Ive been comparing translations and the NIV seems like the single easiest to digest translationis there anything actually THAT wrong with it to warrant avoiding it, or are complaints largely nitpicky?
Why read it at all? Generally speaking we read books that we are competent enough to digest and enjoy. If you are not competent, then read something you can handle
>>25022535im not sure i understand your point, im reading it for the content, not the prose, and since i dont know the original greek, hebrew, and aramaic, ill be reading it in translation no matter how you spin it, and since i already have a KJV, im interested in a more straightforward translation no offence but your post seems completely nonsensical
>>25022529It's not as literal as older translations and a lot of people were turned off by the 2011 update which incorporated gender neutral language e.g. not using man/mankind, he as the default pronoun when referring to a generic individual, translating Greek adelphoi (literally, brothers) as brothers and sisters but it isn't as much of a paraphrase compared to other mass market translations like the NLT. The biggest reason for the hate is its popularity but overall it's a generic evangelical Protestant translation with no real outstanding qualities. It was a new translation that wasn't based on the King James so it doesn't have the Bible phraseology that traditionalists expect and also like most modern Bibles it's uses a modern manuscript base that excludes verses that were historically considered part of the Bible prior to the 1800s
>>25022529Reading an older niv right now.I've read kjv and esv before.>Kjv to quote>Esv for accuracy to the original languages.>Niv for reading If you want to read the Bible and know it's contents, then niv is the best English translation I think. It's digestible which is probably the best thing a 2000 year old religious text, written by dozens of authors in multiple languages, can be.
>>25022529Something like an easy or basic english bible is easier than the ESV, which itself is easier than the NIV
>>25022529NIV is for fornicators
>>25022541If you think anyone who comes to an anime website and talks about books knows Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, I don't know what to tell you. Everyone here reads a translation of the Bible and the one that they're going to say is the most valid or most recommended or most accurate is most likely the one they grew up with or the one they enjoy most. There's a zero percent chance you're going to get a legitimate answer. You're going to have to go by sealing.
>>25022529All Prottie Bibles are flawed because they purposefully change scripture and ignore context added by Church Fathers and Doctors but the NIV and other modern takes are definitely worse than the KJV because they're based on the Scofield Bible
>>25023015the post-Vatican II NABRE read just like a Prot Bible though, it literally even removes the Holy Spirit from Genesis 1:2 despite hundreds of years of scholarship to the contrary
>>25022529Can you open Acts 8:37 in your NIV and tell me what it says? There's the answer to your question
>>25022529They force their Jesus in places that the original texts don't have Jesus.
>>25023822>Let me just describe the entire Greek Testament.
so you be saying its the word of god...and you cant even invest the time to learn it in the original language?crazy how weebs are more dedicated to catroons than christians are to god.
>>25023365No shocker, Vatican II is heretical in many ways (though I'm not a sedevacantist for obvious reasons)I mean stuff like Lumen Gentium basically acts like Protties are right in shit like Sola Fide and counteracts literal dogma from previous popes.
>>25022529NRSV is the best translation for accuracy but harder to digest.NIV is good for beginners.KJV is a meme pushed by retarded American fundamentalists, it has several fake sections added to the Bible since it was based on shitty mediaeval era manuscripts. Some goober will probably protest this but the facts are out there.Just get a NRSV and NIV.
>>25024430The NRSV is just a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision of the KJV though
>>25023880>Vatican II is heretical in many ways (though I'm not a sedevacantist for obvious reasons)your choices are there has been no infalliability since the mid 20c or since john finished Revelation>I mean stuff like Lumen Gentium basically acts like Protties are right in shit like Sola FideJesus did the work. papists love quoting> unless you eat My fleshand then they turn around and contradict it
>>25024430>NIV is good for beginners.You mean good for retards
>>25024430>NRSV is the best translation for accuracyGenesis verse 2 is literally filled with mistakes, and that's just the second verse of the Bible. I can't believe you've just posted that NRSV is the best translation for accuracy. You've got to be kidding me. Yes, I speak Hebrew.
>>25024430Mega fucking retard alertBest translation is the Douay Rheims but it IS difficult to truly understand. NRSV and NIV are for people who want a really easy translation at the expense of total corruption of the textKJV is preferable to both despite its issues
>>25022529At times the plain meaning of statements is outright changed in order to fit their neo-puritan sensibilities. The best example I know of off-hand is John 19:23>(NIV) When the soldiers cruficed Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, >>with the undergarment remaining.<<The part about the undergarment remaining does not exist in the Greek text, nor do most other translations include it. They simply made it up and put in in there because they don't like the idea that Jesus was naked upon the cross. Another similar example is in the NIV Study Bible Micah 1:18:>Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about naked. <...>In the commentary on this verse they make sure to put a footnote that says OHNOO HE WASN'T ACKSHUALLY HECKIN NAKED HE HAD A SACKCLOTH ON even though there is no indication of this in the text and the word for "naked" is the same that describes Adam and Eve in the Garden.Another example would be 1 Kings 6:21 were Solomon's oracle-chamber (Hebrew: debir, from a root meaning "to speak") which they translate as "inner sanctuary" despite the fact this is not the meaning of the word because "oracle" is HECKING OCCULT and LE BAD so THEREFORE WRONG BECAUSE IT JUST IS OKAY (learned about this one from Terry)
Hot take: bible translations need to either take that localizer or fansub approach, no in-betweens. Either use a new hebrew/greek word every other sentence and let the reader infer the meaning from context, or describe jesus multiplying hamburgers and soda for a crowd
>>25024922That's just false, NRSV is translated directly from the oldest Greekmanuscripts.>>25025041Get a copy quickly then.>>25025103אֱלֹהִים can mean wind of God, divine wind, or Spirit of God. Hebrew does not force one choice. Translating it as ‘Spirit’ is an interpretation, not a correction.The NRSV even footnotes ‘Spirit of God’ it’s signaling the range of meaning instead of pretending Hebrew is cleaner than it is.
>>25025327Calling a translation “difficult” doesn’t make it accurate, it just makes it old. The Douay-Rheims is a Latin to English translation of Jerome’s interpretive Latin, not the Hebrew, so it’s two layers removed from Genesis. If “corruption” means translating from Hebrew manuscripts instead of medieval Latin, then yes, NRSV is guilty. Preferring Douay-Rheims or KJV over NRSV just means you trust tradition or aesthetics more than the actual text. You don’t want accuracy, you want resistance.
>>25025366The Masoretic text (the standard Hebrew version used in translatios) is itself corrupt. Many Christological passages are heavily corrupted and obscured, which makes sense because it was preserved by Rabbis who denied Jesus as Messiah.
>>25025363>NRSV is translated directly from the oldest Greek manuscripts.I'm a different anon but this is not true. See picrel and >>25025370 (me)
>>25025366>>25025370 is right. The Masoretic Text is not correct per se. It CAN be used as a base sometimes (a lot of vintage Catholic bibles use a mixture of Masoretic Text for non-Christ-related passages with the Vulgate and the Septuagint for Christ-related ones) but Protestant Bibles overwhelmingly use the MT alone which is foolish since it was developed centuries after the Vulgate and the researchers who claim it has no differences to the Dead Sea Scrolls happen to be Jewish researchers who have everything to benefit from if a text made by them is promoted as the true text rather than a later corruptionFurthermore tradition IS integral to the Christian faith. The fact of the matter is that only foolish Protestants ignore what the Church Fathers or the Doctors of the Church or Saints have been teaching for centuries at this point and replace it with modern, illogical conceptions such as the supposed "Rapture" or apocalyptic interpretations. Caring for tradition is as important as caring for the text, and if you care for both you certainly would not get a modern Bible which pervert scriptures for their own benefit (be it adding Zionist interpretations of verses, muddying up the list of sexual immoralities or promoting your classic prosperity gospel).
>>25025390Show the full description you slime.
>>25025416Apocrypha and NT don't have corresponding Masoretic source texts. Not sure how you think this is proving anything besides your own ignorance.
>>25025421I never argued that.
>>25025407For example, put 1 Cor 6:9-10:Douay Rheims:>Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.NRSV:>Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.Note the massive changes in the NRSV "translation". Rather than faggotry being condemned, you have "male prostitution" condemned, basically meaning that as long as it's private it's A-OK to disobey the standard order of man and woman. The "effeminate", which depending on who you ask could mean men receiving penetration from other men (aka the submissive faggot) or simply men who behave in ways more akin to how women behave, are also removed. "Sodomites" is used as a word which needs contextual explanation and as such can be perverted by the people who wrote the "translation"This happens pretty constantly too.
>>25025438Ok but I know that homosexuality is wrong? I'm not a retarded protestant that needs everything to be explicitly stated in the Bible?
>>25025436You said NRSV is from the oldest Greek texts, presumably referring to the Septuagint, which is the standard Greek collection of OT texts. I demonstrated that it is not. Then you acted like I was hiding the fact that the Apocrypha and NT are indeed from a Greek source, as if that's some kind of win. The OT is around 90% of the Bible's text, and the NT and Apocrypha are derived from Greek in most translations anyway, hence irrelevant to my point. Can you admit that you're ignorant about this subject?
>>25025448I was referring to the new testament being the based in the oldest Greek manuscripts obviously, you are just trying to strawman, but it isn't working.
>>25025461Okay so now you were talking about the NT the whole time? How convenient. Because there's no mention of that in the discussion, and you if that's the case your original comment about the "oldest Greek texts" is basically meaningless, because the NT is typically translated from Greek anyway. Why don't you just admit you're ignorant and don't know what you're talking about?
>>25025444>I'm not a retarded protestant that needs everything to be explicitly stated in the Bible>That's why I get translations which have every verse explained by (((secular scholars))) rather than older translations which are more accurate and are commented by actual priests and people who have actual faithkek
Remember kids, the best translation is the one you come up with yourself by comparing many translations on biblgateway.com, looking at the original Greek through biblehub.com, searching suspect ancient Hebrew and Greek words on wiktionary, resolving especially difficult interpretation problems by looking up questions on stackexchange, and finally using your very own amateur textual critcism to make a final decision.
>>25025491oh, and wikipedia's several lists of textual variants in each book are also neat to have around.
>>25025465I was talking about the NT? The reason I use NRSV is for one I'm not a Jew so NT is most important. KJV has passages added to the NT so I don't use it as my primary NT reader? Does it make sense?
>>25025363Yeah, that's not even what I was referring to, You clearly don't speak Hebrew and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
>>25025363>That's just false, NRSV is translated directly from the oldest Greek manuscriptsAnon it's literally in the name "New" Revised Standard Version, it's a revision of the 1952 RSV which is a revision of the 1901 American Standard Version which is a revision of the 1885 English Revised Version which is a revision of the 1769 revision of the KJV. That's why the NRSV still says "the LORD is my Shepherd I shall not want" in Psalm 23 even though it isn't about not wanting things, that's the archaic language of the KJV
>>25022529NIV = Non-inspired Version
>>25022564>and also like most modern Bibles it's uses a modern manuscript base that excludes verses that were historically considered part of the Bible prior to the 1800sThis is the important part, because it's literally a translation of different sources, and arguably these disparate sources have been patched together in a way that never even existed historically.To those who take the Bible seriously, it should be pretty obvious that these modern translations and the sources they used are basically counterfeits to the inspired originals that God preserved through history.Furthermore, there have been isolated scholars throughout history (even before the 1800s) who wanted to used different sources than the so-called "received text," that idea is not new. Of course, there has never really been a consensus among academics about what they hold to be correct either. The idea of rejecting the received text only became widely popular (beyond limited academic circles) in the mid-20th century. The mid-20th century is around the time a lot of funding magically appeared to start selling these modern translations in an effort to displace the position the KJV had traditionally held until that point.The fact that the NIV has sold a lot of copies doesn't make it any less wrong or inaccurate than it would be if nobody had ever read or heard of it. Its sale is mainly due to modern advertisement practices more than anything, as well as its supporters sweeping the major textual differences under the rug in their marketing techniques toward gullible people. They don't tell you about the missing verses or other text that's been removed in their advertisements.
the king james has unicorns in it
>>25025370>The Masoretic text (the standard Hebrew version used in translatios)Actually, the standard Hebrew version used in the KJV is different from the Ben Asher Masoretic text if you want to get into the details. The KJV was translated from the Bomberg received text of the Hebrew Old Testament that was first printed via printing press in 1525. The "Masoretic text" is based primarily on Codex Leningradensis, which was only published by Rudolf Kittel around 1937, and it does vary in some places from the Bomberg text.So, no, the "standard Hebrew" version used, in the KJV translation at least, is not the Masoretic text, technically speaking.>Many Christological passages are heavily corrupted and obscured,Got any examples in mind or are you just saying this? I'd be interested if you actually had any examples in mind.>which makes sense because it was preserved by RabbisThose who claim to be Jews and Rabbis today have nothing to do with the ancient or biblical Jews.Also, I would add that if you unironically think Christians didn't preserve the original source text for the entire Bible, including the Old Testament in its original languages, you are really quite historically illiterate.
>>25025362>Jesus multiplying hamburgers and soda for a crowdNot beer? Some savior of humanity.
>>25025407>(a lot of vintage Catholic bibles use a mixture of Masoretic Text for non-Christ-related passages with the Vulgate and the Septuagint for Christ-related ones)Got any real examples of this to share?>the researchers who claim it has no differences to the Dead Sea Scrolls happen to be Jewish researchersIf this was true don't you think a Christian researcher would have disproven it by now? As far as I can tell the Isaiah scroll legitimately matches the Hebrew source used by the KJV. That is to say, it matches the Hebrew version, not the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. You think it's being misreported by everyone? I think not. God preserved the original source for all parts of the Bible in their original languages. Christians preserved the Hebrew text apart from the efforts of the Masoretes. The Masoretes got it wrong in a few places such as Malachi 1:12 which is supposed to have the Tetragrammaton, see pic.I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you really sound like you don't actually know what you're talking about, anon.>be it adding Zionist interpretations of verses,I agree that there are zionist interpretations of verses in some modern translations. But where are you finding this in the KJV or its sources? Got any examples?I can show you tons of places where the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) removes Messianic prophecies. Psalm 2:12, Isaiah 9:6, Jeremiah 33:15, Zechariah 12:10, Hosea 11:1, and Habakkuk 3:13. Check any of those in the Septuagint and you'll see Messianic prophecies only in the Hebrew source used by the KJV, but removed in the Septuagint.In Hosea 11:1, the Gospel of Matthew quotes the messianic prophecy directly in Matthew 2:15, and he quotes the Hebrew (which says "Son" singular) against the Septuagint (which says "children" plural).In Habakkuk 3:13, we again see the word "anointed" (literally "Messiah" in the Hebrew source) changed to the plural "anointed ones" (the Greek Septuagint has the word in plural form here, so removes another reference to Christ as the Messiah).If you check Psalm 2:12, Isaiah 9:6, Jeremiah 33:15, and Zechariah 12:10, you'll see all of those only contain Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew. The Septuagint even removes the Jeremiah verse entirely, it isn't even in there.In contrast to the above, I see people claiming the Septuagint has messianic prophecies that are "missing in the Hebrew," but nobody has ever shown me a single real example when I've asked for one.
>>25025974>the 1885 English Revised Version which is a revision of the 1769 revision of the KJV.No it's not. The ERV of 1885 is completely different from the KJV. The 1885 translation of the New Testament is based on a source text that is about 2000 words shorter than what the 1611 translators used. The 1885 English Revised Version has entire verses removed compared to the KJV.
>>25026621Unicorn is another word for rhinocerous. Your point?
>>25026627>Got any examples in mind or are you just saying this?Yes, Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant, is heavily obscured in the MT and varies considerably from the LXX and DSS, which are more clear and coincide better with the NT. Tbh my memory of the exact details is fuzzy and I do not feel like re-researching and spelling it out in detail for you right now, sorry. I got my information mainly from the writings of Margaret Barker (not that I agree with everything she puts forth but regarding comparative manuscript criticism she is very good). Anyway, the Pharisees and scribes actually had methods for "correcting" the text, such as changing out similar looking letters or changing diacritic markers to create a different (and often nonsensical) reading, which gave them feasible deniability of Messianic passages.A more definite example would be Deuteronomy 32:43, which is quoted in Hebrews 1:6. >Let all God's angels worship him.These words appear in the LXX and DSS the same as in the NT, but until Qumran it was though to be a Christian fabrication, as the reading in the MT is significantly different.
>>25026627>Those who claim to be Jews and Rabbis today have nothing to do with the ancient or biblical Jews.The oldest copies of the MT we have is from around 900 AD. It is the same text used by modern Jews, which I would argue is likely very similar to the text used by the Pharisees, imo their predecessors.>Also, I would add that if you unironically think Christians didn't preserve the original source text for the entire Bible, including the Old Testament in its original languages, you are really quite historically illiterate.It is significantly better preserved in the LXX than in the MT.
>>25026713>A more definite example would be Deuteronomy 32:43, which is quoted in Hebrews 1:6.Hebrews 1:6 is a quote of Psalm 148:2. See the following from the KJV:"Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts."- Psalm 148The fact Hebrews 1:6 quotes from Psalm 148 makes sense too. Hebrews 1:5 is a quote of Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 1:7 is a quote of Psalm 104:4. So it fits.>>25026714>The oldest copies of the MT we have is from around 900 AD.The Dead Sea Scroll called the "Isaiah scroll" matches the Hebrew source used by the KJV, regardless of whether you want to call it the Masoretic text or not (I don't since it obviously predates them).>It is significantly better preserved in the LXX than in the MT.We have the original Old Testament in its original language form, we do not need any later versions. God perfectly preserved every part of His word, just as it says in Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 119:160, Matthew 24:35 and so on.
>>25026714One more thing, I should add that the Greek LXX was regarded as the divinely inspired, gold standard rendering of the OT up until the Reformation. You're correct that it's not in Hebrew, but this doesn't subtract significantly from its value.
>>25026722>I should add that the Greek LXX was regarded as the divinely inspired, gold standard rendering of the OT up until the Reformation.I'm sure some people valued it since it was copied over the ages. It is also a useful reference today in some respects, even if not entirely accurate to the originals. But Christians definitely preserved the original language sources for both the Old Testament and the New Testament. We still have the original language sources today, meaning there is no need to look for compromised later versions or figure out what is "better preserved." The original is still perfectly preserved down to the last letter.The words of our Lord and Savior confirms this. It says in Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
>>25026721>The Dead Sea Scroll called the "Isaiah scroll" matches the Hebrew source used by the KJV, regardless of whether you want to call it the Masoretic text or not (I don't since it obviously predates them).This is demonstrably untrue.>We have the original Old Testament in its original language form, we do not need any later versions. God perfectly preserved every part of His word, just as it says in Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 119:160, Matthew 24:35 and so on.You're speaking from dogma, not reasoned argument. Further discussion is pointless on my part.
>>25026727>This is demonstrably untrue.No, it is entirely true. The Hebrew version we have today is preserved basically exactly as it was originally written. The ancient dead sea scrolls only confirm this.
>>25026731No, they don't. If you bothered to research the subject honestly you'd see that this is the case. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you.
>>25026737>No, they don't. It does actually match the Hebrew version, anon. I have researched the subject. You're straight up making stuff up right now.
>>25026738https://www.scriptureanalysis.com/dead-sea-scrolls-vs-masoretic-text-key-differences/You don't know what you're talking about now you're doubling down because you've been called out. MT and DSS are different. This is an objective fact.
>>25026742>You don't know what you're talking about nowYou don't even know what I've been talking about. Have you heard of the Isaiah scroll before?
>>25026744Yes, I have. In your world the KJV is has been specially preserved by God. This is at odds with the facts at hand. You're not going to admit your ignorance. In your world, admitting the KJV is imperfect is akin to apostasy. It is pointless to argue with somebody who takes his own rightness as a foregone conclusion. You're an idiot at best and a liar at worst.
I mentioned the "Isaiah scroll" by name here >>25026668 and here >>25026721 and then someone replied to me in greentext mentioning it here >>25026727 a third time where they directly made the claim that it "doesn't match" the Hebrew text. I said the Isaiah scroll matches, then some other anon said it's "demonstrably untrue," according to earlier posts in this thread. Yet they do match. The Great Isaiah scroll is the longest and most intact part of the entire cache of the Dead Sea scrolls, with much of the rest being fragments, some of which come from either text tradition.But to claim that none of the DSS match the Hebrew text when the Isaiah scroll exists and anyone can look it up, is just historical revisionism and plain wrong. The fact that it exists basically dismantles the whole point about claiming the Hebrew text was fabricated in the 10th century AD or was altered at that time or whatever, and therefore it's a very relevant point for this discussion. This is before we get into ancient commentary proving that people like Jerome had access to it, including the parts that are sometimes claimed to be invented by the Masoretes (which again is untrue).I also pointed to six (6) concrete examples where the Septuagint has Messianic prophecies removed. Nobody has refuted these. Someone posted one (1) supposed example to the contrary, but I showed (here >>25026721) that this isn't a missing prophecy, because it's actually contained in Psalm 148:2 in the Hebrew text.
>>25026768>But to claim that none of the DSS match the Hebrew text when the Isaiah scroll exists and anyone can look it upNobody said this. There are minor, but significant differences. Even if the MT Isaiah scroll were hypothetically perfectly matched with the DSS (which it isn't), it wouldn't follow that the rest of the MT is flawless and matches with the DSS (because it doesn't)
>>25026768>I also pointed to six (6) concrete examples where the Septuagint has Messianic prophecies removed.Just for reference, the examples are:Psalm 2:12Isaiah 9:6Jeremiah 33:15Zechariah 12:10 (quoted by Revelation 1:7)Hosea 11:1 (quoted by Matthew 2:15)Habakkuk 3:13I can also show how about 1/8 of the book of Jeremiah is removed, missing or omitted in the Septuagint, including many messianic prophecies such as Jeremiah 33:15, which says the following:"In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land."(Jeremiah 33:15 KJV)I can also point out and enumerate more than 30 whole entire verses from the book of Proverbs, and more than 100 more verses from other Old Testament books that are completely removed in the Septuagint. This is before we get to partial removals or alterations, of which there are many. Yet none of these seems to include a messianic prophecy that isn't already found in the Hebrew, at least I've never seen or been presented with a single real example of one. I would be interested if someone could actually find one.>>25026775It's nice that you changed your position now, anon, but this post (>>25026727) whoever it was, originally claimed that the Isaiah scroll specifically doesn't match the Hebrew source used by the KJV, when it actually does. That's what I was responding to.
>>25026778>It's nice that you changed your position now, anon, but this post (>>25026727 (You)) whoever it was, originally claimed that the Isaiah scroll specifically doesn't match the Hebrew source used by the KJV, when it actually does. That's what I was responding to.I haven't changed my position. The DSS and MT Isaiah are similar, but not identical. Most of the changes are relatively minor, some are more significant. Neither the DSS, nor the MT, nor the LXX, nor the KJV are immaculate. They are all mostly similar, but none perfect. Some translations are better than others.Btw the KJV is Masonic and Anglican (sees the king as Church leader) in origin :^)
>>25026765
>>25026796>Neither the DSS, nor the MT, nor the LXX, nor the KJVThe sources that the KJV used are the same as the inspired originals. They used the "received" form of the original languages for both Old Testament and New Testament.Compared to these unchanging and unchanged originals, the KJV is an accurate translation to English that has become the standard. The English language itself has grown up around the translation, making it hard to make the case that anything it translated is inaccurate, or else all the dictionaries written that used it as a source (such as Webster's dictionary of 1828 or Samuel Johnson's dictionary) are also inaccurate.Compared to this, the DSS is a cache of ancient writings, most of which is fragmentary but notably there is one intact scroll that completely validates the Hebrew text tradition, not that we needed it but it's so noteworthy that I brought it up in this discussion as extra evidence.The Masoretic Text is an offshoot of the original Hebrew text that varies in some places, for example it says "Adonai" instead of the Tetragrammaton "Jehovah" in Malachi 1:12 (as pointed out here already: >>25026668). The MT didn't get published in printed form until Rudol Kittel's 3rd edition of Biblia Hebraica in 1937. It is similar to the KJV's Hebrew source, but not quite the same. Unfortunately, many modern translations use the MT as a source instead of the Hebrew original source text that the KJV used. These modern translations do in fact contain some inaccurate translations in a number of places I am aware of such as 1 Kings 20:38,41 ("ashes" is replaced with "bandage"). This is on top of clearly modern-zionist interpretations in some modern translations including the NKJV in Genesis 22:17 (translating the singular "seed" meaning Christ as a plural "descendants" for example, even though Paul makes this point about singular seed meaning Christ unmistakeably clear in Galatians 3:16).
>>25026820>The sources that the KJV used are the same as the inspired originals.Again, back to assertion of dogma with no real argument.> It is similar to the KJV's Hebrew source, but not quite the same.Whether it is completely identical or nearly identical to the MT makes little difference. Either way, the manuscripts were preserved by Jews who emphatically rejected Christ's divinity.
>>25026839>dogma>dogma>dogma>but it doesn't matter bro they're almost the same!I'm lost a fuck and can tell you've long lost this argument.
>>25026859KJV is a good translation overall but not special or perfect. That's it. Believe whatever you want. I might as well argue with an AI programmed to defend the KJV and never concede any point. Have a nice night.
