>>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.
4chan Search
7 results for "47aa4f7962508bd15f9badfa99b36ddc"
>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.
>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.
>>18105949
Tick tock.
Tick tock.
>>18096152
>You don’t speak those either. Which is the point.
No, that's *my* point. We need a Bible in our language. That book is the King James.
>The book is not the literal word of god because it isn’t written in the same language.
It's the literal word of God, written in our native tongue.
>It’s a translation. That means it’s corrupted by human flaws.
That doesn't follow. Enjoy Hell.
>Also the opposite of love is not hate. It’s indifference.
Believe me, God isn't sending you to Hellfire to suffer eternal torture because he's "indifferent" to you.
>>18096138
>Prove it
Picrel
>>18096551
Those flames just got hotter.
>You don’t speak those either. Which is the point.
No, that's *my* point. We need a Bible in our language. That book is the King James.
>The book is not the literal word of god because it isn’t written in the same language.
It's the literal word of God, written in our native tongue.
>It’s a translation. That means it’s corrupted by human flaws.
That doesn't follow. Enjoy Hell.
>Also the opposite of love is not hate. It’s indifference.
Believe me, God isn't sending you to Hellfire to suffer eternal torture because he's "indifferent" to you.
>>18096138
>Prove it
Picrel
>>18096551
Those flames just got hotter.
>>24819800
>None of these seem to be based upon Alexandrine texts, but I could be wrong.
The current critical text is missing more than 12 whole verses from the New Testament, not to mention sections of different sizes omitted from a large number of other verses. On top of that, there are thousands of smaller changes to single words, and quite a few words added in other places. Overall, the "critical text" is an attempt to reconstruct the Alexandrian text based primarily on two 4th century copies that greatly differ between themselves. The manuscripts sometimes agree but both seem to have very high error rates, likely because they were carelessly-made copies: the original owners probably did not care much about accuracy, so the presence of errors apparently didn't matter to the original owners.
Anyway, the modern critical text is missing overall about 7% of the New Testament when compared to the traditionally-used received text. In total, this would be equivalent to missing the books of 1 and 2 Peter. But every single New Testament passage is affected in some way by the thousands of differences. Despite this, the people who market the modern translations to everyday consumers tend to downplay all of this, characterizing the difference from traditional translations as being merely "updated language," as if they just switched out a few synonymous words here and there, not that they omitted about 7% of the total New Testament.
The NKJV actually does follow Alexandrian readings in a few places, so it's not purely the received text. For instance, the New King James version omitted the phrase "after this manner" from the translation in Acts 15:23. This corresponds to the word "τάδε" in the received text that is omitted in the critical text. The NKJV likewise omitted the words "a certain" before the name "Tyrannis" in Acts 19:9.
Further, the New King James version changes the word particle "by" (= διὰ) from the KJV and received text, into the word "with" (= σὺν) from the modern translations (and critical text), in 2 Corinthians 4:14. Another example is in 2 John verse 7, where the NKJV says "have gone out," in line with the critical text, instead of "have entered" as the KJV and received text says.
The plural "white robes" in Revelation 6:11 is changed to the singular "white robe" in the NKJV, which is another use of the Alexandrian text by the NKJV as well.
Vulgate translations are based on a third text that doesn't fit either of these. For example, where the critical text removes Acts 15:34 from the received text, the Vulgate added an extra sentence to it. The Vulgate shares many omissions with the Alexandrian text (far too many to list), but not all of them. Sometimes it has an intermediate position, such as in Romans 8:1.
The Vulgate in the Old Testament differs substantially as well. For example "his heel" in Genesis 3:15 is uniquely changed to "her heel." It also follows the LXX in Psalm 2:12 and the Ben Asher Masoretic in Zephaniah 3:15.
>None of these seem to be based upon Alexandrine texts, but I could be wrong.
The current critical text is missing more than 12 whole verses from the New Testament, not to mention sections of different sizes omitted from a large number of other verses. On top of that, there are thousands of smaller changes to single words, and quite a few words added in other places. Overall, the "critical text" is an attempt to reconstruct the Alexandrian text based primarily on two 4th century copies that greatly differ between themselves. The manuscripts sometimes agree but both seem to have very high error rates, likely because they were carelessly-made copies: the original owners probably did not care much about accuracy, so the presence of errors apparently didn't matter to the original owners.
Anyway, the modern critical text is missing overall about 7% of the New Testament when compared to the traditionally-used received text. In total, this would be equivalent to missing the books of 1 and 2 Peter. But every single New Testament passage is affected in some way by the thousands of differences. Despite this, the people who market the modern translations to everyday consumers tend to downplay all of this, characterizing the difference from traditional translations as being merely "updated language," as if they just switched out a few synonymous words here and there, not that they omitted about 7% of the total New Testament.
The NKJV actually does follow Alexandrian readings in a few places, so it's not purely the received text. For instance, the New King James version omitted the phrase "after this manner" from the translation in Acts 15:23. This corresponds to the word "τάδε" in the received text that is omitted in the critical text. The NKJV likewise omitted the words "a certain" before the name "Tyrannis" in Acts 19:9.
Further, the New King James version changes the word particle "by" (= διὰ) from the KJV and received text, into the word "with" (= σὺν) from the modern translations (and critical text), in 2 Corinthians 4:14. Another example is in 2 John verse 7, where the NKJV says "have gone out," in line with the critical text, instead of "have entered" as the KJV and received text says.
The plural "white robes" in Revelation 6:11 is changed to the singular "white robe" in the NKJV, which is another use of the Alexandrian text by the NKJV as well.
Vulgate translations are based on a third text that doesn't fit either of these. For example, where the critical text removes Acts 15:34 from the received text, the Vulgate added an extra sentence to it. The Vulgate shares many omissions with the Alexandrian text (far too many to list), but not all of them. Sometimes it has an intermediate position, such as in Romans 8:1.
The Vulgate in the Old Testament differs substantially as well. For example "his heel" in Genesis 3:15 is uniquely changed to "her heel." It also follows the LXX in Psalm 2:12 and the Ben Asher Masoretic in Zephaniah 3:15.
it is the only genuine version of the bible in english
an alternative is to learn greek, latin and aramaic and study the earliest sources for yourself, but god created different languages for a reason
Genesis 11
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
an alternative is to learn greek, latin and aramaic and study the earliest sources for yourself, but god created different languages for a reason
Genesis 11
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
>>17861574
hasn't been completely butchered by papists and revisionists, they threw screeching fits, burned people alive and launched invasions to stop it
hasn't been completely butchered by papists and revisionists, they threw screeching fits, burned people alive and launched invasions to stop it