>the kjv is too difficult!Where did this meme come from? Show me a single verse that is too confusing.
>>25260218the syntax too juicythe semantics too buttery
It's full of typos.
>>25260222>Show me a single verse that is too confusing.
>>25260226is this— this is bait right?
>>25260235>Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.wtf even does this mean?
>>25260218entire book of job
>>25260243>Every good gift and every perfect gift is from aboveEvery gift that is good or perfect, comes from above.>and cometh down from the Father of lightsThose gifts come down from the Father>with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turningThe Father is unvarying and doesn't have a shadow of turning Seriously, you must be retarded if you couldn't understand that.
>>25260236The reuiewe? I doubt it. I don’t know why these people don’t juſt ſtick to the NIV.
>>25260235>She lusted after her paramours, whose genitals are[a] like those of donkeys, and whose emissions are like those of horses.-Ezekiel 23:20anons what is happening here?
>>25260218I find it funny that the landfill pile shows Shakespeare discarded in one corner while the KJV is propped up. Whoever made that pic has zero self awareness.
>>25260263>kjv
>>25260266my badhere you go>For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
>>25260235Numbers 31:17-18Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
>>25260275What's confusing about it? Seems pretty straightforward.
>>25260286It's just that other versions I have read (NIV, ESV, etc) seem to exclude the idea that the girls they kept alive were "children". Maybe you can explain that?
>>25260331it means virgins bro. untainted pussy.
>>25260337That is obvious, I just wanted to know about the "children" bit.
>>25260245> 4 guys sit around a campfire. one of them is the holiest man ever and the other 3 are his cleric friends who come to visit him when he is sick> the earth is hung upon nothing> will you pull leviathan with a fish hook?> and happily ever after the end
it used intentionally archaic diction and grammar (even for the time).
>>25260346What do you need explained?
>>25260405archaic ≠ confusing or difficult
>>25260426I'm just curious whether the girls were prepubescent or not. The KJV says "children" but other versions avoid that word in favor of "young girls" or stuff like that.
>>25260218Ackshually, Hegel should be on top :^)
>>25260439>prepubescent or notWhy not both?
KJV is the most influential Bible ever. Everyone should read KJV at least once.Then switch to a proper translation.
>>25260243"Shadow of turning" is weird in any translation. A few lexicons suggest that the word translated "turning" is used in the context of the revolution of heavenly bodies, so my guess is that it's contrasting God with the sun, which (from a geocentric perspective) is always revolving around the earth, so any given place is only lit up about half the time and spends the other half in shadow. Alternatively but similarly, the intended contrast could be with the phases of the moon.
>>25260222I love the sound of that. Nice trips is the cherry on top.
>>25260606It's probably just a metaphor. Turning means change, so a commoratio of variableness. Shadow metaphorically means a small degree, similar to "shade". So a "shadow of turning" means a shade of change, or a degree of variableness.
>>25260627This is how I interpreted it until I thought about it intentionally for the first time, but since in the very same verse James calls God "the Father of the lights (Young's Literal Translation)" and refers to gifts "from above," I'm really pushed toward there being an intended comparison to the sun and/or moon.
>>25260263She lusted after many lovers whose cocks were as big as donkeys and their orgasms were as strong as those that horses have. It's saying she's a filthy whore who's many lovers are animalistic chads.
>>25260633The NIV goes with "who does not change like shifting shadows" which seems to be more interpretive than word-for-word, but if just the "shifting shadows" part is taken as valid, then you could insert it into one of the more word-for-word translations to get "with whom there is no variation or shifting shadows" in which case the shadows could correspond to the shadows cast by sun which shift throughout the day, which God's "light" doesn't result in because his presence is continuous.
>>25260674*his presence is stable
>>25260633If the contrast is to the moon, a good translation might be "revolving shadow," which would be a fine description of what's responsible for the phases of the moon.
Strong's Greek lexicon makes it sound like the word translated "variableness" also has a primary meaning associated with planets or stars. https://biblehub.com/greek/3883.htm>1. transmutation (of phase or orbit)Could it be that every major English translation has botched this verse by missing an implied sun and moon comparison? I wouldn't be surprised.
>>25260674Oh yeah, if you think of it as "turning of shadow", you can think of a sundial.
>>25260243>Every good gift and every perfect gift is from aboveAll gifts that are okay or worse do not come from above.>and cometh down from the Father of lightsGod, who created light, will send something down to Earth.>with whom is no variablenessThis something does not change.>neither shadow of turningHe also sent down something evil and treacherous. It doesn't matter if you misinterpret as long as you tried!
>>25260845>It doesn't matter if you misinterpret as long as you triedyes, what matters is Ps 50. but the shadow of turning is on the sundial
A second translation issue with James 1:17 is what the heck a "perfect gift" is, and my guess, based on the range of meanings of the word translated "perfect," which includes things like "completed," "fully accomplished," and "finished," as well as by comparison with 2 Corinthians 8 which speaks of completing a gift according to one's means and abundance meeting a need being the intention behind giving, is that it means a gift that fully meets a need.So if someone is dying of thirst, giving them a single drop of water would not be a "finished gift." A finished gift would be when you give them enough water that they no longer feel thirsty.
>>25261329My partial cobbled-together interpretation so far, using the NRSV as a base, is something like:Every generous act of giving (has good motivation behind it), with every gift that fully meets a need (has a good final result), is from above, coming down (like sunlight) from the Father of the lights (the sun, moon, and stars), with whom there is no variableness (in position, unlike the sun, which rises and sets) or revolving shadow (unlike the moon, whose light is hidden periodically by phases).So the image is that God is like the sun, except instead of radiating light, he continually radiates altruistic love, so that all humans who act with generosity toward others are doing so because they've opened themselves up to receiving some of God's love and God's love is acting through them to help others. And unlike the sun he never sets, and unlike the moon he never darkens.
>>25261413Taking into account that they definitely knew the earth was a sphere back then, God having an unchanging position while still being able to shine on everything would mean he should be thought of not like a single orb in the sky somewhere, but like a fixed sphere extending beyond the stars and containing the whole universe within himself.
>>25260218>The Bible>"NOOOO, you don't understand, we NEED the daughter/father incest story where they trick their dad into impregnating them. That CAN'T be cut. What? No, I'm not breathing heavy, why do you ask?"
>all these personal interpretations of scriptureEnjoy Hell!
>>25262212It's all made up anyway, anon. You don't really believe a magic space entity actually interacts with humanity, do you?
>>252622122 Peter (the source of the "no private interpretations" verse) is a forgery made by someone seething at Christians closer to the originals who understood the gospels to be mythical allegories. Hence the "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" and perhaps "there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—"
>>25260218>too difficult!You.The KJV is too altered. Not really worth using in any church setting. Unless you're a fucking bastard with the Anglican church
