@Background Pony #0B1E  
They did try to find it. They still couldn’t confirm it for sure, and the relationship in question if it did exist would not link them with shared ancestors, only through marriage.

Can I just say, that even if they were related, its not like it would matter or even be questioned between Big Mac and Marble. And I’m not pulling the religion or law card that I’ve seen in the comments. The reason why no one would be bothered is because even if they were related by some ancestor. The two families have branched far enough apart that both socially and genitally there wouldn’t be a problem. The whole reason incest (brother&sister/parent&child) is considered taboo is because inbreeding causes can cause problems with the child. Even relationships between cousins is frowned upon in some cultures because of this. To say that these two having a relationship cause of there family tree would be against the law or bring in religion, even in a real world aspect, would be out of the question given that by there generation, their families would have branched out far enough that genetically any trace would be next to impossible to find. Not to mention that the only proof that they are related is a family tree that Applejack and PinkiePie were never able to find. The whole idea was that they might be related if you looked back far enough.

@Elite stormtrooper  
Oddly enough, I don’t really think the “religion” and the “drama” ever really mix.

Hey what’s going on he-sees ’in the comments tags never mind

‘‘related’’

@Fwelin  
And it still wouldn’t solve the problem of fully translating works from other languages, because something is always lost in translation. Even if you’re fluent in two languages, you’ll never get quite the same impact as someone who’s native (mental) language is that language because you’re always mentally translating it rather than simply comprehending it directly. (Which is why a well done dub will always be superior to subtitles.)

@Fwelin  
True. I mean, English is on the cusp of becoming that one language, but I wouldn’t say that won’t happen in any of our lifetimes.

@RighteousIndignayshun  
It’s primarily the lack of speedy communication for thousands of years that caused so many differing languages. Languages evolve naturally over long periods of time, and when easy communication isn’t available, said evolution branches off differently in each distinct locale. There’s other causes, but that’s the biggest one.
 
If one language suddenly became used by 100% of the populace as their primary language in today’s world (and everyone forgot every other language), we would be unlikely to see differences more significant than dialects arise in the foreseeable future without some kind of huge social upheaval.

@RighteousIndignayshun  
I know I know, I was making a joke :P

@ShadowSlut  
No, even before that. Way before that. The only real reason we have different languages is because we moved before that stuff became concrete and when we finally settled, all the languages ended up being different, and they only got more different as time went on and culture and technology evolved.

@RighteousIndignayshun  
I mean  
Germany could’ve won WW2 and we’dd all be speaking German.  
The second king of Sweden could’ve kept expanding the Kalmarunion and we’dd all be speaking Swedish.

@ShadowSlut  
They are, but I can’t say how exactly we could have avoided differentiation between languages.

@RighteousIndignayshun  
Languages are rather stupid, don’t you agree?

@Keith Mowz  
Exactly. The Hebrews and Samaritans hated each other, so an act of kindness like would’ve been mind-blowing at the time. (Probably a better analogy would be China and Japan, methinks, but I’m not sure if that’s changed.) There’s also the fact that the Greeks had four different words that got lumped into our one word, “love”. So when Jesus is going to his disciples, going one by one saying “Do you love me,” or something of that nature, he’s really talking about familial love (storge) the first time, friendship (philia) the second, and unconditional love (agape) the last.

@RighteousIndignayshun  
That’s why I roll my eyes at the KJV acting like there’s only one possible way to translate words from greek to english, losing all the context of tone and implication in the original language. But there’s a lot of context lost when trying to translate something from thousands of years ago, obviously; For example, to put the story of the good Samaritan into context, you have to realize that having the Samaritan guy stop and help him when the other two wouldn’t is like if a white middle class guy was beaten up, a rich white guy and one of the guy’s co-workers walked past without helping but then a black thuggish kid did.

@Keith Mowz  
Hm, did not know that. Makes sense, really. If you can’t get the original message across, then honestly, what’s the point?  
@Background Pony #7926  
Yea, I think being able to edit the Bible would fall under freedom of speech/expression, technically, so I wouldn’t see a national law for it.

@ShadowSlut  
It wouldn’t surprise me if some towns/localities/states had such a law, but there’s not a national law against it.

@RighteousIndignayshun  
There’s a law specifically against editing the bible in the U.S though, Isn’t there?

Man its too bad that pastors aren’t required as part of their education to learn greek and whatnot so they can read the original texts and stuff.
 
Oh, wait.

@RighteousIndignayshun  

Do you know of any specific examples?

@ShadowSlut  
True. King James would seem like the obvious example, but I’ll have to read more into that. Though, that certainly isn’t the case nowadays, with Bible scholars translating and updating the Bible to make it more accurate. At least, that’s what I would like to think.

@RighteousIndignayshun  
Sadly, a lot of times Its been edited, It was by people that wanted to keep power or seize It. Often made to get the people to obey them through the idea that It is the will of god.

@ShadowSlut  
I understand name changes and all, but I’m talking about the nature of the scripture itself. I’m sure the NIV, KJV, and the very original would all have different implications coming from what’s essentially the same passage, but I wouldn’t apply that universally. Also, while it might have been translated by those in power, that doesn’t necessarily imply a malevolent reason for the changes.

@RighteousIndignayshun  
There’s a theory saying that if we got a hold on the original bible, the very first thing, everything will be different. There’s also the fact that “Jesus” would be “Yewhu” in the older translations.

@ShadowSlut  
Yea, that’s always what I’ve wondered as well. Through all the translations, what changed due to societal conventions, personal values, and the inherit differences between languages?