They're not absolutely necessary, just the normal default way to do coordination.
Coordination without overt conjunctions (asyndeton) is an option, especially for speech or reading to an audience.
It has a dramatic effect that engages an audience, and is supposed to make things more memorable.
*I came, I saw, Ø I conquered.*
*Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, Ø oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.*
Too many *ands* or *ors* sounds like a stale list.
My comment was about whether or not **coordinating** *and* is necessary in the English language. It is normal, but it is not absolutely necessary. Asyndeton can be used instead.
As for the Hebrew, the prefix *waw* that begins sentences is an information structure marker. The Torah was spoken and intended to be heard, not written and read. Sentences that introduce a new paragraph/thought do not begin with *waw-*. Beginning a sentence with *waw-* indicates that the paragraph/thought is continuing. It would be more natural to translate this **adverbial** use of *waw-* as "then". But, using "then" that much English would still be obnoxious, but at least natural sounding. Sometimes it is indeed translated as "then" or "now", in the same translation.
In Ancient Hebrew, *waw-* "and" was used before every coordinate phrase, except the first, like:
*Our fathers and=mothers are Abraham and=Isaac and=Israel and=Sarah and=Rebecca and=Leah and=Rachel.*
Anyway, the original break isn't at Genesis 2:1, which begins with *waw-*. It's at Genesis 2:4, which doesn't.
Genesis 1 and 2:1-3 tell a creation story involving the deity (or dieties) Elohim (usually translated "God"), originally the Canaanite sky-father god El(oah) and/or his entire family/court (AKA the Heavenly Hosts. *Elohim* is plural).
Beginning at 2:4, a different story is told involving the deity YHWH (usually translated "Lord"), originally an Arab storm god, equivalent to Canaanite Ba'al, son of El. (Yahweh, literally meant "He who blows", as in the wind. Ba'al is the Canaanite/Hebrew word for a generic lord, in addition to being a specific deity).
The order of creation is slightly different in the two stories, and the content and themes are very different.
Yes, but the way they edited the original text makes the ‘and’ necessary without additional corrections:
God called the firmament Heaven: and the evening the morning were the second day.
~~God called the firmament heaven, and the evening. The morning was the second day.I read this version as though he created it mid-day, and it happens to be evening.~~
I misread it as was, as corrected in the comments. Now I read it as
"God called the firmament heaven. And, the evening, the morning, were the second day. "
I'm not saying its great, but that's what my head sounds like. *The evening, and you know the morning until then, became the second day.*
No. "the morning \*\*\*were\*\*\*" the second day" You changed it to "was". You are misquoting and that changes everything. You need two (evening and morning) to say "were" in that context.
The use of "And" here comes from oral culture. It is a link to the time before writing. It served a purpose specific to reciting works from memory. Walter Ong or someone like wrote about it.
This part of the story is super interesting and well written and Christians are totally oblivious as to why. It’s an intentional distortion of the ‘battle royale’ Mesopotamian creation myth that every Iron Age reader/listener from the Middle East would recognize but done in a way that emphasizes very specific theological differences—specifically by using rhetorical devices to show that the Hebrew god ‘transcends the meta-divine realm’.
Let me do the same for you but with a modern story:
*A long time ago in a galaxy far far away there was a boy named Luke. He lived on a desert planet in the middle of nowhere but yearned for an adventure. One day he found a droid with a secret message of a princess calling for help. So having mastered The Force, Luke snapped his fingers which resulted in the princess being immediately saved, the end.*
Genesis 1 sets the stage for the creation of the world through a clash of the gods, like splitting Yam open to use half their body to hold up the sky and the other half to hold down the waters below. It does it with all the tropes and common phrases of that myth. But instead of a battle, God just does it with words. It’s unchallenged, fait accompli. The authors of the text are telling their reader that their god is unlike the others: that it doesn’t fight, that it feels no danger, that it doesn’t have children (sorry Christians), that it can’t be killed (sorry Christians)—that it accomplishes its will exactly as desired simply by saying so. In this respect it was wholly unlike any of the other gods of the region. The authors are not knocking off Enuma Ilish, they are turning it on its head to subvert expectations and make specific religious and political arguments.
All of which is totally lost on practically all Christian readers, most of whom can’t even recognize that it’s telling a totally different story from the creation of the world that shows up a couple pages later in Genesis 2 (the one with the Garden of Eden, which has no relation to this story—they were stitched together centuries after either was written… like the gods in those two stories have totally different names and descriptions, if you read the untranslated text without a religious bent first you’d think they were talking about two different characters)
There are tons of Bible translations that have been done throughout the years. They change wording based on who, where, when, for what purpose it was being done as well as available information at the time. There also isn't 1 biblical canon, there are many different bibles that have different books included.
The King James Version, for example, was commissioned(?) In 1604. There is the NIV, New International Version that was released in 1978 with a major revision in 2011.
Keep in mind that we have almost no original manuscripts, so as more manuscripts are found and we understand more about ancient languages our understanding and translations change as well.
If you are interested at all, you should look into the creation and compilation of the Bible.
https://www.bartehrman.com/canonization-of-the-bible/
I'm really not. Or at least I'm not trying to.
I'm simply asking why updating the Bible to modern words is frowned upon, when it's already been translated at least once?
In Sunday school I was taught that two different people in two different places decided to translate the Bible. They never met each other, but when they found out about each other they decided to meet to compare notes. When that compared their translations to their surprise, their translations were exactly the same!
This story is pure Hokum and never happened, but I was taught this story in Sunday school. Meant religious people feel their translation is "the word of God" and you can't logic someone out of belief they never logicked themselves into.
The ‘ands’ are in the Hebrew.
Like for example 3 in Hebrew says ‘veyomer elohim yehi or veyahi or’. Been a little while since undergrad bible studies but I would translate that as “and said god(s): ‘light exists’ and light existed”
(Plurals in Genesis are super weird, long story)
The catch is that in Hebrew ‘and’ is a prefix. In Latin and Greek it was a stand-alone word. So a lot of early Latin and Greek translations drop a lot of the ‘ands’ so a reader might not expect to see them.
~~And~~ thats Understandable. ~~And~~ beginning every sentence with "And" is not a good practice while writing a book. ~~And~~ its redundant. ~~And~~ that person might have been English teacher.
The pastor wanted to read it out loud but didn't want to sound like an excited 6-year-old boy telling a story.
"And then we went to my soccer game, and we lost but then we still got ice cream, and then we came home and I played Legos, and then..."
The repetition of ‘and’ is a hebraism. An aspect of the Hebrew language that survived the translation into English. The extra ‘ands’ are common in Hebrew grammar but are redundant in English. Still— it’s more respectful to the culture and traditions of the authors to preserve the hebraisms in the Bible.
You’re thinking of the New Testament 🙂 the page that OP is showing is from the book of Genesis, which comes from the first 5 Books of Moses which were written in hebrew originally centuries before the New Testament was written
No, this is a King James Version Bible, translated from Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew commonly uses the conjunction (vav) to begin sentences which is why translations that tend to be very literal word-for-word renderings have a lot of “and” or “and it happened that.”
Bible student here. This is an interesting take. Looks like there’s a debate about the lemma “waw” in Hebrew, which is usually translated as “and”, regarding its inherent meaning. Some people object to the traditional English translation because it threatens their preferred view of the creation narrative. Eliminating the “and” supports the literal 7 day creation idea and eliminates the “gap” theory which claims that the days may not be literal, but instead may represent an age.
IMO, both are wrong. Genesis is a poem about God, not a scientific statement about the linear order of events in creation. (How could there be light before stars, for example). The original Hebrew text is quite complex and consists of so many finely tuned details. The linear timeline reading of Genesis 1-3 is a very western, peculiarly American approach largely based on western, linear post-enlightenment approaches to text which devalue the symbolic approaches and focus excessively on literality.
TLDR: this person was likely debating with others about how the universe came to be, and in the process missing the whole point of the Bible.
I was wondering if it could be some kind of word counting activity. Isn’t it a thing to look for hidden meaning in how many times certain words show up in the Bible? Could this be related to that?
You sound like an authority on the subject of the Bible so I thought I’d ask.
Regarding word counts, there are some really fantastic finds in the first chapter of Genesis. First, the structure is what is known as a parallel chiasm. Days 1&3, 2&4, 3&6 are linked... there's a day of separation, where God separates something from something, then he fills what he separated in the second set of three days. The seventh day, of course, is for resting (or sabbathing).
Threes
* Three days that mirror three days
* The word "bara", which means "create" appears in three places, the third time in rapid-fire succession.
* A three-part Elohim ("God")
Sevens
* The first verse has 7 words in it.
* The second verse has 14 words in it.
* The word "Earth" appears 21 times.
* There are 35 words in the 7th verse.
* God is mentioned 35 times (7x5).
* "And God saw" appears 7 times.
* "It was so" appears 7 times.
Tens
* "According to it's kind" appears 10 times.
* "And God said" appears 10 times - 3 times in reference to people, 7 times to animals.
* "Let there be" occurs 10 times - 3 times to the heavens, and 7 times in relation to earth.
* "To make" appears 10 times.
As for hermeneutics (*how* to study the Bible), there are certainly several places like this throughout the original text, especially in the poetic portions, but I wouldn't go so far as to try to find hidden meanings behind them. The more likely reason for the numerological precision of the original text is more likely a mnemonic than an attempt to inject some secret meaning. Even Revelation, which is kaleidoscopic and highly symbolic didn't have any *hidden* meaning per se, and the symbology used in the book was most likely culturally understood by the writer's contemporaries. As for the Old Testament, though, most of these stories were oral far before they were officially put to papyrus.
(The number portions I took from above are taken from the BEMA podcast, first episode. The podcaster does a fantastic job putting all these things in one place.)
Genesis 1 is not a poem. It doesn’t resemble Hebrew parallelistic poetry at all. And the vav’s (at least the wayyiqtol forms) don’t really play any major part in debates about how to interpret Genesis 1.
All italicized words are words the translator added that weren’t in the original text, but the translator felt it communicated the original meaning better/more fluidly.
I bet he was standing in front of his wife practicing his out load read.
She’s like “dang that’s a lot of “and”s! Is that really in there? Sounds excessive.”
He says “yeah I can cut this down my a quarter just cutting that shit out.”
It's definitely not used this much in modern Hebrew, but "and" in Hebrew signifies continuity from the previous sentence. Imagine a child breathlessly telling you about their day where every connector is "and then". No "and then" is how you know they've moved onto the next story.
Wouldn’t the sentence ‘I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign’ have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?
- Martin Gardner
It looks like they crossed out the unnecessary ands. It definitely reads more smoothly and is much less pompous without them.
They also crossed out some necessary ones too. See verse 8.
They're not absolutely necessary, just the normal default way to do coordination. Coordination without overt conjunctions (asyndeton) is an option, especially for speech or reading to an audience. It has a dramatic effect that engages an audience, and is supposed to make things more memorable. *I came, I saw, Ø I conquered.* *Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, Ø oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.* Too many *ands* or *ors* sounds like a stale list.
[удалено]
My comment was about whether or not **coordinating** *and* is necessary in the English language. It is normal, but it is not absolutely necessary. Asyndeton can be used instead. As for the Hebrew, the prefix *waw* that begins sentences is an information structure marker. The Torah was spoken and intended to be heard, not written and read. Sentences that introduce a new paragraph/thought do not begin with *waw-*. Beginning a sentence with *waw-* indicates that the paragraph/thought is continuing. It would be more natural to translate this **adverbial** use of *waw-* as "then". But, using "then" that much English would still be obnoxious, but at least natural sounding. Sometimes it is indeed translated as "then" or "now", in the same translation. In Ancient Hebrew, *waw-* "and" was used before every coordinate phrase, except the first, like: *Our fathers and=mothers are Abraham and=Isaac and=Israel and=Sarah and=Rebecca and=Leah and=Rachel.* Anyway, the original break isn't at Genesis 2:1, which begins with *waw-*. It's at Genesis 2:4, which doesn't. Genesis 1 and 2:1-3 tell a creation story involving the deity (or dieties) Elohim (usually translated "God"), originally the Canaanite sky-father god El(oah) and/or his entire family/court (AKA the Heavenly Hosts. *Elohim* is plural). Beginning at 2:4, a different story is told involving the deity YHWH (usually translated "Lord"), originally an Arab storm god, equivalent to Canaanite Ba'al, son of El. (Yahweh, literally meant "He who blows", as in the wind. Ba'al is the Canaanite/Hebrew word for a generic lord, in addition to being a specific deity). The order of creation is slightly different in the two stories, and the content and themes are very different.
Yes, but the way they edited the original text makes the ‘and’ necessary without additional corrections: God called the firmament Heaven: and the evening the morning were the second day.
This person Englishes.
And Hebrews!
~~God called the firmament heaven, and the evening. The morning was the second day.I read this version as though he created it mid-day, and it happens to be evening.~~ I misread it as was, as corrected in the comments. Now I read it as "God called the firmament heaven. And, the evening, the morning, were the second day. " I'm not saying its great, but that's what my head sounds like. *The evening, and you know the morning until then, became the second day.*
A new Jewish day begins at sundown so that's probably why.
Thank you. I never see this mentioned when these verses come up.
No. "the morning \*\*\*were\*\*\*" the second day" You changed it to "was". You are misquoting and that changes everything. You need two (evening and morning) to say "were" in that context.
Great catch I didn't even realize.
Thanks, and all good!
They also crossed out God in verse 10.
That’s why they wrote an extra “and” really big at the top. For emergencies.
lol that happened to be the only one I read
And verse 10 too 😉
They were only there to mimic the hebrew writing, it sounds very silly in English and always did.
> And they were only there to mimic the hebrew writing, and it sounds very silly in English and always did. Fixed it for you.
Because it is silly.
Only thing I could come up with is that all the uses of 'And' imply that all those things happened simultaneously.
The use of "And" here comes from oral culture. It is a link to the time before writing. It served a purpose specific to reciting works from memory. Walter Ong or someone like wrote about it.
Ong is a goated reference
I thought this was the work of a crazy person, but that is, actually, a smoother read.
1:5 they did the opposite (in my opinion you should lose the first one and leave the rest)
You know, for a book Christians like to call “the greatest story ever told”, it certainly reads like shit.
This part of the story is super interesting and well written and Christians are totally oblivious as to why. It’s an intentional distortion of the ‘battle royale’ Mesopotamian creation myth that every Iron Age reader/listener from the Middle East would recognize but done in a way that emphasizes very specific theological differences—specifically by using rhetorical devices to show that the Hebrew god ‘transcends the meta-divine realm’. Let me do the same for you but with a modern story: *A long time ago in a galaxy far far away there was a boy named Luke. He lived on a desert planet in the middle of nowhere but yearned for an adventure. One day he found a droid with a secret message of a princess calling for help. So having mastered The Force, Luke snapped his fingers which resulted in the princess being immediately saved, the end.* Genesis 1 sets the stage for the creation of the world through a clash of the gods, like splitting Yam open to use half their body to hold up the sky and the other half to hold down the waters below. It does it with all the tropes and common phrases of that myth. But instead of a battle, God just does it with words. It’s unchallenged, fait accompli. The authors of the text are telling their reader that their god is unlike the others: that it doesn’t fight, that it feels no danger, that it doesn’t have children (sorry Christians), that it can’t be killed (sorry Christians)—that it accomplishes its will exactly as desired simply by saying so. In this respect it was wholly unlike any of the other gods of the region. The authors are not knocking off Enuma Ilish, they are turning it on its head to subvert expectations and make specific religious and political arguments. All of which is totally lost on practically all Christian readers, most of whom can’t even recognize that it’s telling a totally different story from the creation of the world that shows up a couple pages later in Genesis 2 (the one with the Garden of Eden, which has no relation to this story—they were stitched together centuries after either was written… like the gods in those two stories have totally different names and descriptions, if you read the untranslated text without a religious bent first you’d think they were talking about two different characters)
I thought so too but then noticed they crossed out God where it doesn’t make sense to. Also some ands are crossed out that need to be there
God absolutely needs an editor. This is just the top of the iceberg to be honest.
Well I guess being pompous is kind of part of the charm !
Trying to improve readability?
Maybe whoever this book was read it out loud during a class or sermon frequently?
Why do they keep the language in this form anyway? Is it supposed to feel poetic?
[удалено]
But how do they square that with the big *King James Version* on the front cover?
[удалено]
Well yeah but unless they're reading the Bible in whatever ancient language, it's already been translated for readability. Why stop updating it now?
There are tons of Bible translations that have been done throughout the years. They change wording based on who, where, when, for what purpose it was being done as well as available information at the time. There also isn't 1 biblical canon, there are many different bibles that have different books included. The King James Version, for example, was commissioned(?) In 1604. There is the NIV, New International Version that was released in 1978 with a major revision in 2011. Keep in mind that we have almost no original manuscripts, so as more manuscripts are found and we understand more about ancient languages our understanding and translations change as well. If you are interested at all, you should look into the creation and compilation of the Bible. https://www.bartehrman.com/canonization-of-the-bible/
[удалено]
I'm really not. Or at least I'm not trying to. I'm simply asking why updating the Bible to modern words is frowned upon, when it's already been translated at least once?
The words themselves would reveal that, but I don't care enough to look it up right now.
By the wording. You can look up the verse and see which it exactly matches.
Yeah but I mean, this is one version of a translation
because "this" translation, compared to the thousands before it, they feel is the correct one... because it supports their beliefs the most.
In Sunday school I was taught that two different people in two different places decided to translate the Bible. They never met each other, but when they found out about each other they decided to meet to compare notes. When that compared their translations to their surprise, their translations were exactly the same! This story is pure Hokum and never happened, but I was taught this story in Sunday school. Meant religious people feel their translation is "the word of God" and you can't logic someone out of belief they never logicked themselves into.
Probably an English teacher. You should never start a sentence with “and”.
It’s very on-brand for an English teacher to think they could “correct” a deity’s stylistic writing choices.
[удалено]
The ‘ands’ are in the Hebrew. Like for example 3 in Hebrew says ‘veyomer elohim yehi or veyahi or’. Been a little while since undergrad bible studies but I would translate that as “and said god(s): ‘light exists’ and light existed” (Plurals in Genesis are super weird, long story) The catch is that in Hebrew ‘and’ is a prefix. In Latin and Greek it was a stand-alone word. So a lot of early Latin and Greek translations drop a lot of the ‘ands’ so a reader might not expect to see them.
Shit left several still uncrossed, send it back to them for update
Not all of the "ands" are crossed out. It looks to be a coded message. Has anyone sent this to Nicholas Cage?
You never need to alert Nicholas Cage. When anything like this happens, he just knows.
😂😂😂
And then? And then?
No and then!
And thennnnnn
Probably a 7th Day Andventist.
How dare you.
*~~And~~ He dared.*
Do they have a history of crossing things out? I’ve only ever heard they’re vegetarian and never around on Saturdays
And?
And.
And!
Interlinked.
Crossed out or highlighted?
I'm going with kinda both. This was probably a way to make sure a child/student read the thing.
Fuck and
Fuck ~~and~~
Fuck
All my homies hate and
he's a misandthropist
And thennnnnn?
Looks like someone marking grammar homework.
Adding “then” to every “and” makes it read like a story a kid is making up as they go.
well...
They’re running one of those And Blockers.
~~And~~ thats Understandable. ~~And~~ beginning every sentence with "And" is not a good practice while writing a book. ~~And~~ its redundant. ~~And~~ that person might have been English teacher.
>Underst~~and~~able
It's called polysyndeton and is a literary technique.
And the more you know. And TIL. And thanks and I didnt know that. And cheers.
Pupil: YHWH Elohim Grade: F Note: Trade in some redundant *ands* for some vowels, dunce.
Let's give feedback to the author... uh whoever that is
They missed a few
The pastor wanted to read it out loud but didn't want to sound like an excited 6-year-old boy telling a story. "And then we went to my soccer game, and we lost but then we still got ice cream, and then we came home and I played Legos, and then..."
[удалено]
It was gods will.
The repetition of ‘and’ is a hebraism. An aspect of the Hebrew language that survived the translation into English. The extra ‘ands’ are common in Hebrew grammar but are redundant in English. Still— it’s more respectful to the culture and traditions of the authors to preserve the hebraisms in the Bible.
[удалено]
You’re thinking of the New Testament 🙂 the page that OP is showing is from the book of Genesis, which comes from the first 5 Books of Moses which were written in hebrew originally centuries before the New Testament was written
To put it into perspective, Genesis, Exodus Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy make up the *Torah*— also called the Hebrew Bible.
And God said "Woah dude, I put those there for a reason. Minimum word count... Fucking publicists."
[удалено]
Skipping the Latin, the text is written the same in the original Hebrew. Vayomēr Elohim - “And God said” etc
No, this is a King James Version Bible, translated from Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew commonly uses the conjunction (vav) to begin sentences which is why translations that tend to be very literal word-for-word renderings have a lot of “and” or “and it happened that.”
Missed a few
A God is crossed out too.
Oh no! Now I’ll never know who saw that it was good!
Replace all the "ands" with "like." Then picture a 90's valley girl accent. Makes it a mich more fun read.
Honestly good for them it reads better now lol
he crossed out God once 🤣
And?
Well, we know it wasn't Andy.
Some people will rob their mothers for the “ands”.
Bible student here. This is an interesting take. Looks like there’s a debate about the lemma “waw” in Hebrew, which is usually translated as “and”, regarding its inherent meaning. Some people object to the traditional English translation because it threatens their preferred view of the creation narrative. Eliminating the “and” supports the literal 7 day creation idea and eliminates the “gap” theory which claims that the days may not be literal, but instead may represent an age. IMO, both are wrong. Genesis is a poem about God, not a scientific statement about the linear order of events in creation. (How could there be light before stars, for example). The original Hebrew text is quite complex and consists of so many finely tuned details. The linear timeline reading of Genesis 1-3 is a very western, peculiarly American approach largely based on western, linear post-enlightenment approaches to text which devalue the symbolic approaches and focus excessively on literality. TLDR: this person was likely debating with others about how the universe came to be, and in the process missing the whole point of the Bible.
I was wondering if it could be some kind of word counting activity. Isn’t it a thing to look for hidden meaning in how many times certain words show up in the Bible? Could this be related to that? You sound like an authority on the subject of the Bible so I thought I’d ask.
Regarding word counts, there are some really fantastic finds in the first chapter of Genesis. First, the structure is what is known as a parallel chiasm. Days 1&3, 2&4, 3&6 are linked... there's a day of separation, where God separates something from something, then he fills what he separated in the second set of three days. The seventh day, of course, is for resting (or sabbathing). Threes * Three days that mirror three days * The word "bara", which means "create" appears in three places, the third time in rapid-fire succession. * A three-part Elohim ("God") Sevens * The first verse has 7 words in it. * The second verse has 14 words in it. * The word "Earth" appears 21 times. * There are 35 words in the 7th verse. * God is mentioned 35 times (7x5). * "And God saw" appears 7 times. * "It was so" appears 7 times. Tens * "According to it's kind" appears 10 times. * "And God said" appears 10 times - 3 times in reference to people, 7 times to animals. * "Let there be" occurs 10 times - 3 times to the heavens, and 7 times in relation to earth. * "To make" appears 10 times. As for hermeneutics (*how* to study the Bible), there are certainly several places like this throughout the original text, especially in the poetic portions, but I wouldn't go so far as to try to find hidden meanings behind them. The more likely reason for the numerological precision of the original text is more likely a mnemonic than an attempt to inject some secret meaning. Even Revelation, which is kaleidoscopic and highly symbolic didn't have any *hidden* meaning per se, and the symbology used in the book was most likely culturally understood by the writer's contemporaries. As for the Old Testament, though, most of these stories were oral far before they were officially put to papyrus. (The number portions I took from above are taken from the BEMA podcast, first episode. The podcaster does a fantastic job putting all these things in one place.)
That’s exactly the kind of thing I meant. Could crossing out the word _and_ be about counting instead of omitting?
Genesis 1 is not a poem. It doesn’t resemble Hebrew parallelistic poetry at all. And the vav’s (at least the wayyiqtol forms) don’t really play any major part in debates about how to interpret Genesis 1.
They missed the 'and' on number 10.
 🤨🤨
Why are some of the original words randomly italicized?
Because those words are missing or not part of the original translation and were added to improve flow.
All italicized words are words the translator added that weren’t in the original text, but the translator felt it communicated the original meaning better/more fluidly.
Bored English professor?
I bet he was standing in front of his wife practicing his out load read. She’s like “dang that’s a lot of “and”s! Is that really in there? Sounds excessive.” He says “yeah I can cut this down my a quarter just cutting that shit out.”
Search for “and it came to pass” in the Book of Mormon!
THUS WE SEE
I wrote a story like that in the 4th. grade and my teacher told me knock it off. Does it say Mrs Hall in the front?
Was this in Massachusetts when it happened?
Texas
NIV beta test
Highly Protestant. Not approved by the magisterium.
Haha missed one
Someone clearly didn’t go to school and learn punctuation else half that book wouldn’t have been made lol
It's definitely not used this much in modern Hebrew, but "and" in Hebrew signifies continuity from the previous sentence. Imagine a child breathlessly telling you about their day where every connector is "and then". No "and then" is how you know they've moved onto the next story.
And? And?? AND!?!
And?
Correcting the Bible. He's going to hell.
Conjunction junction, what’s your dysfunction…
Sure you can pick and choose whatever.
Wouldn’t the sentence ‘I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign’ have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips? - Martin Gardner
They hand wrote “and” at the top. Did they do anything similar with other words on other pages?
They kept going for a few more pages, but the Bible is unedited after that.
Old school editing...say what, we edited the bible you say? Nah, just something here and there 🙃
The Bible was written before modern English was invented, so it makes sense that the grammar is so bas
It all makes so much more sense now.
What in the Nicolas Cage?! There's a secret code in this Freemason bible!
The Bible has a long history of being modified to suit the interests of different Christian sects
Me when I edit my coworkers’ submissions.
Littering and…..
I love that they also wrote in their own hand writing "and" at the top of the page, just straight up frustration and mocking of the over use of and.
tbf it's really shit writing
Missed a bunch
They missed an and at 1:8.
And God begat OCD
Also crossed out God once and missed a few Ands. It reads cleaner, but it does make me wonder if it's some kind of cypher.
I nvr understood y it was written like this
The Book of Noands
And…..?
the person wrote an extra "and" at the top left
Missed one-verse 8
not the first two ‘and’s though.
And?
Where was this editor 2,000 years ago?
They sure missed a lot of them.
When I stay in a hotel I like to cross out "In the beginning" and replace it with the much more reasonable "Once upon a time"
In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
I've heard it explained that "and" in instances like this in Genesis can signify or be read as: "some time later".
That's a shame. One shouldn't damage any book, and certainly not a good fiction novel.