say 'The monkey is in the tree' and have it literally translated by the ever excellent Babel Fish in to French it becomes 'le singe est dans l'arbre ', taking it beck from French to English it becomes ' the monkey is in the tree '... simple. No interpretation needed. However if I have a literal translation of 'She's madder than a wet hen' I get 'elle est plus folle qu'une poule humide ' which re-translates to ' it is more insane than a wet hen ' which is clearly 'wrong' in terms of my talking of a woman who is more annoyed than a wet hen, even though the translation is wholly correct. A straight translation cannot occur. It has to include some opinion of the translator to say what is meant, thus it becomes a 'version' no matter what is your intent. In this case, it becomes the Joaquin version.

 

I said I translate the Holy Bible from Greek to English PLAINLY, not literally. A literal translation is not possible. Plain translation is possible, I have shown it already as I have already finished and published the New Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Iesous (Joshua). I have not any opinion injected or inserted there.

There has to be some opinion, simply because, as you say, a literal translation makes no sense.

[arseniajoaquin]

From Wiki -

Translation is the interpretation of the meaning of a text in one language (the "source text") and the production, in another language, of an equivalent text (the "target text," or "translation") that communicates the same message.

 

Translation must take into account a number of constraints, including context, the rules of grammar of the two languages, their writing conventions, and their idioms.

 

More importantly -

 

Perhaps the most common misconception about translation is that there exists a simple "word-for-word" correspondence between any two languages, and that translation is therefore a straightforward mechanical process. On the contrary, every language is a historically-evolved self-contained system, and historically-determined differences between languages may dictate differences of expression.

 

As someone who often translates from Japanese to English and vice versa, there are words and expressions in Japanese that simply don't exist in the English language. I can give you an extensive list of Japanese words that would require entire books to adequately explain in English.

 

he Virgin Birth and Virgin Mary are, pardon the pun, pregnant with social symbolic significance in most, if not all, parts of the world. Whether you believe in them or not, they are solid social constructs, rehearsed endlessly in art, humour, everyday life, and language. And yet their birth is due to a relatively simple mistake in translation. The Old Testament talks about almah 'young woman,' not bethulah 'virgin.' However, the scholars in the 3^rd century BC translated the Hebrew almah as parthenos in Greek. Thus the 'young woman' in Hebrew metamorphosed into a 'virgin' in Greek—and she has remained a virgin ever since in translations across the world. The notion of 'virgin birth' was born, thanks to a mistranslation.

 

From here - http://accurapid.com/journal/18review.htm

 

I said I translated THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, Fourth Revised Edition, and if what is there is "parthenos" and the English equivalent is "virgin", then that's it. Thanks a lot.

[Jun]

I said I translated THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, Fourth Revised Edition, and if what is there is "parthenos" and the English equivalent is "virgin", then that's it. Thanks a lot.

 

Er, so it's NOT the word of your "God" then is it, ha ha!

[Grandpa Harley]

"Parthenos" is in the Septuagint, which is a bad Greek translation of the Hebrew word meaning young woman. 'Virgin' has its own Hebrew word.

 

The earliest versions of the Gospels (in Greek) do not contain 'virgin births' and the Hebrews just found the idea silly. It's a late (90-150 AD) pagan gloss, belonging more in Greek myth than in a heretical/mystic branch of Judaism

[arseniajoaquin]

Jun, my guess is that this woman's reading comprehension and vocabulary are not extensive enough to understand the implications of your wiki definition. And she claims to clarify anything for us.

 

Her wooden interpretation of the Abraham and Jehovah passages defies comprehension--I literally cannot make heads or tails of them. And she doesn't even know what the joke was about. Poor little girl. She is the type that can get eaten alive without knowing anything happened.

 

I suspect English is not her first language, but PLEASE! don't pretend to be something you aren't, Ms Joaquin.

 

If English is not your first language, by all means don't pretend to be an expert in it!

 

I am a Filipino living in the Philippines. I am not pretending to be somebody. I am saying that I am a translator of the Holy Bible from Greek to English. Thanks.

[arseniajoaquin]

Yes, so it seems.

 

She said - I translate the Holy Bible PLAINLY - the Greek word into its corresponding English word.

 

The Problem of Non-Equivalence at Word Level

 

 

Translation, whether literary or scientific/technical is defined as "an interlinguistic transfer procedure, comprising the interpretation of a source text and the production of a target text with the intent of establishing a relation of equivalence between the two texts" (Delisle, Lee-Jahnke & Cormier, 1999:88).

 

It means that the Target Language (TL) has a direct equivalent for a Source Language (SL) word (Baker, 1992). However, there are many occasions, in which non-equivalence at word level occurs between the two languages. Baker (1992) specifies the following common problems of non-equivalence:

 

1. The SL uses a culture specific concept, unknown to the Target culture.

2. The SL concept is not lexicalized in the TL.

3. The SL word is semantically complex.

4. The SL and TL make different distinctions in meaning.

5. The TL lacks a superordinate or a hyponym.

6. There are differences in interpersonal perspective, expressive meaning, form, frequency and purpose of using specific forms and use of loan words.

 

To surpass these problems, translators use the following strategies (Baker, 1991):

 

1. Translation by a more general word (superordinate).

2. Translation by a more neautral or less expressive word.

3. Translation by cultural substitution.

4. Translation using a loan word or loan word plus explanation.

5. Translation by paraphrase using a related word.

6. Translattion by paraphrase using unrelated words.

7. Translation by omission.

8. Translation by illustration.

 

Wow! I'm on the right track! I'm forever translating from English to Pennsylvania German and vice versa. I'm at the point where I do it without missing a beat. And I do it exactly as your rules say to do it. I figured it out on my own. I couldn't be bothered with forever explaining the cultural substitutions in conversation so I started coming up with vernacular equivilents from both languages and I'm finding it works like greased lightening.

 

Okay, I don't work as a translator. What I do is discuss ideas or tell about my life in either language. Choice of language depends on whom I am talking with. In telling stories about my life in which I repeat conversation, I will freely substitute cultural vernacular equivilent terms and phrases where transliteration would be wooden or unnatural.

 

Because I know both languages so well, I have sometimes, just for the fun of it, translated German church songs into English. One day, in an effort to better understand what theological tradition my native church belongs to, I showed one of my translations to my one prof. He seemed amazed and kept asking whether I personally had actually translated it. It was as though I'd done something worthy of an honour roll mention or something. I wasn't even sure how accurate the translation was.

 

When Arsenia knows neither language, she is blissfully ignorant of what she is missing. If she is successful in selling her version of the bible we will probably have yet one more denomination--whatever her branch will call itself because surely no existing denomination will accept her bible. Well, I wouldn't know about the denominations that are unique to Asia and the Pacific Islands.

 

I am a member of the Church of Christ founded by Christ in Jerusalem on Pentecost day as shown in Acts Chapter 2. Christ is the head of His Church and He never designated anybody to head His Church on earth. I am a Christian.

[Grandpa Harley]

So, the Gospel of Thomas applies and you're a Jamesian Christian? J

[arseniajoaquin]

People like 'The Message' bible... but that only claims to be a paraphrase for a modern time...

 

John 3:16-20 (New International Version)

 

6"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

 

 

John 3:16-20 (The Message)

 

16-18"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person's failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.

 

19-21"This is the crisis we're in: God-light streamed into the world, but men and women everywhere ran for the darkness. They went for the darkness because they were not really interested in pleasing God. Everyone who makes a practice of doing evil, addicted to denial and illusion, hates God-light and won't come near it, fearing a painful exposure. But anyone working and living in truth and reality welcomes God-light so the work can be seen for the God-work it is."

 

From THE WILL BIBLE (NEW TESTAMENT) - Ioannes [John] 3:16-21:

 

"16“For thus God loved the world, so that He gave the only begotten Son, in order that every man who believes [Acts 2:41 - lead verse] into Him would not perish but shall have an everlasting life. 17For God sent not the Son into the world in order that He would judge the world, but in order that the world would be saved through Him [1 Ioannes 2:2 - lead verse].

 

18“The man who believes into Him is not being judged; but the man who believes not has already been judged, because he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19And this is the judgment because the Light has come into the world and the men loved the darkness rather than the Light; for evil were the works of them. 20For every man who does worthless things hates the Light and comes not to the Light, in order that the works of him would not be reproved; 21but the man who does the truth comes to the Light [ioannes 9:5 - lead verse], in order that the works of him would be manifested that it is having been worked in God.â€

[Jun]

Ah yes, a Philo, I've lived in the Philippines and visit there from time to time. Philos are hardcore with their belief delusions. Before the Spanish invasion the Phils wouldn't have even heard of the bible or "God."

 

'God" is imaginary and the bible is fictional, just like every other religion.

 

Besides, Σκέφτηκα ότι ο Αλλάχ ήταν ο ένας αληθινός Θεός;

[R. S. Martin]

Ah yes, a Philo, I've lived in the Philippines and visit there from time to time. Philos are hardcore with their belief delusions. Before the Spanish invasion the Phils wouldn't have even heard of the bible or "God."

 

'God" is imaginary and the bible is fictional, just like every other religion.

 

Besides, Σκέφτηκα ότι ο Αλλάχ ήταν ο ένας αληθινός Θεός;

 

I was determined to translate that into English, even if I had to do it letter by letter. But my Greek lexicon does not contain the first word. I guess I will have to wait and see if our oh-so-learned Greek scholar of the thread can answer your question. I'd really hate to spoil it for you.

 

She seems like the Buddy Ferris type. You gotta pin her to the ground and even then you're not guaranteed an response to the point you raised. She thinks she responded to my posts. She totally missed the entire point.

[Jun]

She seems like the Buddy Ferris type. You gotta pin her to the ground and even then you're not guaranteed a response to the point you raised. She thinks she responded to my posts. She totally missed the entire point.

 

As I said, Philos are hardcore. I should know, I dated a Philo for seven years (we were to be married) and travelled with the Philo church all over the Philippines singing in their choir and with Gary Valenciano (a gospel singer). I was really hardcore back then too, but there was always that nagging feeling that something was amiss.

 

Let's see if she will have something to say about my Greek above.

[SWIM]

As I said, Philos are hardcore.

 

 

Harcore, or hardheaded while being butt-ass stupid? I can't tell which is which in this case.

[Astreja]

It's easy to learn Greek. Or if you have personal access to Greek scholars, why not ask them and ask them to sincerely tell the truth.

One should not have to ask someone to tell the truth.

 

Regardless, Arsenia... It doesn't matter to me one bit if you're translating from Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Akkadian, Farsi, Saulteaux or Esperanto. The fact remains that the Bible is a man-made book that purports to tell us about beings that have not been detected in the physical world. It may occasionally get a historical detail correct, but its hypotheses regarding supernatural entities are currently untestable.

 

For this reason, "Biblical accuracy" can pertain only to physical details and can say nothing meaningful on the existence or non-existence of the Biblical god(s).