wprawić w przerażenie

[zzjing]

Ma to być Bóg ograniczony w swojej wszechwiedzy i wszechmocy, omylny w przewidywaniu przyszłości swoich dzieł, którego bieg ukształtowanych przezeń zjawisk może wprawić w przerażenie.​

New English translation:

This would be a God limited in his omniscience and omnipotence, one who can make mistakes in foreseeing the future of his works, who can find himself horrified by the course of events he has set in motion.​

Is the last part of the sentence accurate? Especially "who can find himself horrified".

 

[zaffy]

It is wrong. It is not the God that may experience fright but all others. One may get frightened by the phenomena formed by the God.

 

[jasio]

Let's structure it, and simplify a bit:

Ma to być Bóg (...) którego coś (=bieg ukształtowanych przezeń zjawisk) może wprawić w przerażenie.

I'd agree with the original translator that the God depicted here is limited, fallible and horrified by the development of His own work - which he cannot forsee. In a sense, this would make Him similar to a divine sorcerer's apprentice.

Perhaps the phrase could be understood in a way @zaffy suggests as well, thus making it ambiguous. However then the whole phrase would be inconsistent to an extent: in the first part He's depicted as limited, while in the second - as very powerfull. The interpretation that this God can be horrified Himself removes this inconsistency, so without any further information I would agree with this interpretation. But considering a level of uncertainity and the lemish language, perhaps a broader context would help decide.

 

[zzjing]

OK, I guess it cannot be determined by looking at the sentence alone.

Thanks for the reply, guys.

 

[Ben Jamin]

It is wrong. It is not the God that may experience fright but all others. One may get frightened by the phenomena formed by the God.

I disagree. The proposed translation is correct. Note "którego (czyli Boga) "może wprawić w przerażenie".

 

[Ben Jamin]

Ma to być Bóg ograniczony w swojej wszechwiedzy i wszechmocy, omylny w przewidywaniu przyszłości swoich dzieł, którego bieg ukształtowanych przezeń zjawisk może wprawić w przerażenie.​

New English translation:

This would be a God limited in his omniscience and omnipotence, one who can make mistakes in foreseeing the future of his works, who can find himself horrified by the course of events he has set in motion.​

Is the last part of the sentence accurate? Especially "who can find himself horrified".

A good translation, but i would rather write "... who can be horrified by the course of phenomena he he has engineered himself.
"ukształtowany" suggests a more intended and planned contribution than only "set into motion". And "course of events" is a too weak expression for "zjawiska". "Zjawisko" means often something strange, new and unusual or unknown that happens. Usually accompanied by an adjective as "new, strange, frightening, difficult to understand".

 

[zaffy]

I disagree. .

I'm pretty sure my interpretation is also possible.

'Bóg którego bieg zjawisk' może wprawić (innych) w przerażenie

 

[Ben Jamin]

I'm pretty sure my interpretation is also possible.

'Bóg którego bieg zjawisk' może wprawić (innych) w przerażenie

How will you then explain the word "którego"? If it referred to the phenomena the sentence would have been like this:
"Ma to być Bóg ograniczony w swojej wszechwiedzy i wszechmocy, omylny w przewidywaniu przyszłości kształtowanych przezeń zjawisk, których bieg może wprawić w przerażenie."

 

[zaffy]

As simple as this:

Bóg, którego bieg zjawisk wprawił (innych) w przerażenie = Chłopak, którego samochód wprawił (innych) w osłupienie

 

[Ben Jamin]

As simple as this:

Bóg, którego bieg zjawisk wprawił (innych) w przerażenie = Chłopak, którego samochód wprawił (innych) w osłupienie

This sentence is simply wrong.

 

[zaffy]

I see, and I find it correct

 

[Ben Jamin]

I see, and I find it correct

Well, the incomplete sentence (part of a sentence) "Chłopak, którego samochód wprawił (innych) w osłupienie ..." is both grammatically and logically correct. I agree here.
The sentence "Bóg, którego bieg zjawisk wprawił (innych) w przerażenie … " however, is both grammatically and logically wrong.
I'll try to explain it here:

(I assume that you treat the case of the pronoun "którego" as a possessive genitive).

We shall now change the gender of the subject of the sentence:

"Bogini, której bieg zjawisk wprawił (innych) w przerażenie … "
The correct possessive genitive is here której.
The sentence becomes grammatically unambiguous, but it loses the logical sense. "Bieg zjawisk" can not have an owner. A car can have an owner, but "bieg zjawisk" can only have a causative subject.
The "sentence" must get the correct accusative form "którą" and lose the inserted "(innych") to regain logical meaning:
"Bogini, którą bieg zjawisk wprawił w przerażenie … "

Polish is a difficult language, and the declension case forms of the pronoun "którego (1)" and "którego (2)" are identical.
(1) being genitive and (2) being accusative. Unfortunately, Polish grammar is not being taught in Polish schools. The confusion of the genitive and accusative cases of animated masculine gender is now very widespread, and in some cases leads to construction of ambiguous or incorrect sentences.