# Jeden z najbardziej wiarygodnych



## Dennis Lee

I have seen a sentence:Jeden z najbardziej wiarygodnych, bazujący na Piśmie Świętym filmów o Jezusie Chrystusie.
But I don't know what does Jeden z najbardziej wiarygodnych mean. I have translated it to English by Google. It's "reliable film" Could you explain it to me?


----------



## sylwiano44

'Jeden z najbardziej wiarygodnych' means: One of the most reliable..
So the whole sentence translated would look like this:
One of the most reliable, Bible-based movies on Jesus Christ.

I hope that helps.
All best.


----------



## grassy

Dennis Lee said:


> I have seen a sentence:Jeden z najbardziej wiarygodnych, bazujący na Piśmie Świętym filmów o Jezusie Chrystusie.



I am not sure what it means either. It could mean historically reliable but then 



Spoiler: Christians will probably see it differently



it would clash with _Bible-based_ because the Bible can hardly be counted as a historically reliable source.


----------



## WesołaBiedronka

Dennis Lee said:


> :Jeden z najbardziej wiarygodnych, bazujący*ch* na Piśmie Świętym filmów o Jezusie Chrystusie.



wiarygodny - Tłumaczenie po angielsku - Słownik polsko-angielski Diki

This sentence suggests that the movie got a strong approval of or was consulted with some respectable historians (or any other experts on the topic, that are actual authorities in the field) and can basically be used as a source material for learning.

Although indeed if the Bible is their only source, as the statement possibly indicates, it's unlikely to be eligible to be called "wiarygodny" because as anyone who read any historical book on any topic will tell you the bibliography usually consists of solid double digit number of sources not just one


----------



## jasio

WesołaBiedronka said:


> wiarygodny - Tłumaczenie po angielsku - Słownik polsko-angielski Diki
> 
> This sentence suggests that the movie got a strong approval of or was consulted with some respectable historians (or any other experts on the topic, that are actual authorities in the field) and can basically be used as a source material for learning.
> 
> Although indeed if the Bible is their only source, as the statement possibly indicates, it's unlikely to be eligible to be called "wiarygodny" because as anyone who read any historical book on any topic will tell you the bibliography usually consists of solid double digit number of sources not just one


Ehm. ..

This is NOT a language issue and has nothing to do with the translation. If the movie were about a global warming, would you start discussing if the global warming is really an issue?
As far as I am aware, both 'the most reliable' and 'najbardziej wiarygodny ' are the highest degree adjectives, not absolute degree - unlike 'most reliable' for that matter. That's a huge difference, especially in this context.
Have you seen the film, or at least read any reviews? If you have not, how can you know if the film was or was not approved, or with whom it was consulted?
...and on how many sources it was based? "Bazujący" by itself only refers to the main source, but does not imply that it was the only one.
"Usually" does not mean the same as "always".
I would probably prefer "credible" over "reliable"
I'm not aware of any biblical movies produced in Poland (which of course means nothing), but there is a chance that the film itself had been produced elsewhere. If this is the case, also a description most probably has been translated, and the troublesome word may be a translation itself. Perhaps a poor one. Where's the context, like the title of the film or a complete review? 
It's a paradox that although the Bible is the most credible source about Jesus, it's not the only source about His times. And consulting them can be of great help  and contribute to an overall credibility of the film.


----------



## jasio

grassy said:


> Spoiler: Christians will probably see it differently
> 
> 
> 
> it would clash with _Bible-based_ because the Bible can hardly be counted as a historically reliable source.


I wonder, what other ancient source you could call "reliable". Disregarding the Bible (not only the Christian one for that matter, as the same applies to the Jewish Bible) at large just because it's a religious text, is considered by professional critics worth as much as reading every single word literrally. The "problem" with the Bible is that people - both religious, areligious, and antireligious - treat it highly emotionally, and that there are not so many alternative sources with which it could be confronted. At least with regards to the life and deeds of Jesus and His disciples.


----------



## grassy

jasio said:


> I wonder, what other ancient source*s* you could call "reliable".
> _I wonder if there are any ancient sources that you could call "reliable"._




Well, I believe some are more reliable than others. As far as the historical Jesus is concerned, I don't think the New Testament is a very reliable soruce.


----------



## jasio

jasio said:


> [strike]I wonder, what other ancient source you could call "reliable".[/strike]
> _I wonder if there are any ancient sources that you could call "reliable"._


Well... I hesitated to go that far with ancient sources in general, but if you prefer... ;-)



grassy said:


> As far as the historical Jesus is concerned, I don't think the New Testament is a very reliable soruce.



The concept of a "historical Jesus" was coined with the *pre-assumption* that the New Testament is not a very reliable source. Consequently, it's illogical to use it to justify one's opinion on New Testament's reliability. 

Secondly, you seem to miss my linguistic point entirely, perhaps because referring to Jesus and the New Testament is too emotional. So let's put Jesus aside for a while: does the fact that I am one of the richest guys in a group automatically mean that I am objectively rich? "The *superlative* is the form of an adverb or adjective that is the greatest degree of a given descriptor". It seems that you had confused it with an absolute degree. 
Actually, your opinion that "the New Testament is not a very reliable soruce" with regards to something is not opposite to the opinion implied in the OP's question, that it's one of the most reliable sources. Logically, these claims are completely independent one from another, as a source may be *very reliable* and be *one of the least reliable* existing sources, and it can be *not very reliable*, yet still be one of the *most reliable* sources at the same time. It's independent. 

This discussion went a way too far from a purely linguistic topic to worldview. Perhaps it's a high time for the moderator to close it. Don't you think?


----------

