This kills the KJV onlyist
It's worth reading KJV for how it affected language.
>>23603328I’m Catholic but KJV onlyism is based because it pisses off moderncucks and trannies
>>23603328>James WhiteIs that the same James White as the Calvinist on YouTube? Also love that dishonest endorsement quote at the top there to slander anyone who would believe God's promise about preserving his word. That's so typical.
>>23603414It also pisses off your church.
>>23603434It doesn’t really piss me off because it’s just Sola Scriptura idiocy taken to its logical conclusion so it’s just kind of amusing.
>>23603437Jesus and the apostles taught scripture being the authority though.You worship a god who isn't powerful enough to write a book or preserve it for man to understand by the Holy Spirit (which is also something the Bible teaches, but your cult lies and claims it's only of their private interpretation).Catholicism is NPC idiocy, "trust the experts" and don't think, just go through the mindless motions and rituals. It's not amusing to me at all because it's a satanic counterfeit dragging millions of souls to the pits of hell, and all you can do is "find it amusing" when you think people are going to hell. You are worldly and of the world and so is your pedophile cult that mass tortured and murdered millions of God's Saints.
>>23603431He is also an anti-kjv apologist https://youtu.be/GkPmnlTlP2M?si=XOEEfR2e-3ydNCSk
What are the significant differences in the message between KJV and everything else? I'm reading bits of the Bible for the first time, and I'm reading KJV, while double checking confusing passages in ESV to make sure I don't trip over the archaic language and misunderstand something.
>>23603460Why would anyone trust this guy?
>>23603668>KJV: Flee fornication.>Guess I have to save my virginity for my husband.>NIV, ESV, NKJV, and every modern translation: Flee from sexual immorality.>That means I can ride the cock carousal before settling down! It's not immoral if it's consensual!And many other things like that.
>>23603328>>23603431He's not just a guy on Youtube. I think that's his idea of fun. He was on the committee that made the NASB.
>>23603693That's silly. They're the same thing.
Learn greek
>>23603705Fornication refers specifically to sex outside of marriage. Sexual immorality is a very vague phrase and can exclude certain types of fornication, like sex between boyfriends and girlfriends.
>>23603807It's all encompassing, including fornication. That's the Greek (from the root porneia). Sometimes it's translated as whoredom or harlotry too, because it comes from a further etymological root of pernao, which means to sell off. But it came mean promiscuity in general. Not just selling it.
>>23603855The Greek is besides the point, because the issue is the translation. Modern "Christians" who use the NIV like to twist the word "immorality" so that sex before marriage is no longer a "sin".
>>23603693Fornication used to mean sexual immorality generally.
>>23603863I've never heard anyone make that argument. If people are inclined to excusing sin, that's their own doing. Don't blame it on bible translations. Every one of us is responsible.
>>23603434That's the worst LARP I've ever read
>>23603855Say whore in Church please Unironically Dead seriously
>>23603693KJV: foolishness is a sin, leprosy is like being insensate, (many hardass rants against being a blockhead idiot in the harshest terms)Reina Valeria: el malo es muy loco please no be loco por favorI could take the time to cite ctrl f "foolishness" concordance but the slightest skim will prove me right and you doubting me imagining it as you think about what I said will be more fun to activate your almonds to TRVTH. Thank you KJV for roasting retards ruthlessly you supreme Lord script of high authority
>>23603895I'm sure it's been said plenty. I'm not sure why not now.There's all kinds of words for it though. The Vulgate is the simple prostitutio.
>>23603685He's been at it since the 90s https://youtu.be/YH5g0gXW0FI?si=ejlTkA9dp7Wyhnyp
>>23603878picrel first result on googlehttps://www.danifankhauser.com/blog/premarital-sex-sin>Don't blame it on bible translations.1 Corinthians 14:9—So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.>Every one of us is responsible.Part of this responsibility is choosing the better translation, even if the language is little more difficult to read.
>>23603906>roasting retardsThese are your brothers. If you are a Christian, that is. Considering all the problems in the world - let alone this site specifically - how is it that KJV Onlyists are so focused on spewing venom on Christians... only translations. Crazy priorities, man.
>>23603924only for translations*
>>23603871>Fornication used to mean sexual immorality generally.The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees.
>>23603924Retarded brothers being roasted is the right thing to do, Oedipus
>>23603929Your screenshot literally refutes your point anon.
>>23603924How is iron to sharpen dull iron without a spark and a slash? Oh yes we need more prayers to mary, seniorito dementitoJesus was a jerk not a buttkissrr
>>23603930It's not roasting. It's cruel 4chan habits. Don't succumb to being an animal and get too used to the patterns of this place. It's not of God.>Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?-Matthew 7:16>Whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.-Matthew 5:22
>>23603328I remember when this board used to hate Protestants. Everyone, even Catholic and Orthodox people laughed at Protestants. Now people are making threads asking if it's ok to read Blake and half of this board believes in a fucking young earth. What the actual fuck happened?
>>23603940This is an example of bible contradiction. The Old Testament is notably harsher. If I were to explain this to you at length you would come up with all sorts of Jew hate. Especially of note is the whole book of Lamentations. It is one thing to barb one another with words and another to demand quality attention and demeanor of the non drooling sort.
>>23603943The larpers left or grew up and the protestants that were always here just kept posting.
>>23603456>Catholicism is NPC idiocy,Catholicism and Orthodoxy were Christianity for 1500 years. No Sola fide Sola scriptura churches sprang up for 1500 years. Did God leave everyone in the dark until Luther and Calvin were born?
>christians are literally unable to argue in anything but gotchas
>>23604098Because Jews were unable to interface with Goyim like Greeks engaged Greeks and now modern Greeks worship the slime rot on that
>>23603924"Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuseth instruction: but he that regardeth reproof shall be honoured."- Proverbs 13:18
>he doesnt know Greekcouldn't be me
>>23604063>Catholicism and Orthodoxy were Christianity for 1500 years. No Sola fide Sola scriptura churches sprang up for 1500 years. Did God leave everyone in the dark until Luther and Calvin were born?There have always been Bible-believing credobaptist churches."And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."- Matthew 16:18"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."- 1 Timothy 3:15"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."- Matthew 28:20
>>23604180>There have always been Bible-believing credobaptist churches.Can you name a single church/pastor/theologian like that that existed before the reformation?
>>23604225Sure. Peter of Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, John Wycliffe, Walter Brut, and a subset of the dissident groups called the "Donatists" and the "Vaudois." They were also called "rebaptizandi" in Codex Theodosianus, see below:>Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6>16.6.4 The same Augustuses to Hadrianus, Praetorian Prefect.>"We sanction by this law that if any person should hereafter be discovered to rebaptize, he shall be brought before the judge who presides over the province. Thus, the offenders shall be punished by the confiscation of all their property, and they shall suffer the penalty of poverty, with which they shall be afflicted forever. But if their children dissent from the depravity of the paternal association, they shall not forfeit the paternal inheritance. Likewise, if perchance they have been involved in the perversity of the paternal depravity and prefer to return to the Catholic religion, the right to acquire possession of such property shall not be denied them." (A.D. 405 febr. 12)The above law was later upgraded to a death sentence in AD 413, and the same death penalty was specifically revived by Justinian II in his code of law in the year AD 529 (Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6).
>>23603693So because you’re retarded, the translation is bad? Compelling argument.
>>23604348The translation is bad even though I'm not retarded
>>23603934No, because nowhere does the OED mention morality or immorality.
>>23604063>Catholicism and Orthodoxy were Christianity for 1500 years.They never were Christianity. All you idiots know of history is your cult propaganda.
>>23603693>"φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν· πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει.">Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.What's actually wrong with the translation of sexual immorality here?
>>236046000Not him, but it's the same thing about replacing "sodomites" with "male cult prostitutes".
>>23604600Fornication is a lot more specific and undeniable in its meaning in the English language, and it is a more accurate translation of the word from the Greek. Sexual immorality is a very vague term, and someone might reason that it only refers to cultural mores (hence the term "immorality") of whatever time you are living in, rather than a direct reference to "fornication" itself - which is a more accurate translation.Replacing the word "fornication" with "sexual immorality" removes the accurate translation of the word and also introduces connotations of cultural relativism where it doesn't exist in the text.
>>236046001 prostitution, DÉM. 403, 26, etc. ; 2 p. ext. toute action déshonnête (adultère, etc.) ; particul. relations avec les Gentils, idolâtrie, SPT. Num. 14, 33, etc.basically sex outside of marriage
>>23604679Meant to post this pic.
>>23604681>Noah Webster>not Samuel Johnsoncringe and bluepilled
>>23604772Better?
>>23604777Much better!
>>23603943BAP et al have popuralized WASP larp
>>23604679The greek is better translated as sexual immorality
>my translation of jewish schizo mindrot is more accurate than your translation of jewish schizo mindrotImagine where we would be if we didn't waste centuries over this shit.
>>23605857Europe would be like Africa
>>23603328I am a KJV only atheist, so KJV onlyist already have won by having me on their side
>>23605930One of them has ships
>>23605853>reasoning: because I said so
>>23603328If you are not KJV only, and you read the bible only in english you are a hylic bugman plebbitor
>>23606252most scholars think porneia means sexual immorality in general. It is often used to refer to things like homosexuality not just sex before marriage.
>>23606268Look at what else those same "scholars" believe in.
>>23606583Conservative evangelical Protestantism?
I only read the Vulgate, specifically the Codex Amiatinus. Tired of 1000 years of corruptions to the text. English is a terrible means by which to express scripture.
>>23606268>muh scholarsYour priests, you mean.
>>23606666Prostitute and whore mean the same thing.
>>23606583https://youtu.be/JJ8V1N44lCk?si=NVEKWfI1UpR1kw5X
>>23606811Nah, it's corrupted. The LSB says "Isaiah" instead of "the prophets" in Mark 1:2. Mark is quoting from both Isaiah and Malachi, not only from Isaiah. The LSB also removes the word "Lord" from Luke 23:42 and it removes the words "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22. The LSB also has the gnostic reading of John 1:18 as well.Only the received text is correct. The modern critical text, on which the LSB is based, is completely corrupted and is not even the Bible.
>>23606793Not true, one word describes a job, while the other is a descriptive. While all prostitutes are whores, not all whores are prostitutes.
>>23606922>Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.The passage is clearly uses whore as in prostitute that is the very next line.
>>23606793What about the sodomites?
>>23606249>its okay to be a savage nigger as long as you have shipslmao the absolute state
>>23606922They both describe a job. "Whore" gained the general meaning of referring to a girl who acts like a slut as an analogy to a prostitute, after KJV was written. But people like you don't know the history of the language you use, so when you read KJV you don't have a clue what you're reading. That's why midwits need the new translations to understand the source material better. The Bible is literally meaning to refer to the job, not sluts.
>>23607080the passage refers to male and female shrine prostitutes.
>>23606793No, they don't. Namefagging retard. What is a "cult prostitute" and "temple prostitute" and "shrine prostitute" and "ritual harlot" and "sacred male prostitute" anyway?>>23607033>clearlyOr it's referring to two different things and sodomite-apologists and sodomite trash like you want to soften the text so it offends whores and sodomites less, and you twist scripture and tell lies like that to justify it. Are you going to say that only applies to prostitutes who charge interest since the next verse thereafter mentions usury? You're a retard.>>23607103Again, no. Whore also includes concubines, and is any woman who has sex outside of marriage, same for whoremongers for men who have sex outside of marriage. And sodomites is more than just assfaggots or whoremongers too. You're just another apostate sodomite-apologist retard. >>23607108Kill yourself.
>>23606666The NIV had two sodomites working on it, that's why it doesn't use the term "sodomites".
>>23603361maybe
>>23607110Anon they are obviously saying the same thing. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2023&version=LSBhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+23&version=KJV
>>23603685Because his arguments are still more substantiable than any KJOist drivel and irrelevant screencaps.
>>23606666Now show the source languages, Satan.
>>23603328I don't think the KJV is divinely inspired over other translations or some such, and there are bits I'd like to interpret differently, but really, I can never bring myself to use any other bible because none of them are beautiful. Of all the passages I've read, only those from the KJV have fine language, or really anything to appreciate at all. I understand that it's difficult since a new stylized translation would necessitate problematic interpretation and liberties, but I just don't feel any pull to any other version I've encountered.
There are no whores, whoremongers, harlots, prostitutes, sexual immorality, or sodomites in scripture. Only fornicators/fornicatresses/fornication and men who bed males. The qadeshim were consecrated courtesans of temple cults like Hindu devadasis.
>>23607290The Douay-Rheims is pretty nice, too. Check that out if you haven't.
>>23606608if this was sincere you'd be reading the greek and hebrew. Just admit you think latin is cool and thats the only reason
I kind of appreciate King James making a version of the bible that, in the present day, is exclusively used by the most retarded dogmatic Christians and nobody else. It instantly flags someone as being completely ridiculous so you can write them off without even having to sit through their bullshit
Is picrel good for a Catholic who likes the text of the KJV but has always considered the censored Protestant canon a dealbreaker on Protestant translations?
>>23603328For me it's the nigger ebonics pidgin versionAlso Jesus did magic mushrooms and played guitar at Coachella and has a tattoo that says LOVE GOD
>>23607340Democrat hands typed this post
>>23607496Democrats are christcucks too dumbfuck.
>>23607484The KJV isn't censored. Just read the 1611.
>>23607504A religion is worthless if it cannot be a light of discipline in your life to a shared paradigm goal. You're just insulting people. You have no ideal. You have no goal. You just like calling people retards not because there is anything to be behind on but because you like being mean. The KJV is a museum unto itself of the English language.
>>23607494“Da time wen eryting wen start, God make da sky an da world. Da world come so no mo notting inside, no mo shape notting. On top da wild ocean dat cova eryting, neva had light notting. Ony had God Spirit dea, moving aroun ova da watta. Den God tell, “I like light fo shine!” an da light start fo shine. God see how good da light. Den he put da light on one side, an da dark on da odda side. Da light time, he give um da name “Day time.” Da dark time, he give um da name “Nite time.” So, had da nite time an da day time, az day numba one.”Start 1:1-5 HPBhttps://bible.com/bible/76/gen.1.1-5.HPB
>>23607547>“Den God tell, “I like get someting inside da middo fo no let da watta up dea an da watta undaneat come togedda!” An dass wat God do. God make someting fo no let da watta up dea an da watta undaneat come togedda. Da ting inside da middo, God give um da name “Da Sky.” Had da nite time an da day time, az day numba two.”
>>23603328>james whiteI've watched a few of his speeches and debatesEven watched a show he was on with kjv onlyists vs people who worked on newer translations.I can't decide if he genuinely hates the KJV or just people who say it is the only way to read the Bible. He does seem to despise the textus receptus. I've always read the KJV and have never had an issue with it. I'd say the biggest thing I've been wondering is if I should start reading the Septuagint in place of the OT since the Hebrew texts are all newer than it and new testament tends to reference it. Regardless, I still prefer the KJV for it's poetic language and the sheer number of translators the English had work on it. It was also the Bible of the english speaking world for centuries and I see no good reason to set it aside
>>23607547>She wen stay get hot for da guys ova dea. Dey all get da kine tools like da donkeys, an dey shoot out lotta water like da horses.
>>23607547>>23607576>>23607614You laugh at this but now you know why the medieval Church didn't think highly of vernacular bibles over the Vulgate.
Tim Cain is God's chosen lore master for Fallout Amazon TV Prime Video
King James himself is God's chosen KING don't ask me why because that's not written in the Bible
>>23607601The Septuagint is very different from the Hebrew in a number of places, such as where it misses Messianic prophecies in places like Psalm 2:12, Isaiah 9:6, Hosea 11:1 and Zechariah 12:10. The Septuagint is also missing about 1/8 of the book of Jeremiah and more than 30 whole verses from the book of Proverbs, and many other whole verses from other books. This is before mentioning the places where it is substantially changed. The Septuagint also has Methuselah outlive the flood of Noah by 14 years according to the numbers given in Genesis 5. Some Septuagint translations, like the OSB, abandon the numbers given by the Septuagint in this place and borrow the Hebrew numbers in this one passage to avoid this.As to the question of age, the Septuagint is clearly not as old as the original Hebrew text. The version of the Septuagint that we now have is the one given by Origen in the 3rd century AD, and it has been edited by him and others who lived after the New Testament was written. We don't know much about what the Greek Old Testament looked like before Origen or the 1st century AD. Ancient sources tell us that the original "Septuagint" was just a translation of the books of Moses, not the entire Old Testament. We only have fragments of that translation as it was before Origen edited it. In either case, it is an interesting source in the sense that it shows how a lot of words from the Old Testament were translated to Greek in ancient times, but it has to be taken with a grain of salt due to the above reasons. Specifically, it's not always accurate in every verse, and sometimes the Septuagint leaves out important details such as the fact it misses the Messianic prophecies earlier mentioned, and is missing many entire passages, such as Jeremiah 33:14-26 for example.Sometimes proponents of the Septuagint will try to say that the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament is lost. But what's interesting is that, one of the main finds from the Dead Sea Scrolls is a nearly complete scroll of Isaiah in Hebrew, and its content matches the text that the KJV translators used (the 1525 Bomberg text) entirely. Many people out there are making arguments that rely on you not knowing these facts, but now you know them.
Encourage christian infighting. Persuade christians to destroy Christendom. Tempt christians into physically devouring one another. Nail the 95 Theses onto the door of All Saints Church. Have American christians pay taxes to fund bombs for Jews to bomb the remnants of Eastern christians into the rubble. Split the Eastern Orthodox church and have Kievan and Muscovite conscripts mow each other into worm food for the trenches. Inspire every Calvinist to follow Calvin's example and grill Jehovah Witnesses alive a la Servetus. Divert the crusaders to Constantinople. Have those crusaders utterly sack, destroy and rape the easternmost city of Christendom. Loot the Horses of St Mark. Install a prostitute onto the Patriarchal Throne. Liever Turks dan Paaps! Have protestants ally with the ottomans to degrade the Habsburgs. Invite Reformed French to a royal wedding. Betray them. Paint Paris red with Reformed blood. Sack Magdeburg into a copy of Baghdad. Exclude Roman Catholics from the throne. Ban marriages to Roman Catholics. Confiscate the property of Roman Catholics. Bar Roman Catholics from their inheritance. Have protestants defenestrate a Hapsburg governor out of a window. Paris is worth a Mass! Form a sacrilegious union of the lily and the crescent, create modern geopolitics and realpolitik. Ally the Kingdom of France with the Ottomans. Have Roman Catholics kill Roman Catholics for royal glory and power. Deport southern French towns to host Muslim pirates and slavers to destroy Hapsburg galleys and send their galley slaves to the bottom of the sea. Have protestant leaders and theologians invite Jews into their countries and justify charging interest. Inspire a KJV-only-ist to go to Zondervan's office and shoot an NIV editor in the head. Make a Douay-Rheims-only-ist lock all the editors of the ESV in Crossway's headquarters and arson it down with the staff inside. Make a tradcath call a brown pentecostal a nigger. Make christians slice each other with a katana.
>>23607987>The Septuagint is very different from the Hebrew in a number of places, such as where it misses Messianic prophecies in places like Psalm 2:12, Isaiah 9:6, Hosea 11:1 and Zechariah 12:10.Interesting. I've heard similar accusations made against the masoretic text vs the Septuagint for stuff like psalm 22:16. They have their variations and naturally it causes debate I knew the version of the Septuagint we had was newer than the original Hebrew, but still older than the masoretic and I think the dead sea scrolls too. Not that age matters as textus receptus is newer than the dead sea scrolls but I still read kjvThank you for the info on the Hebrew OT and the Septuagint, it's been something I've been considering for quite a while
>>23608044Diabolical
>>23607484You could also try pic rel if you want a 1 volume although they will be in their own section between the old and new testament as opposed to being in the Old testament section.
>>23605853It's not, it refers to whores and whoring.
We don't want "deevinely inspahyurd" received Bizanteen texts. What want nostic new order manuscripts from Alexandria.
>>23609264so not fornication?>>23609544>nostic new order manuscripts from Alexandriathere is no gnostic influence
>>23609552Well I don't want it if it hasn't been sitting in a monastery's rubbish bin for nearly two millennia or discovered underneath a pyramid. Only bible's commissioned under Constantine will do for my esoteric interests.
>>23605853>>236092641 Corinthians doesn't make any better sense without porneia being understood as fornication. How would sexual immorality be a fitting contraposition to marriage.>7:1–2And concerning the matters of the letter which ye have sent, 'tis good for a man to not be touching a woman. But because of fornications, may each man be permitted to have his own woman, and each woman her own man.
>>23609583Sinaiticus was not "in a dustbin" it was brought out by a monk wrapped in a red cloth. You don't wrap your trash in a red cloth.
>>23609603Guess that reduces the what texts I might be able to use for my specific interests. Only the most dodgy manuscript that nobody heard of before 1945 will be of use to me. It's disappointing how much consistency there is between biblical manuscripts compared the the greater excitement there could be had with more diverse texts.
>>23608981>I've heard similar accusations made against the masoretic text vs the Septuagint for stuff like psalm 22:16.Yeah, I really do think the correct translation of the Hebrew כָּאֲרִי is "pierced," though. The only thing with that is that some modern scholars have insisted on translating it otherwise. Similar with Isaiah 7:14 with the word for "virgin." If they don't translate the word correctly I think that's just on them.>I knew the version of the Septuagint we had was newer than the original Hebrew, but still older than the masoretic and I think the dead sea scrolls too.My understanding of the ages of the editions of the Old Testament under consideration goes in the following order: original Hebrew (what Isaiah 59:21 is talking about), then original LXX (books of Moses only), then DSS and later Greek translations, then Origen's LXX (Hexapla), and lastly Masoretic text (i.e. Codex Leningradensis).The actual Masoretic text is slightly different than what the King James uses. You can see this because modern translations often use the Masoretic instead of the Bomberg 1525 text that the KJV was based on, and it differs in a handful of places. For example, in 2 Kings 20:38,41. In these two verses, the Bomberg text (which I think reflects the original Hebrew) says "ashes," but the Ben Asher Masoretic text says "bandage." You can see this reflected in the fact that the KJV says "ashes" in those verses, but NKJV and others says "bandage" due to their different source text.A couple other differences along these lines that I know of:– Proverbs 8:16, "judges of the earth" changed to "those who judge rightly" in the Masoretic– Isaiah 38:14 and Malachi 1:12, "LORD" changed to "Lord" in the Masoretic– Zephaniah 3:15, "see evil" changed to "fear evil" in the MasoreticI would consider these all significant. Especially the 1 Kings reference, since the prophet completely removing ashes from his face would seem to be a miracle, while the same is not true for removing a bandage.Anyway, this also shows how the KJV isn't exactly based on the Masoretic, as there are some slight differences between the Ben Asher Masoretic version (see Codex Leningradensis, and the Biblia Hebraica of Rudolf Kittel, 3rd edition or later) and the original Hebrew (reflected by KJV) in some places.
>>23609842>2 Kings 20:38,41.Should be 1 Kings, don't know why that got messed up.KJV has: "So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face.39 And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver.40 And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it.41 And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets."- 1 Kings chapter 20Modern versions change the word "ashes" to "bandage" here (in both places) because of the different source text.
>>23609644It's one of the oldest manuscripts we have
>>23603328>He thinks KJV onlyists readthey don't even read the KJV anon, a book can't btfo them.
>>23609603It's true that von Tischendorf claimed that the first part of the manuscript that he "recovered" (or took without permission) from the first visit, he claimed he took those papers from a container with stacks of paper that were (allegedly) meant to be destroyed. It's also true that Tischendorf's story is shady, because it clashes with another story he told another time, about another part of it being wrapped in a red cloth, when he went back to the monastery years later to obtain more of it. I don't really believe much of his story about either of these two occasions. Apparently, the monastery also has on public display a signed promise by Tischendorf to return what he had taken, but he obviously never did.
I read the KJV and prefer it. But KJVonlyism is a retarded modern invention by some fringe baptists
>>23607987>and it has been edited by him and others who lived after the New Testament was writtenNo it hasn't. There are problems with the text but there's absolutely no proof that he tampered with the text himself. All you can point to is: >well, things in the OT match the NT! Even though that's not proof of anything lmao. Obviously Christ, the Apostles, and Paul are going to reference the OT. The onus on you is to demonstrate that the alternative hypothesis is true. >But what's interesting is that, one of the main finds from the Dead Sea Scrolls is a nearly complete scroll of Isaiah in Hebrew, and its content matches the text that the KJV translators used (the 1525 Bomberg text) entirely.But it doesn't match the genealogy and the Pentateuch timeline found in the MT, and it more closely resembles the genealogy and Pentateuch timeline found in the LXX. I'm not saying the LXX is perfect. It has problems. But is the clarity of the MT in some places worth the tradeoff in that it has anti-Jesus pilpul buried with in it? Do we have to settle for one or the other?
>>23607987>Some Septuagint translations, like the OSB, abandon the numbers given by the Septuagint in this place and borrow the Hebrew numbers in this one passage to avoid thisAnon, there are multiple LXX manuscripts. There's no need to borrow from the Hebrew, because other manuscripts have numbers that both differ from the Hebrew and make sense. The illogical readings can be considered copyist errors. For a public domain source on variant readings in the LXX reference Robert Holmes' Vetus Testamentum Graecum for a collation of readings from manuscripts then available in the 18th century. For the latest information on LXX textual criticism reference the Gottingen Septuagint, which was initiated in 1908 and is still in progress.>OSBThe OSB is unreliable in randomly diverging from the Greek with no indication (seehttps://youtube.com/watch?v=7BzYh3WskL4&t=1906s), use the Lexham English Septuagint or the New English Translation of the Septuagint instead, which are based on the preliminary edition of the Septuagint prepared by Alfred Rahlf (who started work on the Gottingen Septuagint) prior to his death.I don't think the Septuagint is the best representation of its source text, however. It has some strange translational practices like refusing to use metaphors for God (see its rendering of Psalm 19:14's "O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer" for an example).
>>23611105>But it doesn't match the genealogy and the Pentateuch timeline found in the MTWhat verse in the book of Isaiah are you talking about, anon? Does Isaiah have a genealogy somewhere?>But is the clarity of the MT in some places worth the tradeoff in that it has anti-Jesus pilpul buried with in it?Firstly, I am saying a person should use the 1525 text as a base for the Old Testament. This has already been shown to be somewhat different from the MT. See: >>23609842Also, where exactly is anti-Jesus or anti-Messiah pilpul in the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament? I'd be interested to know, what verse do you have in mind? (If it's Psalm 22:16 or Isaiah 7:14, I already explained those in the first part of this post here: >>23609842)>Do we have to settle for one or the other?I myself would want to use the uncorrupted original version first.Now, I've already pointed out where 4 important messianic prophecies are missing in the Septuagint already. Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 2:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Hosea 11:1. Compare between the two versions and see for yourself.Even more specifically, Revelation 1:7 quotes Zechariah 12:10, and Matthew 2:15 quotes Hosea 11:1. The LXX is missing both of these important messianic prophecies. It alters them from the original version which the New Testament quotes. Feel free to check for yourself. Zechariah 12:10 is supposed to say "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" ("pierced" instead of "mocked") and Hosea 11:1 is supposed to say "out of Egypt have I called my son [singular, not plural]."I can give you more examples as well if needed. Jeremiah 33:15, another messianic prophecy, isn't even in the Septuagint at all, as it is missing about 1/8 of the entire book of Jeremiah.Where exactly are the actual problems with the KJV Old Testament or the source it used. That's what I don't get. I know people have made lists of supposed problems with it, but I've checked and disproved all of the ones I have ever seen.>There are problems with the text but there's absolutely no proof that he tampered with the text himself.See Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5. It seems that they changed the number 70 to 75 in these two places to match Acts 7:14. But they forgot to also change Deuteronomy 10:22 which still says 70. The original text says 70 in all three places of the Old Testament.>>23611149>use the Lexham English Septuagint or the New English Translation of the Septuagint instead,The "Lexham English Bible" does the same thing as the OSB in Genesis 5:25 and 5:28. It borrows the Hebrew numbering. Compare to the numbers in the Brenton translation for example.Rahlf's edition or translations like the Brenton Septuagint, however, instead suffer from the alternative problem. Methuselah outlives the flood by 14 years due to the changes to these two verses (specifically, 187 changed to 167, and 182 changed to 188).
>>23611152>The "Lexham English Bible" does the same thing as the OSB in Genesis 5:25 and 5:28.I strike that sentence, it's irrelevant. I haven't bought the LES so haven't checked it.
>>23611152>What verse in the book of Isaiah are you talking about, anon? Does Isaiah have a genealogy somewhere?Not a good start to a conversation about careful Biblical study when you fail to read a simple sentence properly. I didn't even mention the Book of Isaiah. Obviously, the Pentateuch and the prophetic books are two different entities, and the former has the most important genealogies in the Bible.>I myself would want to use the uncorrupted original version first.It doesn't exist. Just because you found a text in the original language doesn't mean said text was preserved without changes. If anything, it was more prone to edits without checks from outside sources, given the insularity of the community, the rarity of literacy in general, the difficulty of learning Hebrew (especially as it became a dead language by Late Antiquity), and the obvious ideological agenda against other religious offshoots (e.g. Christianity). It's a fact that the LXX is at least half a millennia older than the oldest copies of the MT. That alone should be a better claim to its validity.>Where exactly are the actual problems with the KJV Old Testament or the source it used. That's what I don't get. I know people have made lists of supposed problems with it, but I've checked and disproved all of the ones I have ever seen.If you actually survey how the Dead Sea Scrolls compares with the LXX and MT, you'd find that it's a weird mess. There's a lot of similarities, sometimes the LXX conflict with the other two, sometimes the MT conflicts with the other two, sometimes the Dead Sea Scrolls conflict with both. There is no "better" version, and even the Dead Sea Scrolls is a problematic version of the text itself. The honest answer is that it's like a game of musical chairs in terms of what has fidelity to what, and there was a lot of background noise and games of telephone even back during the time of Christ, let alone today. >Also, where exactly is anti-Jesus or anti-Messiah pilpul in the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament? I'll give you the time stamps so you don't have to watch the whole thing:>shows the difference between the LXX and the MT timelines (conspicuous hundreds place was dropped from the texts) >https://youtu.be/W7uUAS3F4AU?si=kNuloSM7GiVc7dny&t=414and:>shows the reason why the timelines were edited for a few minutes>https://youtu.be/W7uUAS3F4AU?si=Y4RFIIG843HR8Zmf&t=984Basically, by modifying the post-Flood genealogy, Jewish rabbis could make the claim that Melchizedek was actually Shem, making the Priesthood of Levi and the Priesthood of Melchizedek the same (and the latter not any kind of "superior" priesthood). Thus, Jesus Christ (who came from the tribe of Judah) had no basis for being the high priest, and thus could not have been the Messiah.
>>23611152>The "Lexham English Bible" does the same thing as the OSB in Genesis 5:25 and 5:28. It borrows the Hebrew numbering. Compare to the numbers in the Brenton translation for example.LEB is a translation of the Hebrew.>Rahlf's edition or translations like the Brenton Septuagint, however, instead suffer from the alternative problem. Methuselah outlives the flood by 14 years due to the changes to these two verses (specifically, 187 changed to 167, and 182 changed to 188).With the correct years as per Codex Alexandrinus and corroborated by Josephus, Methuselah dies in the flood (Lamech born when he's 187, he lives a further 782 years; Noah born when Lamech is 182, the flood occurs when Noah is 600; 600 + 182 = 782). If that stinks of scribal editing to you, there's actually a variant with the age of Lamech at the birth of Noah as well. Alexandrinus reads 188 while Josephus reads 182; if you use the extant Alexandrinus reading Methuselah dies 6 years prior to the flood. See Swete's Septuagint or the Charles Thomson translation if you don't have access to LES.>>23611160It's available on some public repositories (if you know what I mean).
Anybody have an informed opinion on the Ethiopian bible? From what I understand:>Book of Enoch is considered part of the canon>while Christianity is still new and sparse, a Jewish assembly reevaluates the books they consider holy, toss out a bunch of them>The Book of Enoch gets thrown out because it predates Moses, breaking one of the criteria for the new canon>the texts left over form the body of texts that eventually become the Old Testament in KJV and other versions>despite this, New Testament books make allusions to the Book of Enoch multiple times, including directly referencing the prophecy of Enoch and an allusion from Jesus himself>Ethiopian bible is the only version that still includes the Book of Enoch and others that were left out, because Christianity spread to Ethiopia early enough to avoid the influence of Jews removing textsIt's hard to find information on this casually.
>>23611214>Not a good start to a conversation about careful Biblical study when you fail to read a simple sentence properly.I said:>>But what's interesting is that, one of the main finds from the Dead Sea Scrolls is a nearly complete scroll of Isaiah in Hebrew, and its content matches the text that the KJV translators used (the 1525 Bomberg text) entirely.You responded:>But it doesn't match the genealogy and the Pentateuch timeline found in the MTYou were directly responding to my comment about Isaiah. I did mention Isaiah, in the quotation that was being directly responded to. My response makes perfect sense, because Isaiah doesn't have those things.>If you actually survey how the Dead Sea Scrolls compares with the LXX and MTThe KJV uses something different than the MT, as was said before. I showed where the differences are already in the previous post. For everyone's reference, see here: >>23609842>>I myself would want to use the uncorrupted original version first.>It doesn't exist.Yes it absolutely does exist. God preserved it. I believe what Christ said, anon."Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."- Psalm 119:160"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."- Luke 16:17
>>23609233This is just a pet peeve but I would honestly rather have a Bible that omits them whole cloth rather than one that uses the made-up modernist term "apocrypha" to slander them. They were in the Bible for 1200 years before the Reformers decided they weren't Jewish enough (and then Cairo Geniza and Qumran proved they to a great extent archaeologically were, which also places the Masoretic authority over Judaism deeply in doubt).
>>23611367>You were directly responding to my comment about Isaiah.I was responding to the claim regarding the accuracy of the MT as a whole. You pointed out that the fidelity of Isaiah in the MT is good. I pointed out that its fidelity elsewhere was not so good. >You were directly responding to my comment about Isaiah. I did mention Isaiah, in the quotation that was being directly responded to. My response makes perfect sense, because Isaiah doesn't have those things.Maybe to you because you're not trying to read charitably but rather reading what you want to read into things. That's not a good habit, especially in Biblical study. Especially since I mentioned "genealogy" and "Pentateuch" and your head rushed immediately to Isaiah instead of, idk, Genesis? Even though Isaiah doesn't have a genealogy/ That's retarded. That's a solid lapse of judgment on your part. >The KJV uses something different than the MT, as was said before. I showed where the differences are already in the previous postBomberg text is a Masoretic text. The fuck are you on about? Even the LXX has different versions. But it doesn't mean it's not from the same lineage. >Yes it absolutely does exist. God preserved it. God preserved the logos. The texts, well, they're a bit messy but they get the job done. Be wary of overly relying on any particular text and falling for idolatry.
>>23611443>Maybe to you because you're not trying to read charitably but rather reading what you want to read into things. That's not a good habit, especially in Biblical study.>I pointed out that its fidelity elsewhere was not so good.The way it was phrased was as if you were responding directly to the specific thing I was talking about.Maybe the disconnect in your response came from reticence to even acknowledge that one of the main finds of the DSS acts to confirm what I believe. I don't/didn't want to just assume that, so instead, I choose to ask where Isaiah has that, based on the assumption that I missed something that I might be unaware of and to ask for possible clarification. Then you respond that I "failed to read a simple sentence." I don't think I did, anon. I just didn't want to think it was an intentional sweeping under the rug of the merits of what I had pointed out.>Bomberg text is a Masoretic text. The fuck are you on about? Even the LXX has different versions. But it doesn't mean it's not from the same lineage.The Masoretic text is later, and it differs somewhat from the original.
>>23611496The fuck you mean the MT is later than the Bomberg text? Just nuts. >Maybe the disconnect in your response came from reticence to even acknowledge that one of the main finds of the DSS acts to confirm what I believe. I don't/didn't want to just assume that, so instead, I choose to ask where Isaiah has that, based on the assumption that I missed something that I might be unaware of and to ask for possible clarification. Then you respond that I "failed to read a simple sentence." I don't think I did, anon. I just didn't want to think it was an intentional sweeping under the rug of the merits of what I had pointed out.This is one of the weirdest copes. >The way it was phrased was as if you were responding directly to the specific thing I was talking about.Keep looking for that genealogy in Isaiah, I'm sure you'll find it eventually.
>>23611525>The fuck you mean the MT is later than the Bomberg text? Just nuts.I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you know that's not what I mean. I'm not sure whether it's more charitable at this point to 1) assume you already know that's not what I mean, which would mean not even answering, or 2) not unduly assume you already know I mean to say that the original underlies both the MT and Bomberg (not to mention more distantly-related rescensions or critical texts pre-1525), but that the former merely has a substantial corruption in it.Also, I know about its omission of Joshua 21:36-37, and everyone knew about it. The first Bomberg edition 1517, Hutter's excellent edition from 1587 and most others include those verses still.
>>23611550What are you even on about? I haven't seen a crash out this bad on /lit/ in a while.
>>23611525>The fuck you mean the MT is later than the Bomberg text? Just nutsThe modern Biblica Hebraica Sturtgartensia is based on the Leningrad Codex rather than the Bomberg text that was used for the KJV but I'm not sure if that is what he has in mind.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:>>23607601>>23607987>>23608981>>23611149>>23611152>>23611277>SeptuagintIt's a counterfeit and they promoted it using a bunch of lies. It also includes contradictory apocrypha which proves it is not of God, it's not inspired. They promote that as a circumvential way to promote the one world religion of the prophecy in the scripture.>>23609603>SinaiticusIt's not as old as they claim, the pages aren't as worn as old pages would be, and the pages which were removed before that liar started dying pages are still white. It's a fraud.>>23609544>ByzantineThe cope word for "traditional text" or "received text" or "majority text" from the "critical text" camp who are ultimately working towards denying that Christ resurrected and that Jesus is God, whether they realize it or not based on the manuscripts they fallaciously claim are the best and most accurate with illogical means (or by calling God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ a liar when God promised to preserve his words). It's what their counterfeited alexandrian and gnostic perversions of the text are all about, it's why they won't even make a bible based solely on some of their unholy counterfeited manuscripts, their (not so old) "oldest" manuscripts, because no Christian would ever buy them. It's all a lie.>>23607310>Douay-Rheims>"she" in Genesis 3:15Why bother with a catholic bible that has errors?>>23610161When people actually read the Bible, most of the time it's a KJV.>>23610954It's God's inspired words preserved in English. You would let someone use an NIV or ESV or some other counterfeit from Satan or some Catholic Mary-worship bible or all these versions which are full of errors and bad doctrine and contradictions?>>23609552>there is no gnostic influenceThere is.John 1:3>All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.Also, since nobody mentioned the Codex Vaticanus, that's just a joke of a Vatican fraud. It's been completely overwritten and there are column notes between scribes, one yelling at another for changing the text. It's a joke.Then you have Wescott & Hort and how just about every new bible comes from that hot garbage as well, they were occultist weirdos. The JW bible translates from that, they deny Jesus is God. It doesn't matter if you have a good translation, you have to translate the right book.That's what it's all about, that's what Satan's attack against the Bible is all about.1. Add confusion (and telling people the apocrypha is inspired keeps people confused by contradictory uninspired text)2. Attack the gospel of grace to keep people from getting saved (so they put faith in their religion or works or a priest rather than God the Savior)3. Attack the doctrines of Christ to rob God of His glory4. Steal glory reserved for God (as the Bible says Satan wanted to do, Isaiah 14:12-15, one of the main verses attacked is there)
>>23611583>he's mad because they got rid of "Lucifer" in the NIVYou are one stupid motherfucking gorilla nigger retard, let me tell you that. Hint: What language is the word Lucifer from? And what language was the OT originally written in?
>>23611379Honestly, you're both wrong. Also, "apocrypha" isn't a made-up modernist term. Why would you think that?
>>23611949The ancient meaning is applied differently from how the Reformers applied it (i.e. tossing out accepted books).Every cherrypicked Church Father quote against apocrypha/deuterocanon always>comes from before the several councils that ratified the final canon (Rome, Carthage, Hippo)>never actually matches the modern Protestant canon anyway
>>23612106>Rome, Carthage, HippoThose are all local councils. No ecumenical council closed the canon in the patristic era
>>23611559Says the guy who is spamming schizo Melchizedek theories.
>>23612137Does that make any difference? Why would a Protestant want to appeal to the authority of a council invoked by the Roman Emperor as if that gave it magical powers a council formed and approved by the Pope doesn't have? Do you think books of the Bible would magically stop being books of the Bible when you enter into a different geographical region?
>>23612323Some people apparently think that the sayings of God are not self-evident upon inspection, and that no one believed them to be inspired until approved by some government council convened by Constantine. They think that government council was the thing that finally showed everyone the light.
>>23603328Kjv isn't even the full cannon who csres about translation accuracy when you're missing like 40 books
>>23611316>>23612473Does anybody who knows more want to give some thoughts on the Ethiopian bible? It has more books, but how do the English translations compare to, say, KJV? At the very least, what translation options do I have if I want to look into Enoch?
>>23612317There's nothing schizophrenic about it. It's a fact that rabbis use the dating discrepancies in the MT to discredit the legitimacy of Christ in their polemics. And it's a fact that the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the DSS does not have these dating discrepancies. And it's certainly not a crash out either lol. You can't cheapen the phrase like that.
>>23613039Nta, but can you elaborate on the dating discrepancies?
>>23612473is it translated from the septuagint or masoretic text
>>23613377I talk about it here: >>23611214
>>23612473The Book of Giants isn't even biblical apocrypha it was an evangelical text intended to convert jews to manichaeism.
How useful is Ruckman to provoking online controversies?How useful is Ruckman for atheistic/irreligious arguments?
>>23603431Is this particular book actually good or are you guys memeing it in every thread just with the cool cover jpg?I want to order a physical copy from amazon but it's the price of normal classic books I buy online and it has some reviews about>authors lack of proper citations>strawmans in arguments>cherry picking>bizarrely filled with anti-german, anti-nazi ramblings somewhere late in the book and somehow author being connected to jewish ADL and serving another type of propaganda last reviewer typed like a schizo so it could be false or exaggerated though but he was still defending KJV himself
>>23603431The same guy who debunks Protestantism with Protestant beliefs
>>23614979it's a schizo numerology bookhttps://youtu.be/jPgfk9XYN6A?t=77
>>23603456Protestants needed a religion they shouldn’t exist for their personal interpretation of the Bible to exist. Without Catholicism you don’t get Luther a single German man who wasn’t even under the Roman Empire when Christians were preaching the earliest beliefs, who happened to be a Catholic until he wasn’t.
>>23603863Same with murder vs kill or turn other cheek or personal relationship lol
>>23603922Lmfao can’t make this shit up
>>23606249Christians in Europe were already more advanced than a bunch of sea merchants that lost to every single Christian nation in Europe.
>>23607509It’s literally a stripped down book of the Catholic Bible by removing books from it. It was translated from Catholic texts
>>23616503But christians didn‘t create that advancement.
>>23611583>When people actually read the Bible, most of the time it's a KJV.Easily the most American thing you could’ve said
>>23616513Yes the fuck they did.
>>23616519Roman social and military infrastructure, christoids cope.
>>23616509It didn't remove anything.
>>23612808One of most notable features of the Ethiopian canon is that they group Jeremiah into a single series with other books traditionally related to it such as Baruch, Lamentations, the Epistle of Jeremias, and Omissions from Jeremias/Baruch 4. The also have a different kind of Maccabees, and Enoch is preceded by the book of jubilees. There's also an extended canon consisting of historical chronicles and treatises. The de facto standard translation of Enoch appears to be the one by Robert Henry (R. H.) Charles. The most reliable or conventional of the public domain translations from Greek manuscripts of deuterocanonical Old Testament texts would be from translations like the English Revised Version of 1895, Brenton's Septuagint translation, LXX2012, and the World English Bible.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canonhttps://ebible.org/https://sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm
>>23611316>Jews removing textsJudaism was present in Ethiopia before Christianity (Beta Israel). Ethiopian Christianity has various Judaic customs and traditions not present in other Churches.
>>23608044Chiefly problems stemming from Western Christiandom.
>>23618406Seduce christians into infighting. Have christians destroy christian property. Make christians blood sacrifice one another. Have a Kenyan protestant go and vandalise an Ethiopian tewahedo church. Possess a KJV-only-ist to go stab an NIV street preacher through the heart. Stoke a sectarian conflict between Namibian protestants and Angolan catholics. Make an Angolan inquisitor tire-necklace a Zambian pentecostal into charcoal. Have a sedevacantist push a mainstream catholic bishop out of a window in Prague. Have Russian Orthodox under the spell of the Protocols of Zion send Baptists to Siberia. Have Jesus himself say 'the Father is greater than I' in front of John Calvin while Michael Servetus sheds tears into his own charring flesh in the background. Have a Septuagint reader plant a yellow star on a Masoretic Text user. Send Jeanne d'Arc to Bohemia to hack off some Hussite heads. Turn her into a piece of swiss cheese with muskets from behind a wagon fort. Send a protestant son-of-a-settler into an Irish catholic pub and have them play minecraft. Magically switch Magdeburg 1631 and Constantinople 1204 around and have Landsknechts violate purpleborn princesses. Have a KJV-only-ist point out that the NIV is published by Zondervan, child of HarperCollins, child of News Corp and therefore is a Synagogue of Satan counterfeit. Have Sky News and Fox News journalists gangstalk the KJVOist until the latter does something they can't take back. Have an ESV reader bitch and moan about how everything is tending to a second Great Depression. Make the NIV reader accuse the ESVr of economic demoralization. Have an NLT reader anxiously pass by. Send a polite Nestle-Aland critic to mediate between the NIVr and ESVr and give the NLTr some hope. Have a Tupolev fire a KH-101 blessed by a Russian Orthodox priest blow them into smithereens. Cultivate a new protestant-orthodox sectarianism while catholics stare on hungrily as if at boys. Have christendom vaporize christendom with a raygun.
>>23618408>the new versions removed inauthentic versesbased
>>23611639They give Satan titles reserved for Jesus in your gay occult modernist bibles, retard.
O illustrious one, how utterly hast thou fallen from the heavens, thou son of the morning. Thou who once toppled nations, how utterly hewn to the ground hast thou become.
>>23603414true
>>23603328bump
