> 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?
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?
Admittedly it's an aesthetic judgment on certain verses.
The bible was already translated well. The quality of your "work", by your own admission, depends on the "problem" at hand already having been solved and you having access to the solution. So it is literally ensloppifying an already existing better version.
Why?
The goal is not ensloppifying the Bible. Quantitative textual analysis is currently painstakingly done, and still has issues (e.g. weighing phrases that mean different things in Aramaic than greek - e.g. the 'eye of the needle'). People have undertaken this work but it is expensive and slow.
LLMs can do this.
The bigger reason to do this is that the translation can stay 'up to date' in any language ('vernacular') much faster.
There's a pretty big use case for that in my opinion.