Thread 18131969

>MAN King James Onlyists are so STUPID!!!!
>Don't they KNOW we've found OLDER manuscripts since 1611?
>That PROVES that my HIV translation is superior!
A few problems:
1. Older does not imply more reliable. We know there were corrupted and fraudulent manuscripts in Paul's day. If we had them still, they'd be older than anything we have now, and they would still be complete trash. Buying into the "older = better" argument implies that you have, at most, a 115 IQ. Hard maximum.
2. Psalm 12 says
>The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
3. Modern translations will remove literally dozens of verses or half-verses from the text which has ACTUALLY been preserved and handed down generation after generation. That proves that the underLYING manuscripts of these phony translations are false. Why? Because if they were accurate, that would mean that the Bible is wrong about the doctrine of preservation. Jesus is never wrong, therefore they are not accurate.
Now, fortunately, I don't doubt the divine nature of the King James Bible in the first place because I am actually indwelled by the Holy Ghost. He guides me into all truth and allows me to recognize the voice of the shepherd. I recognize the voice of the shepherd in the King James. That's the strongest proof of all. When I read these corrupted modern translations, they sound dull and uninspired. Because they are.

does the holy ghost suck you off too?

All Bible translations are trash, just because the KJV is better than a lot of modern ones doesn't mean it's great, it's just a way for halfwits to feel like they're reading some ancient document without learning Latin or Greek.

>>18131969 (OP)
Based

>>18131969 (OP)
Yeah I'll just read Wycliff

Textus Receptus fetishists are so sad.
>noooo just because a manuscript is older and less corrupt doesn't mean it is better
>*adds a bunch of verses to a gospel*

>>18132370
>Older = better
You're extremely retarded.

>>18132387
>he adds 11 verses to Mark because newer = better
Just become a Mormon lmao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_Standard_Bible

Enjoy hell.

>>18132370
The verses were always there. Before the Textus Receptus was made, they existed within the manuscripts that survived to that time. Then they were faithfully copied down into printed copies from there.

>>18132734
And obviously the verse divisions of the New Testament were added in 1551, but the content of the verses is what I'm referring to here.

>>18132734
>those verses were always there
Then why do modern translations include them in brackets or otherwise indicate that they are not from the original Gospel?

Some scribe(s), unsatisfied with the ending of Mark's Gospel literally added them later on, guess they didn't take the "whosoever adds and subtracts from this" seriously.

>noooo you can't go back to older manuscripts which have not been added to over time, Erasmus and the textus receptus are GOD HIMSELF and the KJV is PERFECT IN EVERY WAY, even more perfect than the Hebrew and Greek

It was the 16th and 17th centuries, they used the best they had at the time. We have better information - scholarship is not necessarily a bad thing if it seeks truth and not wokeness.

>>18131969 (OP)
>Older does not imply more reliable.
Not necessarly. Yet, if you imagined that the gospels are based o a oral tradition, coming to the most early writing has a value.
>Psalm 12 says
This argument presume that the holy scritpture are based on divine inspiration. Thats fine if you wrote for a audience of believer.
It's unfitting for a scientific community, even in the humanities and arts.
>Modern translations will remove literally dozens of verses or half-verses from the text which has ACTUALLY been preserved and handed down generation after generation.
That doesn't mean that they are right or reflect a better state of divine inspiration. You need aribitary assumptions in order to justify your believe in the King James Version. There is not escape from this.

>>18133141
To be honest, this has could be added by some people who knows a oral tradition, maybe even know eye-witnesses.
Yet, we will never known for sure since they do not add such information into the text or give them further.

>>18133333
You’re not white.

>>18131969 (OP)
Is fighting the (self-perceived) battle against non-KJV onylists on 4chan really worth it?

What bible should non-English speakers read? Can KJV be translated in other languages?

>>18133333
>This argument presume that the holy scritpture are based on divine inspiration. Thats fine if you wrote for a audience of believer.
Anon, why do they even care about the Bible at all if they are an unbeliever? Why are unbelievers trying to claim to be Christian authorities on the Bible? They don't even believe in it in the first place, so why would they try to decide this question for Christians while applying their unbelieving methodology that assumes Christianity is false a priori? It makes absolutely no sense why anyone should listen to them if they are a believer who believes the Bible is God's word.

Why are these people who assume (without evidence) that the Bible is false pretending to be Christians and going around claiming to be experts and telling Christians what to believe?

>That doesn't mean that they are right or reflect a better state of divine inspiration.
A second ago you said that the idea of divine inspiration is "unfitting"?? Are you changing that now? How inconsistent and hypocritical of you to talk about divine inspiration when just a second ago you dismissed it as being unfitting.

>>18133766
>What bible should non-English speakers read?
There are received text translations in other languages one can read. Giving a few examples by order of the most spoken languages: The Peking Committee Bible is a TR-based translation in vernacular Mandarin. In Spanish you have the Reina Valera 1602 Purificada. In Hindi, there is the Owen translation of 1860 (Old Testament revised in 1869). In French there is the Geneva Bible, which has gone through a few revisions over the years similar to the KJV. In Arabic you can read the Smith & Van Dyke translation, a received-text translation of the Bible into Arabic that was completed in 1865 (New Testament translated in 1860). In Bengali, there is the Calcutta Baptist Missionaries Bengali Bible, translated in 1845 (rev. 1852, 1861). These are a few examples of Received text translations that are similar to the KJV in other languages.

>Can KJV be translated in other languages?
I don't think it's necessary since we have the original language sources in Greek and Hebrew (and some Biblical Aramaic or Syriac).

>>18134220
>only 19th Century translations are good
lol, lmao even

>>18133141
>Then why do modern translations include them in brackets or otherwise indicate that they are not from the original Gospel?
Obviously because they are biased and have an agenda to falsify the Scriptures that Christians use. There are people who have animus against Christianity who want to spread falsified forms of the Bible, and they're willing to pretend to be Christians and/or "bible experts" for the purpose of doing this. It's the same people who also try to promote sodomy, etc. etc.

>Some scribe(s), unsatisfied with the ending of Mark's Gospel literally added them later on
There are two manuscripts from the 4th century that have the ending removed. However, it is present in 99% of Greek manuscripts of Mark 16 besides these two.

On top of this, there are Christian writers as early as the 2nd century (i.e. Irenaeus) who quoted from the ending of Mark. See pic. So there really is no basis for saying that it isn't original. There are people saying it exists at the end of Mark even before those two manuscripts of the 4th century were written. And before you ask, yes, modern scholars who are personally motivated to come to their own conclusions are willing to simply ignore this.

>>18134234
The French Geneva Bible was translated in 1560 and revised a few times since then, and the KJV was translated in 1611. The point isn't the year it was translated, but the sources that were used to make the translation and the accuracy of the translation work.

>>18134236
This is the double edged sword of Protestantism, when you rely on your own retarded ideas instead of doing actual research and vetting authorities. Apparently every Biblical scholar just wants male on male buttsex therefore we need to ignore all scholarship.

>>18134245
But you think old translations are better, but not older manuscripts. It's schizophrenic.

>>18133141
Address the argument from the doctrine of preservation. You can’t. Enjoy Hell.

>>18134247
He clearly said that the age isn’t the relevant part. You can’t read. Which means you lost.

>>18134278
>>18134270
You know you can reply to two posts in one? And using a name (being a namefag) on 4chan is generally discouraged unless it is for a purpose in a specific thread. Perhaps reddit is more your style? Or you could fuck off back to Discord. Lurk more.

>>18134396
You lost. :)

>>18134507
Wow, *THE* KIR? Who the fuck is *THE* KIR? No one cares who you are fuck off. Learn how to use the website before posting garbage you fucking namefag.

Durr everyone on this anonymous website needs to know about ME ME ME.

>>18134950
Don't you know the bible wrote about how you should be an attention seeker amongst anonymous people and make yourself basically an idol so people can notice you and your behaviors so you stick out and get attention for it?

>>18134950
>>18134975
Grow up.