There is no meaningful difference between "the Greek/Hebrew" and the King James Bible. While the King James does use dynamic equivalence, the meaning is always the same. It is the perfect word of God, in English, without error. Accept that and realize what a great treasure we have in the authorized version. We don't have to speculate or rely on """experts""" or dedicates years of our lives learning foreign languages to know what the Lord wants us to know. We have it in our own language. Read it, hear it, believe it and be saved. >Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near
In the gospel of mark, my KJV says "Prophets" while my other bibles say "Isiah"
>>18109001I don't care.
>>18108998>While the King James does use dynamic equivalence, the meaning is always the same. It is the perfect word of God, in English, without error.Source?
>>18109008>The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Psalm 12:6.
Would a KJV onlyist recommend a native greek reader to read the NT in english over koine greek?
>>18109020No. They should read the Greek TR.
>>18109011>>18109011But the KJV isn't the word of the lord, it's a 'translation' using (((dynamic equivalence))) at the behest of a king for his own ends
>>18109023>I hate Jesus.No one cares.
>>18109025>I placed a king above Jesus in my heartYour opinion is irrelevant
>>18109025Of course you hate Jesus, you read the KJV
>>18109031>I placed a king above Jesus in my heartNothing like that has happened. You just lied about God's elect. Keep stoking those flames.
>>18109033>Nothing like this has happenedWhich is why you consider the words of the king to be the word of God>you just lied about God's electBit ironic to call yourself that while actively trying to manipulate God's word
>>18109041
>>18108998>There is no meaningful difference between "the Greek/Hebrew" and the King James BibleOne is the original and the other is a translation. The Greek version will always be superior.
>>18109051>One is the original and the other is a translation. The Greek version will always be superior.They say the same thing.
>>18109045I'm not trying to replace God's word with that of a king, so nah that's not me
>>18109054If they said the same thing then why do you insist of having the KJV so badly, it would be unnecessary and redundant if that were true
>>18109058Which "translation" do you read? This should be rich.
>>18109059>If they said the same thing then why do you insist of having the KJV so badly, it would be unnecessary and redundant if that were trueBecause I speak English, not Greek. Are you retarded? (Yes.)
>>18109061>I dont listen to the word of God because I refuse to learn the words He usedAnd there have it folks. KJV readers do not care about God, only the egos of men. Avoid the KJV if you care about your soul.
>>18109060Why would I want God's word to be (((translated)))
>>18109075>trolling outside of /b/Enjoy burning, rodent.
>>18109079See >>18109080
>>18109080>>18109082>thinks God's word needs to be contained to a board on 4chanKeep digging the hole for yourself
>>18109084See >>18109080
>>18109086>still thinks God's word must be contained to a board on 4chanKeep digging that hole for yourself
>>18109088>maxxing out flamesSee >>18109080
>>18109090>thinks trying to subdue and manipulate the word of God is going to do anything but send him to Hell if he doesnt change his waysSee >>18109084
Bliss. :)
>>18109001In Mark 1:2, the reading is found in the KJV which has the phrase, "written in the prophets."What follows this phrase in Mark 1:2 is a quotation that is only found in Malachi 3:1, and the second quote immediately afterward (in Mark 1:3) is found in Isaiah 40:3. So then, Mark was quoting from two different prophets, and the KJV reading is correct.Meanwhile, the modern translations and their source, that replaces the phrase "written in the prophets" with the phrase "written in Isaiah," are technically incorrect. They are incorrect because part of the quote provided in Mark 1:2 is only found in Malachi, not in Isaiah.You won't find Malachi 3:1 written anywhere in Isaiah, even though the modern translations have Mark say it's written in Isaiah in their versions.
>>18109108Yep.
>>18108998Nope, replaced by AI. Kill yourself and your whole gang first, Freemason King James GARBAGE! Come through.
>>18109108>So then, Mark was quoting from two different prophets, and the KJV reading was altered to paper over the fact that the original version contained an error.fify.
>>18109116>AIVNow THAT'S Hellfire.
>>18109011How does that imply that the KJV has the exact same meaning as the original texts? It sounds like you're assuming the KJV is "the words of the LORD" using circular reasoning. Hey, here's a relevant quote from the King James Bible.https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ecclesiasticus-Chapter-1/>For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.
>>18109108This one is just as bad as the change in the critical text in John 7:8. Here, the KJV has Jesus say, "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come."However, the modern critical text replaces the word οὔπω (= "not yet") with the word οὐκ (= "not").This change in the source (in moving away from the received text for modern translations) results in most modern translation like the NIV having Jesus instead say, "I am not going to this festival." They do not say, "I go not yet unto this feast," as the KJV says (with the word "yet" included) but they simply say, "I am not going to this feast," full stop.The problem with this change? Two verses later John 7:10, it says Jesus later went up to the feast by Himself.So the modern critical text translations are making Jesus out to be a liar. According to their text, Jesus said he would not go to the feast. Not that he wouldn't go yet, but that he wouldn't go at all, period. Then two verses later John literally says that Jesus goes to that feast by himself.In the KJV (and received text), Jesus only said he was not "yet" going to the feast. In this case, going by himself later does not make what Jesus said in John 7:8 a lie.Conclusion: The modern versions literally have Jesus lie in John 7:8. This is because their critical version of the Greek text doesn't say "not yet," but simply "not," with regards to whether he would go to the feast. This is on the same level as having Mark misattribute a quotation from Malachi to Isaiah, which is plainly false. In this case, they are saying Jesus was a liar about whether he would go to the feast in John 7:10.>>18109117The received text and earlier translations like the Geneva Bible of 1560 all say the same thing as the KJV.
>>18109121Ecclesiasticus isn't the Bible.
>>18109131Yet it published as part of the King James Bible? Guess the King James isn't so perfect.
>>18109118Dumb dinosaur FUD stop listening to influencers *SNAP* and actually put in the work understanding Greek and Hebrew, fraud. You're going to down, fraud.
>>18109132It was translated and published in a special section clearly labelled Aprocypha. You know this, of course. You just hate God. Tick tock. :)
>>18109132The 1611 first edition of the King James Bible has calendars, genealogies and maps in it as well as some of the apocrypha (which are clearly labeled as "apocrypha" on the top of each page). So what?
>>18109011Then why are other bibles bad?
>>18109141Because they change the meaning.
>>18109138It knows that. It's just looking for rhetorical tactics to lash out against God and God's people. Just let it thrash around.
>>18109136>>18109138>I believe we have the inspired, inerrant word of God, but they also included some non-inspired books in the middle just because lolCurious.
>>18109151>just because lolNope. I would explain the reasoning to you, but it is quite clear that you HATE the truth. I'm not going to cast pearls before swine. I can't wait to see you cry and beg for mercy on judgment day. I bet every vessel in your face will burst when you realize what agony is in store for you. The best part is that your torment will NEVER end! Keep going!
>>18109127>The received text and earlier translations like the Geneva Bible of 1560 all say the same thing as the KJV.so other 'translations' also contain the alteration? what does codex sinaiticus and codex vaticanus say? textus receptus is a heavily edited text, of course the editor altered uncomfortable shit.
>>18109154at this point anyone thinking you are genuine and not just a troll can safely be labeled a moron.
>>18109127Might as well post one more for now. Another place where technically, the modern translations cause Jesus to lie (due to their changes to the source text) is in Matthew 25:31.Here the KJV has Jesus say, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:"But the modern versions are based on a shorter text that omits the word ἅγιοι (= "holy") in this verse. Hence it says simply, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him..." (word "holy" omitted).The difference is that omitting the word "holy" in this verse implies that the fallen angels will also be there, not only the holy angels, since the term "all the angels," without the qualifier "holy" would have to include the unholy ones as well as the holy ones.Therefore, the modern versions claim that even the fallen angels will be with the Son of man when He appears in His glory. But this contradicts other biblical doctrine, such as 2 Peter 2:4, which says, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;" and Jude likewise says that they are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."Essentially then, the omission of the word "holy" from the sentence in Matthew 25:31 has profound implications, and its removal clearly falsifies the text unless the received text (which still has the word) is retained – and the modern-day "critical text," which removes this important word from Matthew 25:31, is rejected.There are similar alterations to other important "all" statements in the New Testament, as found in 1 John 2:20 and Revelation 21:7. In Revelation 21:7, the word πάντα (= "all) was changed to ταῦτα (= "these"). The latter is found in the "Byzantine" text too, which also differs from the TR in this verse: The TR term "all things" is changed to "these things".
>>18109166Have fun burning.
>>18109102>KJV idolater tries to ignore and block out the truthMany such cases.
>>18109174What?
>>18108998It's a great work of art, anyway.
>>18109171>The difference is that omitting the word "holy" in this verse implies that the fallen angels will also be there, not only the holy angelsFallen angels are no longer angels. Angel is a job title, not a species.
>>18109186>KJV idolator thinks ignoring the truth makes it go awayToo bad God's word doesnt work that way, the flames are getting hotter!
Do KJV only people believe anybody who isn't an english speaker is just damned from the go or what?
>>18109008it says right here in the bible
>inerrant word of go- ACK
>>18108998Enjoy Hell prottie
>>18108998The one and only inspired & inerrant word of God is Da Jesus Book. Written in the very same Hawaiian Pidgin Christ wrote in.
>>18109565Using the very same words Paul spoke in.
>>18109464How old was Grover Cleveland when he became president? Tick tock.
>>18108998>There is no meaningful difference between "the Greek/Hebrew" and the King James Bible.Not the language?>We don't have to speculate or rely on """experts""" or dedicates years of our lives learning foreign languages to know what the Lord wants us to know.The people who wrote translations of the Bible, thoughbeit, did... So yes, you do rely on experts, just experts from the 1600s instead of experts from today. Isn't lying a sin?
>>18109558You believe Jews go to heaven.
>>18109464It's worth noting the LXX has no discrepancy here.
>>18109209In Matthew 25:41 it literally says, "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"You have outed yourself as illiterate.
>>18109302Well, it's true that I hear people accusing that all the time, I've heard it claimed probably hundreds of times, but somehow I've never heard anyone actually say that before. It's certainly not what I believe, and I've been accused of being KJV only before. In Acts 2, it says that the word of God was spoken in many languages by the apostles simultaneously, so that seems to imply there is nothing wrong with translations.In summary, it sounds like you're repeating a common straw man argument that no one, or virtually no one, actually believes.
>>18109811There are several places in the Old Testament where a king has more than one reign. For example, 2 Kings 24:8 says,"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem."Meanwhile, 2 Chronicles 36:9 says he was eight years old when he began to reign. This isn't a contradiction however, since it simply means his father promoted him to be a co-ruler at the age of eight, and he became the sole ruler ten years later when his father actually died.Similarly, Ahaziah had two separate start dates for his reign. The fact that it says he reigned "one year in Jerusalem" tells you that his earlier reign which started twenty years beforehand was not in Jerusalem.
If you don't actually care what Jesus had to say or believe in God then obviously you wouldn't believe Jesus' words could be accurately preserved for 2,000 years.It's hilarious to claim you believe both in an ex nihilo creation and a God who can't keep a book straight. Thankfully, I realize God can do anything, including writing a book. In English, the best and perfect translation is the KJV, since it's based on that chain of transmission since the beginning (because God can actually write a book). I was an atheist but honestly I was historically literate enough to realize that the most widely copied book in antiquity being "corrupted" was absurd. There is a 99% consistency between all extant manuscripts. It is absolutely asinine to defer to THREE incomplete manuscripts to find the "original translation." Here's a pro-tip: ancient codices that were heavily used had their ink fade over time, and had to be scraped and re-written. A completely unmolested manuscript allegedly from the 3rd century was probably thrown out because it was junk, keeping it in inadvertently good condition.
>>18109957Hilarious cope.
>>18108998It is not the most accurate translation. Something to understand and keep in mind with any translation from one language to another is that there's no one to one version. There are plenty of Greek and Hebrew words that simply don't have an English equivalent. There's also historical and cultural context to consider with any translation. If you consider that the English word Coke can refer to a brand of drink, might colloquially refer to soda in general, could be a shortened word for an addictive stimulant, and could even refer to a type of fuel for a forge, it should become pretty obvious how much it matters to understand the context of the time period the original Greek and Hebrew are coming from.
>>18112695>It is not the most accurate translation. You're lying, of course. Telling that you didn't provide a more accurate translation.>Something to understand and keep in mind with any translation from one language to another is that there's no one to one version. Which is something that I already understand as indicated by the second sentence in my post. Are you stupid? >It should become pretty obvious how much it matters to understand the context of the time period the original Greek and Hebrew are coming from.1. Going back to the Greek and Hebrew wouldn't solve that problem.2. It's not obvious that God withheld context from us that we need to learn through ungodly people like Jews in order to understand his word.
