/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>531320

Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti V. Pontificis maximi jussu recognita, et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita

>>531320

For real? the Dead Sea Scrolls and the earliest NT manuscripts, but since you're unlikely can read either, find a translation that utilize both of them in translation, which I think the ESV and NTSB uses.

>>531320

Douay-Rheims.

KJV if you're a brainlet who doesn't understand advanced words such as rational, holocaust, tunic, or paschal

>>531320

King James

Douay Rheims if you think Saul was a one year old during the events of 1 Samuel and think Moses grew little devil horns when he spoke to God

The New American Standard Bible seems to be the best modern translation as far as I can tell. Thanks for your input.

>>531320

Expanded Bible (EXB) is pretty good if you're a newbie to the Bible

There is no reason read NASB when you have NET, NASB is too literal such that the original meaning could be lost, NET has many footnotes that allows you to dive deep into the Bible

"NIV is evil" is a meme, that only applies to the new versions which does gender neutral, go with the old version of NIV

KJV is solid and should be your eventual goal to read cover-to-cover, but go with the Bible translation that encourages you to read God's Word

MEV is the modern adaptation of KJV using the same textus receptus, there is no reason to use NKJV when you have MEV

I personally don't like ESV, but ESV audio is easy to listen to

Also, https://blueletterbible.org is a great resource, since they include the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and you can dive deep into the Bible and look up certain terms that way, that should address your concern about if you're reading the "true Word of God" since you have the original manuscripts right there in front of you

Lastly, regarding the "true Word of God," some translations are better than others, few are heretical and should be avoided at all costs, but reading the Bible with the Holy Spirit is very important

>>531320

http://www.pidginbible.org/Concindex.html

>>531338

Thank you so much, I really appreciate this.

>>531385

>>KJV is solid and should be your eventual goal to read cover-to-cover, but go with the Bible translation that encourages you to read God's Word

RSV CE / RSV2CE is the best

>>531378

I second this

>anything other than an interlinear bible

>>531378

I would just like to point out that the NRSV doesn't just use gender neutral pronouns to refer to people. It also uses it to refer to God, which is pretty bad. It actually takes out the phrase "Son of Man" from the old testament, for example.

>>531320

Pastor Steven Anderson has a good video on this, it's worth watching, it shows how curroupt the other versions are.

>>531515

You do know that nobody ever actually spoke like that, right? It's a poetic form of the language that was only used in theater and verse. King James specifically commissioned a poetic Bible.

James Moffatt Translation

I've been reading the MEV which so far has done pretty good justice as far as reading clearly. I don't much like the NASB for the way it reads nor the NET for I think the NET strays a little too much in scripture. I couldn't do the ESV nor the NIV for they don't capitalize when they refer to the Lord (like in He, Him). I don't have the actual MEV bible since they highlight in red the words of the Lord when He speaks but I use the Bible app on iPhone to read my scripture. All in all I suppose you can go through each of them and see which one you prefer, it's good to know where they have gotten their original translation from and all their sources, I would stay away from anything translated from the Alexandrian era, as they have been corrupted by gnostics and make subtle changes in the divinity of the Lord.

>>531525

Yeah, the other versions don't include unicorns and satyrs. Can't be God's Word.

New American Standard Version.

I have about 13 Bibles (RSV2CE, Vulgate, DRA, EXB, ESV, KJV, NRSVACE, Peshitta, Orthodox Study Bible…) and its probably my favorite.

Its the most literal to the Greek and Hebrew with it still being really easy to read.

Don't let the Textus Receptus memers fool you, the KJV uses manuscripts that add things that are not found in the oldest manuscripts. Stuff like the comma johanneum that are clearly interpolations.

>>531378

Using this right now. I wouldn't recommend anything else.

>>531567

L U T H E R B I B L E

U

T

H

E

R

B

I

B

L

E

>>531567

Die überarbeitete Einheitsübersetzung = Standard der Katholischen Kirche. Ansonsten, wenn dir altdeutsch gefällt, die Luther-Bibel. Oder du kannst ganz ausgefallen sein und die Vulgata lesen (ist aber nicht deutsch).

Solltest du orthodox sein, es gibt noch keine orthodoxe deutschsprachige Bibel. Die "Orthodox Study Bible" ist aber sehr gut (auch für Katholiken). Momentan wird an einer deutschsprachigen orthodoxen Bibel gearbeitet, ich müsste jetzt aber suchen, wie der Blog heißt, der darüber informiert. Sollte es mir einfallen, poste ich ihne noch

Gott segne dich !

>>531567

>>531673

Aye, habs gefunden: http://btd-bibel.com

O R T H O D O X S T U D Y B I B L E

R

T

H

O

D

O

X

S

T

U

D

Y

B

I

B

L

E

wew lad this thread's gonna be a ride

try to be nice to each other

>>532685

>one horn

The animal you have pictured has two, can you even count?

>>532992

Deus eduxit eum de Aegypto cuius fortitudo similis est rinocerotis. Numbers xxiij. 22

 numquid volet rinoceros servire tibi aut morabitur ad praesepe tuum;

numquid alligabis rinocerota ad arandum loro tuo aut confringet glebas vallium post te

Job xix. 9-10

salva me ex ore leonis et a cornibus unicornium humilitatem meam Psalm xxi. 21

Seputgait says μονοκερως

>>532992

Indian Rhinoceros has 1 horn

>>531400

>but go with the Bible translation that encourages you to read God's Word

I would agree with this but I don't see how reading a factually incorrect translation would be more encouraging. The real word of God has a strong effect. I never enjoyed reading any of those newer versions until I found out about the received text and how ((Westcott & Hort)) changed the whole formula. Knowing that I have the original words before ((they)) altered it is what makes reading it so attractive.

>>532998

If this was all they had… you'll never win with these people. It should have been obvious from the moment they brought that objection up.

>>531328

HHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHA

no

1 Samuel 13:1 Douay-Rheims

Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.

>>535683

1 mistake over the 100 mistakes that KJV has, in addition to removed books because of "le angry monk".

the DSS confirming that Luther's assumption that the deutercanonical books had no hebrew originals is false, completely changed my mind

no reason to read a truncated word of God like the KJV.

>>535685

I don't see any errors in KJV and they did translate the Apocrypha you tard

>>535686

He removed it into an "appendix" that most Baptists 500 years later will never tell their congregation exists.

I'm sorry, but the KJV is only relevant for historical and literary interests.

>>535685

Show us the error then. I'm just as sure you would be willing to adress the errors in 1 samuel 17:51, 2 samuel 21:19, mark 1:2, malichi 3:1, acts 7:45, and deutoronomy 31-32 that are in every other version in existence other then the 1611 KJV.

Because God can't lie titus 1:2 it would be horrifieing if you found a real error because of God's word being above His own name psalms 138:2. Along with 2 peter 1:20 stating that the Bible is not of private interpretation. Ontop of the word being useful for all things doctrine i.e 2 timothy 3:16. And especially since you should come to the knowledge of the truth as a Christian 2 timothy 3:7 and hebrews 4:12.

>>535685

>100 mistakes that KJV has,

Can't name one.

>the DSS confirming that Luther's assumption

>Luther

Huh?

>that the deutercanonical books had no hebrew originals

They don't, and there is nothing in there that shows otherwise. Also there isn't even a Greek version of Scripture, except the Pentateuch that dates before Origen, much less a Hebrew version of any of apocrypha. This is classically absurd.

>>535693

>Because God can't lie

agreed, so all the other biblical translations 1500 years before the KJV Bible - as well as the the other biblical translations 500 years after - ARE in error?

you're inventing a bunch of other fuzzy points that are irrelevant to me or my point

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/errors.html

here you go, took me 0.1 seconds in google search. KJV is not the true, definitive, authoritative Word of God, I'm sorry :(

>>535696

>prove a negative with a negative

How about you find a error in the KJV first.

>>535698

>hurpa derp the kjv has different doctrine I don't like and make up words to redefine since I can't into 2 peter 1:20

Show a contradiction not something you "think" is wrong because you don't like what it says.

>>535704

I have no issues with what any of it says, I have an issue with the idea that this particular translation has any foundation as THE word of God. There are more accurate, more truthful translations of the word of God, why should I care for KJV outside of a literary context?

And again, the versions passed off as "THE word of God" are truncated from the "Apocrypha" of someone making a wrong assumption.

it's all so silly

>>535707

>are truncated from the "Apocrypha" of someone making a wrong assumption.

I mean, truncated from the deutercanonical books because of Martin Luther making an incorrect assumption.

Why should we throw out those books again? It's what Christ knew of his own time, right?

>>535707

>what God says

>silly

>>535709

>Why should we throw out those books again? It's what Christ knew of his own time, right?

Ye shall know them by their fruits. See Matthew 7:15-20

>Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

>Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

>Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

>A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

>every tree that bringeth not forth food fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

>Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Since God, who cannot lie titus 1:2, said his word shall endure forever 1 peter 1:25. His word must endure and by extension exist. Christians can see this by discerning the fruits of the prophets claiming to write for God. I.E isaiah, paul, the kjv translators, and etc. If their fruit is rotten, which is to say contains lies or contradictions, then it is not of God. Plain and simple.

>>535711

?

But the KJV used the earlier, authoritative, Douay-Rheims editions as a basis to assist in translation, how come you don't worship that as the sole word of God?

is there any scripture to support the King James Bible as the Word of God? Did God speak english to Adam?

>>535712

Did you read nothing? God Himself said that He would preserve His word forever 1 peter 1:25. Since all scripture is given by inspiration of God 2 timothy 3:16, if it is really scripture that is. Then you can tell it is of God by it's fruits Matthew 7:15-20 of not contradicting/making God a liar titus 1:2.

These people were literally inspired by God if it is real scripture 2 timothy 3:16. So it doesn't matter what "flawed" version they based it off of if it doesn't make God a liar IF and only IF they are inspired by God in the first place.

Which is circular logic as it requires the faith that God exists and tells the truth.

>>535714

>Did you read nothing? God Himself said that He would preserve His word forever

then why did He grant the apostles the ability to speak in tongues, AKA other languages?

Did God or Christ ever speak English at some point? Shouldn't you know Greek under this reasoning?

ah okay, I get it! I get it now. When the apostles began to speak in tongues, that's when they learned English and wrote the King James bible right?

>>535718

>then why did He grant the apostles the ability to speak in tongues, AKA other languages?

See 1 corinthians 14:4,19,22

>He that speaketh in an unkown tongue edifieth himself; bu he that prophesieth edifieth the church

>Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue

>Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that velieve, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

>Did God or Christ ever speak English at some point? Shouldn't you know Greek under this reasoning?

It doesn't matter if you are greek or jew or roman or english Galatians 3:28. Also see 1 corinthians 14:21

>In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yuet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

>>535724

>believe

Should be

>believe

I keep having to type the verses out by hand.

another thing, if female ordination and gay rights and abortions are going on, does this mean KJV is not the Word of God going by "fruit of the works"? America has been pretty staunchly KJV for a while now, really makes you think

>>535725

>velieve

that is

>>535724

okay, but where is the scripture that says the protestant King James and his translators shall inherit the true Word of God from the greek? has anyone checked revelations for this?

>>535707

Most of those are very petty attempts to reword things without a solid basis since whoever wrote this doesn't understand how those words really work. Futhermore, none of these are actual contradictions such as Mark 1:2 quoting Malachi and claiming it's Isaiah. Not only that, but a few of these objections are downright wrong, like 1 Corinthians 1:18. It is "unto us which are saved." And Hebrews 9:28 is in the correct order because he bear the sins of many and then he will be without sin again in the second appearance. That's in the right order. And the love of money is THE root of all evil, not just a root.

Matthew 24:24 the elect can't be deceived because they are saved. Luke 23:43 you can't change the punctuation like that, and Jesus still being in heaven is perfectly in line with John 3:13. Also, don't alter the meaning of Jesus' words in Luke 9:50. Don't alter the meaning of Philippians 3:3. And in 1 Peter 2:2 you don't have to grow "unto salvation" since it's already attained.

>>535726

>America has been pretty staunchly KJV for a while now,

I wish.

>>535728

Scripture says that the word of God will never pass away, from this generation forever.

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1 Peter 1:23-25

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

>>535730

ok, but where is the scripture preparing us for the second coming of God, aka the King James Bible?

>>535726

No, NIV is the most sold one

>>535731

Umm what? God does not = His word. His word is higher then His name see psalms 138:2. The "Word" of John 1 is capitilized. While all other referenced to what God says i.e His "word" are uncapitilized. Huge difference.

Read the Bible and lurk two years now.

>>535734

but pastor anderson told me so.

anyways, i'm still waiting for the passage where Christ says his true word wouldn't come unto us except from King James

>>535736

Why care about the traditions of men if they make God out to be a liar matthew 15:3,6-9? Follow God and His son Jesus Christ and no others.

>where Christ says his true word

God says He will preserve his word. You either believe He did or you don't.

"ignore everything said in greek or latin until english 1000ish years from now, my bros" - saint augustine, 481 AD.

checks out, but I'm not comfortable accepting the King James Bible as anything more than a fallible translation

>>535741

Prove it isn't. I asked this to begin with.

>>535742

Why must I? I need proof that Christ or God told me that I must regard anything other than the King James Bible as a lie.

>>535736

KJV isn't the only good Bible. It's the best english one but the ones before it are also good

>>535745

Would you be willing to move on to another, better English Bible in the future?

>>535745

Name a version in english and I will show you otherwise.

>>535744

>Why must I? I need proof

>I need proof of something invisible that can't be proven

No you need faith see Romans 10:17

>So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Which you very obviously don't have. So why are you here?

>>535748

I would be willing. If there were any others to begin with not by (((them)) and not corrupted.

>>535736

The KJV is just one correct translation of the actual received text into English. The same exact Greek and Hebrew worded originals it used have always been known since they were written. If you remain this agitated I'm not sure what else te tell you.

>>535741

You either believe God can give you his unchanged word or not. If you do, there's only one choice.

Otherwise, you must think maybe the unchanged original word got forgotten somewhere and was rediscovered, maybe piecewise, or partially, later, through "revelation by archaeology." But I hope you don't think that the almighty God couldn't even preserve his word.

If you do think that God somehow failed, to preserve his word, then there really is no good answer for you.

>>535754

but Jesus Christ was a jew, what do you do?!

>>535752

>I have scripture and all I need is faith

>I have faith and all I need is scripture

ah. so KJV-onlyism is the grandest circular argument of all time.

>>535755

>You either believe God can give you his unchanged word or not. If you do, there's only one choice.

I do. And I don't believe it was the King James Bible. Do I go to hell? There's no scripture telling me that the King James Bible is the authentic Word of God.

>>535757

>but Jesus Christ was a jew, what do you do?!

See >>535754

>any others to begin with not by (((them))) and not corrupted.

>and not corrupted

By their fruits ye shall know them matthew 7:15-20. It would be scripture from God in accordance with 1 peter 1:25 if it weren't corrupted. So it being corrupted and by any other person then God goes hand in hand.

>ah. so KJV-onlyism is the grandest circular argument of all time.

Did I not already say this?!?!?!? Look here >>535714

>>535760

ok, so how do you know it's not corrupted?

>>535760

Ah, you did say that. But that's retarded.

>>535758

Well all the other versions have changed, so there is either one or none. Because the Vulgate is a translation into Latin, not the original, and the alleged sources for it were lost. And it's pointless to appeal to newly discovered manuscripts like the dead sea scrolls, the codex sinaiticus, or anything like that because nobody had that before.

>>535761

>ok, so how do you know it's not corrupted?

By their fruits ye shall know them matthew 7:15-20.

<But that's retarded.

>he thinks what God says in the Bible is retarded, the post

Why are you still here? You still haven't pointed to an error in the KJV.

>>535763

Hmm, so if I reject the King James Bible, I'm not a Christian?

What if I only accept some other non-KJV Bible, am I still a Christian?

>>535764

>Hmm, so if I reject the King James Bible, I'm not a Christian?

No, if you use a version that makes God a liar then you yourself are a liar. Because you base your religion on falsehoods. No different then just doing what you feel like in such a case.

>Hmm, so if I reject the King James Bible, I'm not a Christian?

If you use a Bible that is really not a Bible because it makes God a liar, then you don't have a foundation for your faith.

>>535764

>so if I reject the King James Bible,

Then you'd be rejecting the word of God, so you tell me.

>What if I only accept some other non-KJV Bible

So you won't even name something specific that you say is better. Nor can you name a specific contradiction anywhere in the KJV. Interesting.

>>531485

https://archive.org/details/ESVInterlinearOT

https://archive.org/details/KingdomInterlinearGreekScriptures

>>535767

tbh this is where ecclesasties 3:18-21, Matthew 7:6, and 2 peter chapter 2 apply here.

>>535767

I don't need to name any other Bible, I just want to know if I'm a real independent fundamentalist Christian by not following the KJV.

>No, if you use a version that makes God a liar then you yourself are a liar.

N-no way!

>If you use a Bible that is really not a Bible because it makes God a liar, then you don't have a foundation for your faith.

Ah, so anything contrary to…anything said in the KJV is false. Even anything God or Christ themselves may say.

>>535770

>Ah, so anything contrary to…anything said in the Bible is false.

Show us a different version that is true then.

>>535771

But I cannot! Only the KJV is true.

>>535772

Then use the KJV version.

>>535772

well, mostly because you won't accept anything else as true, but…

>>535774

Show us then. You won't know till you show us. Then when you are correct you can know you tried edifieing the brethern and they would not accept rebuke. Which is then God's to rebuke.

>>535776

ok, how about Douay-Rheims?

>>535779

2 samuel 21:19 DRA

>And there was a third battle in Gob against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus the son of the Forrest an embroiderer of Bethlehem slew Goliath the Gethite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

1 samuel 17:33,51 DRA

>And Saul said to David: Thou art not able to withstand this Philistine, nor to fight against him: for thou art but a boy, but he is a warrior from his youth.

>He ran, and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath, and slew him, and cut off his head. And the Philistines seeing that their champion was dead, fled away.

Since God cannot lie Titus 1:2. Which is true and why?

>>535781

If you say, well David didn't really kill goliath. Then God is a liar if it were true. If you say, well Adeodatus didn't really kill Goliath, then God would be a liar if it were true. They both can't be true.

Hence why the fruit of this version is of lies and not of God who cannot lie. Do you have another version that could be true? I am all ears if you have another Bible other then the KJV that is true and in english. Otherwise I will stick to using the KJV which does not make God a liar.

I accept the KJV as my savior!

But, wasn't King James an Anglican? Why shouldn't I be an Anglican?

>>535786

Jesus is the savior of Christians see Acts 13:23.

>why shouldn't I be anglican

Because it doesn't matter for ye are all one in Christ if a Christian see Galatains 2:28

Read the Bible more or get out.

Galatains 3:28 I mean above.

>>535788

So then Baptists are actually Anglicans?

>>535790

No, Baptists and Anglicans are supposed to be Christians in accordance with Galatians 3:28. To paraphrase

>for ye are all on in Christ

one*

>>535791

So I can become Anglican, and accept both KJV AND works by faith? That's pretty awesome.

>>535794

Read the Bible more. It doesn't matter if you are anglican because all Christians are supposed to be one in Christ. Make a new thread if you have specific questions though.

Since this one is supposed to be for what the best editions/version of the Bible are.

>>535796

You mean the KJV Bible though right? It's a Bible for Anglicans, in accordance with Anglican theology right? How come you aren't Anglican?

Definitely The Message.

:^)