/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>reading through the different version of the verse

>get to MSG

<“You still have a few followers of Jesus in Sardis who haven’t ruined themselves wallowing in the muck of the world’s ways. They’ll walk with me on parade! They’ve proved their worth!

animegirlholdinghandovermouthtryingtocontainthelaughterbutsomestillslipsout.gif

Regarding your question though, I'm not equipped to answer it, and am curious to see what other anons can come up with.

>So what has happened here?

2 timothy 3:16 happened if it is really scripture.

>The "even" isn't in the Textus Receptus, or the MLV would have included it. It's in both the KJV and YLT. Did they make the same error, separately, through pure coincidence?

How is it in error? Does it make God a liar if it were true? No? Then who cares because if it is scripture it would be of God.

>Where did the "even" come from, which changes the meaning of the whole verse?

2 peter 1:21 of course is where. But this requires believing God exists and what He says is true in accordance with titus 1:2.

If you want to get really philosophical/scholarly/theologic against what colossians 2:8 says. Then realise that even though for the TLB in mark 1:2 and malachi 3:1 https://archive.fo/N7d6s , the YLT in 2 samuel 21:19 and 1 samuel 17:51 https://archive.fo/eNdwv , and the MLV in 2 samuel 21:19 and 1 samuel 17:51 https://archive.fo/drPrs would make God a liar against titus 1:2 if they were true, which they are not couldn't find the BRG online to check but it is most likely false and makes God a liar if it is true too.

But these (((versions))) are much more accurate to the peices of scrap and trash paper known as the (((textus receptucus))), (((the septugant))), and (((dead sea trash peices))) which the fake (((jews))), that are actually babylonians, say to us are true. But we christians do what matthew 7:15-20 says to discern if it is of God in accordance with 2 peter 1:21, and not of (((men))) as 2 timothy 3:16 says.

>This is important because it changes the meaning very much:

Yes it is very important. If it were true those versions would make God a liar. But they aren't true and they aren't of God. But you will find no such errors that would make God a liar in the KJV. But you would find them in the NKJV because of acts 7:45 and deutonomy 31.

Have any more questions? Was this just a bait thread to turn into a KJV only banning spree or did you have legit questions OP?

Aight I'll bud in just to compare.

The vulgate says:

>sed habes pauca nomina in Sardis qui non inquinaverunt vestimenta sua et ambulabunt mecum in albis quia digni sunt

It just says "You have few names in Sardis", no 'even' to be found.

The Dutch Peter Canisius translation from 1939 (the last good complete translation in Dutch) says:

>Toch hebt ge in Sardes er enkelen, die hun klederen niet hebben besmet; met Mij zullen ze wandelen in het wit gekleed, omdat ze daartoe waardig zijn.

This says "Though you have some in Sardis", again no 'even' to be found.

Biblehub shows that the Greek version also says 'a few' instead of 'even':

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/3-4.htm

>>581687

>it changes the meaning very much

i'm not sure "even" is being used as an adverb here,

sometimes "even" is being used as a relative pronoun or functioning as a hyphen would in the kjv

>[…]there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. (John 5:45 KJV)

>[…]there is one that accuseth you, - Moses, in whom ye trust.

>[…]there is one that accuseth you, that is to say, Moses, in whom ye trust. (i think it's being used like this in Rev 3:4)

>[…]there is one that accuseth you, who is Moses, in whom ye trust.

>[…]there is one that accuseth you, that is Moses, in whom ye trust.

it's just a cute idiosyncrasy of kjv english, kjv isn't completely a word-for-word translation.

>Nothing is said about the others

but even if "even" was being used as an adverb, the first 3 verses of the chapter are bashing sardis pretty hard:

<1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

<2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

<3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. (Rev 3:1-3)

>>581687

>The "even" isn't in the Textus Receptus, or the MLV would have included it. It's in both the KJV and YLT. Did they make the same error, separately, through pure coincidence?

The Modern Literal Version isn’t a translation of the Textus Receptus. That’s the answer to your question. The MLV translators even have a essay on their website on why they use the majority text instead of the TR

http://modernliteralversion.org/bibles/MLV/whymaj.htm

Looking at other majority text Bibles, the “even” is gone.

http://www.biblehub.com/revelation/3-4.htm

So the MLV is a majority text Bible that’s doing the same thing as other majority text Bibles, and the KJV is a Textus Receptus bible doing the same thing as other Textus Receptus Bibles. Not confusing at all

>>581687

I have 2 bibles in Estonian, I have translated the verse into English:

Estonian Bible Society, 1997 (Gideons International):

"But in Sardes you have some, who have not dirtied their clothes, and they can walk along with me in white clothes, because they are worthy of it."

Finnish Bible Society, 1989

"But still you also have in Sardes some names, who haven't polluted their clothes, and they must walk with me in white clothes, because they are worthy of it."

There is the word "ka", which means "also".

Comparing the beginnings:

"Kuid Sardeses on sul mõned",

But Sardes-in is you-on some-PLURAL

"Ometi on sul ka Sardeses mõned nimed"

Still is you-on also Sardes-in some-PLURAL names

The word "ometi" could be translated as "still", "even still", "but still", "regardless", "despite everything", or just as an intensifier.

>>581710

>hafizposting

CEASE