Thread 18143607

The King James Bible is the most accurate Bible with the best scholars. Because of copyright laws, other versions are revised to make a profit. Being KJV only is believing in the most accurate Bible, God's word as He really intended.

Can it be translated for non-English speakers?

>>18143612
It can but the scholars must be just as accurate

>>18143607 (OP)
>The King James Bible is the most accurate Bible with the best scholars.
Even if it was the perfect translation at the time, English has changed in such a way that fundamentally alters how parts of it are read.

>most accurate Bible
How so?

God's word as He really intended.
The only way to do this is to read in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, etc. Be greatful you can even read God's word in your own language withiut being judged for it like in Judaism or Islam

>>18143607 (OP)
>Why do people hate King James Only?
Mostly because the average person will believe whatever an authority figure tells him. If professor so-and-so and pastor such-and-such claim that a version is more accurate and based on better manuscripts (a version which they "coincidentally" are making money from), the average person will believe them without any thought whatsoever. It is far easier to do that than to investigate the claims of these so-called scholars.

>>18143612
There are good TR translations in various languages (Lutherbibel, Statenvertaling, Diodati, Reina Valera, etc.).

>>18143607 (OP)
>The King James Bible is the most accurate Bible with the best scholars.
The most accurate english version or do you want to claim that it is more accurate than the Vulgata, Septuagint and the Masoretic text?

>>18143714
It's the same accuracy but I live in America, and we speak English here. No other English version has its accuracy. King James is God breathed. NIV is a false Gospel

Because we all know that the ultimate Anglo-Saxon version of the New Testament is actually the Heliand

>>18143607 (OP)
I only read the Geneva Bible, the one that was carried on the Mayflower

>>18143607 (OP)
Why is "only" in quotes?

>>18143761
that's from the continental saxons thoughever

Honest question for those that believe the "KJV is the divinely inspired translation ": why would God choose to prioritize the Anglican Church after 1500 rather than the rest of Western Europe that used the Latin translation? Why not just divinely inspire the Latin one used for a thousand years? And the Catholics didn't even claim their Latin translation is divinely inspired, right?
Why would a Church created because the King wanted to divorce would have priority over the rest of Europe? And a Church that became LGBT affirming at that.

>the Catholic Chur-...
This is not about the Catholics, it is about your internal consistence.

>>18143607 (OP)
The more radical sorts are sanctimonious and annoying. If God was so punctillious over the wording of it he'd just make one himself and deliver it to the earth. Not have a gathering of Men make the correct translation.
>>18143890
Stupid Boomer made this meme in 2009.

>>18143714
It is objectively more accurate than the Vulgate and LXX.

>>18143869
A close second to the KJV.

>>18144026
>why would God choose to prioritize the Anglican Church after 1500 rather than the rest of Western Europe that used the Latin translation?
>Why would a Church created because the King wanted to divorce would have priority over the rest of Europe?
English is the lingua franca now, and has been the language through which the world has been evangelised. It is not that he prioritised the English state church, but rather the English language.
>And a Church that became LGBT affirming at that.
That is irrelevant, not only because the Anglicans did not support sodomites at the time, but also because the translation was not made specifically for that church, but rather as a translation to unify both Anglicans (who at the time were using the Great or Bishops' Bibles) and Puritans (who used the Geneva).
>Why not just divinely inspire the Latin one used for a thousand years?
Because the catholics are only nominally Christian.
>And the Catholics didn't even claim their Latin translation is divinely inspired, right?
The council of Trent proclaimed that "no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever" and is still viewed as "free from error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals."
>This is not about the Catholics
You were the one that brought them up.

>most accurate
>still kept the camel misspelling
Comical

>>18143607 (OP)
Anybody who cares about precise authenticity needs to learn Hebrew and Greek, but that's too much trouble to put into the LARP, so they use the one by Shakespeare instead.

>>18143607 (OP)
If you really want to be trad then stop reading the bible and just do what your priest says.

>>18143607 (OP)
>The King James Bible is the most accurate Bible with the best scholars
Prove it

>Because of copyright laws, other versions are revised to make a profit.
The KJV was under heavy royal copyright law in its own day, according to you, nobody should have ever started reading the KJV because of copyright. And the KJV was continuously revised between 1611 and 1768.

And there are other public domain translations that are better, like the Revised Version or American Standard Version.

>Being KJV only is believing in the most accurate Bible, God's word as He really intended.
Why did it need repeated revisions then? Your copy is not the same as the one publish in 1611.

Freemason garbage. You got got. It's time to leave that infestation. Wrong verses. You wouldn't know because you don't quote any.

Protestants unironcically believe a church made entirely on the basis of "I want to divorce my wife and steal church land" is the divinely inspired sole correct faith.

>>18143607 (OP)
>Why do people hate King James Only?
Because the zionist jewish translation with jewish commentary is their translation of choice and they resent the unadulterated Word being available to stand as witness against their wicked devil worship.

>>18144654
the people who read kjv and the people who worship jews are the same demographic

>>18143607 (OP)
Okay I'll bite, what is wrong with the New King James Version? It just translates a few words whose meaning would to be unclear to most current readers to more modern equivalents. Seems like the English language has changed enough in the last 500 years that this is a good idea.

>>18143612
Sure as long as it's an accurate translation of the received original language text.

>>18143672
>English has changed in such a way that fundamentally alters how parts of it are read.
Not really actually. Hence why you don't have any examples.

>The only way to do this is to read in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, etc.
In Acts chapter 2, we see the apostles speaking in tongues, and it says they spoke the word of God in those other languages. You are not restricted to reading the original text only, you can also get the word of God from accurate translations of it.

>>18143714
>Vulgata
It is corrupt in a number of places such as Genesis 3:15, where it falsely says "her heel" rather than "his heel" in an important prophecy about Christ.

>Septuagint
In Genesis 5, it gives different ages for the patriarchs, to the effect that Methuselah outlives the flood of Noah by 14 years. Check for yourself. Some modern Septuagint translations (such as the 2008 Orthodox Study Bible, OSB) are embarrassed of this and use the Hebrew numbers in Genesis 5 rather than the Septuagint.

There are of course countless other errors beyond this in the Septuagint which we can get into if needed. Missing messianic prophecies in Psalm 2:12, Isaiah 9:6 and Zechariah 12:10 are a few examples, as well as the fact it is missing about 1/8 of the entire book of Jeremiah and more than 30 entire verses from Proverbs are completely missing from the Septuagint, not to mention the ones they changed.

>and the Masoretic text?
The Ben Asher Masoretic text changes the word "ashes" (from the original Hebrew text used by the KJV) to "bandage" twice in 1 Kings 20:38 and 41. It also changes "see evil" to "fear evil" in Zephaniah 3:15, among a number of other changes. However, in terms of the total number the differences are not quite as vast as the first two.

>>18144026
>why would God choose to prioritize the Anglican Church
Puritans were involved in making the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the KJV of 1611.

>>18144381
>And the KJV was continuously revised between 1611 and 1768.
To change word spellings to be more consistent.

It's a complete fallacy to suggest this is anything like what happened with the NIV where they removed whole verses from the text.

>And there are other public domain translations that are better, like the Revised Version or American Standard Version.
The point is nobody uses those because 1) they're not accurate to the original text and, 2) nobody is making money on them anymore because their copyright expired. That's why they keep having to make new editions like the ESV and LSB and HCSB and CSB, and keep re-releasing the NASB. It's so that they can keep profiting from selling them, not because these are accurate or edifying translations of the actual original language text of the Bible.

>>18144763
>It just translates a few words whose meaning would to be unclear to most current readers to more modern equivalents.
It's actually quite different in a number of places when you look at the details. For instance, the NKJV changes the word "narrow" to "difficult" in Matthew 7:14. This gives the idea that salvation is "difficult" and involves doing lots of work.

As another example, in Genesis 22:17, the NKJV says "descendants" (plural) instead of "seed" (singular). This is a zionist reading of Genesis in the NKJV, and it goes against Paul referring to this "seed" being singular in Galatians 3:16, as well as being less accurate to the Hebrew which is indeed referring to a singular "seed" here. Another example of a major difference is found in Hebrews 3:16, where the NKJV essentially says the opposite of the KJV.

The NKJV, as a translation, is also simply less literal in quite a number of important places. For example the word "single" in Luke 11:34 is changed to "good" in the NKJV. The phrase literally translated "opposed themselves" in Acts 18:6 is changed to the less literal "opposed him" in the NKJV. And again, the word "changed" in Romans 1:25 was swapped out for the less literal word "exchanged," giving a different connotation in the NKJV. Sometimes the NKJV made a careless mistake in their lack of literal translations, such as in Revelation 16:16 where "he gathered them together" is changed to "they gathered them together" in the NKJV, which is the New King James being inaccurate to the Greek source being used. Many more examples can be found.

Then there are places where the NKJV actually uses the critical text, such as 1 Corinthians 4:14 ("by" changed to "with", based on a different Greek word particle in the modern critical text), or the omission of the phrase "after this manner" in Acts 15:23 (also omitted in the critical text), or the replacement of the term "are entered" (KJV) with the term "have gone out" (NKJV) based on the critical text.

>>18145122
Why would they remove that shit?

Didn't the KJV have tons of mistranslations that became fuel for Atheists such as "unicorn"?

>>18145159
>Didn't the KJV have tons of mistranslations that became fuel for Atheists such as "unicorn"?
That's not even a mistranslation, whoever told you that just doesn't understand proper English.

>>18145138
>or the replacement of the term "are entered" (KJV) with the term "have gone out" (NKJV) based on the critical text.
The reference for this one is 2 John verse 7 by the way.

>>18143607 (OP)
I bet you read the Oxford Standard Edition of the KJV and don't even know what that means.

>>18145138
Huh, I didn't realize they were actually so different.