/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

ESV is not bad but it lacks the poetry added back in some of the more dynamic translations. You should have one, but a NKJV or RSV will be more beautiful.

I also had good luck recently with NLT recently, some young believers weren't getting it with a more formal equivalence transition, they got it better with that one.

>>672295

The CSB uses gender neutral language, so if a non-equivalent translation is what you're looking for, you found it. And by non-equivalent, I mean something that doesn't say what the original says.

>>672338

>ESV is not bad but it lacks the poetry added back in some of the more dynamic translations. You should have one, but a NKJV or RSV will be more beautiful.

Those are all popular non-equivalent translations, but interesting is the fact that they don't agree with each other in certain places. For instance, the ESV removed Acts 8:37, but the NKJV keeps it. Also the ESV removes the words "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22 and removes the words "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24. This is just one of the many choices you will have to make when choosing between non-equivalent translations, like deciding whether Jesus said the words "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22, or whether Acts 8:37 or Mark 16:9-20 is actual scripture or not, and that really makes a big difference in what you believe. So choose carefully because it's more than mere stylistic differences.

I personally go for the equivalent translations to the original, and I prefer the KJV in 1900 format. It doesn't remove or add any scripture. I think that's more important than style.

>I also had good luck recently with NLT recently,

The NLT removes the word "Christ" from Acts 20:21, but the ESV has the word "Christ" there. Do you think Acts 20:21 should have the word Christ in it or not?

>>672370

>KJV doesn't remove or add any scripture.

wrong

>>672295

CSB is not a good translation, it's largely not formal equivalence, and it has an obvious doctrinal/political slant.

Try something that's more formal equivalence like KJV, MEV, or even NASB is better. If you have trouble understanding a passage because of the way its phrased then just consult a good plain language commentary.

>>672295

Also the CSB was translated for the singular purpose of making Holman publishing more munni.

>>672370

I would assume anyone looking for a new translation is already familiar with the major textual variants and MT/TR/CT issues. I don't think they change the substance of the message.

>>672408

>I would assume anyone looking for a new translation is already familiar with the major textual variants and MT/TR/CT issues.

You'd be surprised how many people think it's just a matter of updated language. This is probably a result of the fact the modern versions market themselves as such, and tend to downplay or ignore the variant differences contained in them. I haven't seen the ESV or others marketing themselves on the fact they remove or add certain things over others, including their rivals. They tend to de-emphasize that and to emphasize the writing style and translation methodology itself of their translations, leading most people to conclude they are interchangeable. It's certainly a good marketing strategy to get people to buy it.

I mostly use The Jerusalem Bible or the NOAB RSV (bear in mind the new editions use NRSV, but it's not too hard to pick up older editions with RSV) when I'm at home.

I have a couple "pocket" bibles that are KJV, RSV-CE, and NASB that I carry with me, especially to church.

I use the original Rheims dissected and reassembled by a Python program, replacing the old English with modern English that conveys the same message intended at the times and even replaces some phrases with literal Greek translations. All because I'm too edgy to read a Bible affected even the slightest by pilpul.

>>672295

>Thoughts on the CSB translation?

https://archive.fo/6Wine https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7&version=CSB

john 7:8-10 CSB

>Go up to the festival yourselves. I’m not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”

>After he had said these things, he stayed in Galilee.

>After his brothers had gone up to the festival, then he also went up, not openly but secretly.

Here Jesus says he is not going up to the festival, and then goes up anyways. Either the translators speaking by the spirit of prophecy because of testifieing of Jesus due to revelation 19:10 and 2 peter 1:21 are liars and false prophets or God is a liar against titus 1:2. But God can not lie so the translators are liars instead.

Personally I use the KJV as it is the only version that wouldn't make God a liar if it were true, which it is true. Sage because this thread is probably bait.

>>672397

The KJV is universally recognized as a shitty translation because the limited number of manuscripts they had available. Modern translations are much more accurate because they use older sources and cross reference across many more sources when there are conflicts between manuscripts

>>672542

>Modern translations are much more accurate

You mean like in how the modern CSB posted above would literally make God a liar if it were true, which it is not true? You could go take your accuracy and be a liar but christians must worship God in spirit and in truth john 4:24. Just because the KJV is so called "less accurate" doesn't make it any more, or less, truthful. But rather ye shall know them by their fruits matthew 7:15-20.

>>672295

I really like the language of the KJV, however it's not a very accurate translation and even worse is a protestant one.

So I use mainly the RSVCE, it leans toward a more literal translation, it follows in the literary tradition of the KJV, it's Catholic, it's a more modern translation so it's breddy accurate.

>>672574

Is that just the RSV or is the Ignatius Bible something else?

>>672583

It's a Catholic version of the RSV. Called the RSV 2CE (2nd Catholic Edition). The copyright is owned by Ignatius Press so it's just called the Ignatius bible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition

>>672614

>every other version is fraudulent and ripe with heresy.

How did you come to this conclusion? Would you share it, as no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretation 2 peter 1:20-21. Also john 7:8-10 Douay-Rheims http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50007.htm https://archive.fo/cmkZ3

>Go you up to this festival day, but I go not up to this festival day: because my time is not accomplished.

>When he had said these things, he himself stayed in Galilee.

>But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but, as it were, in secret.

Either the translators speaking by the spirit of prophecy/revelation 19:10 are liars and false prophets or God is a liar for this version. Since God can't lie titus 1:2 the translators are false prophets and liars thereof.

>>672574

i used to think i liked the rsv2ce but now i've gone to the douay rheims. i just like it a lot more so far.

>>672531

I assume this is BS, but on the offchance it's not…

Link?

>>672574

This is what I'm reading. Up to 1st Samuel so far. Would recommend.

>>672534

The KJV says the same thing

8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.

9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7&version=KJV&interface=amp

Am I missing something?

CSB may be the only English translation to use BHS5 (OT) and NA28/UBS5 (NT). Basically, it's the newest out of the popular translations. Does newest mean better? I dunno, maybe. Though Holman is a Southern Baptist org, I hear claims of bias but have yet to see any specifics (Ex: 1 Tim 3:15). Lurking this thread because I'm openly curious if any knows of any.

>>672614

>The Douay-Rheims is the only true Bible.

Who says this?

>>672698

Why are you quoting the Jewish Bible in this image? Is it because you already know the Authorized version has it right?

>>672867

It uses gender neutral language. So that there amounts to thousands of instances where they add what isn't there to scripture. I haven't even bothered checking where else they draw corruptions from their particular critical text. The critical text is always changing.

>>672902

>Who says this?

People who hold that the vulgate is true.

>>672904

They say nobody should read the RSV or NRSV and that it is ripe with heresy?

>>672906

I don't trust them because they might be corrupt.

>>672906

The RSV was avoided by conservatives because of one verse: Is 7:14 following MT "young woman" as opposed to LXX's "virgin". Because of this ONE verse, it was shunned as being "too liberal". Ironically, it's the much favored version of "conservative" Catholics and is used commonly by Catholic apologists.

NRSV is excessively gender-inclusive (see Ps 1:1), though is commonly used in seminaries, liturgy, and with progressive mainline Protestants. It is probably the most ecumenical of the modern versions.

Is this enough to label these versions as heretical?

>>672621

I have that. It's way too big to casually read.

>>673034

The NASB is supposedly the most faithful translation to the original Greek/Hebrew and is used by scholars. The flipside is that the language is often a bit stilted because they're trying to fit the square peg of English into the round hole of Greek grammar.

>>672913

>Is 7:14 following MT "young woman"

It says virgin there too. Only Jewish translations distort this word's lexicography. So I guess whoever made that decision must have been influenced by them.

>Is this enough to label these versions as heretical?

If they distort Isaiah 7:14 then yes that's more than enough. But my question arises because the RCC teaches that these are officially good translations and equally on par with the ones you promoted. Well, in English my church only uses the Authorized KJV, and it does not promote non-equivalent translations to those. That's why I asked. But yes, I agree that the RSV and NRSV are very bad.

>>673034

>Is there anything blaringly wrong with the NASB?

Yes unfortunately. There are way too many differences to list, but here are a few you should definitely check and be aware of the differences present.

<Matthew 5:22 "without a cause" removed

>Mark 1:2 says Malachi 3:1 is "written in prophet Isaiah" when it is not

>Mark 9:42 "that believe in me" removed (NASB only)

>Mark 10:24 "for them that trust in riches" removed

<Luke 2:33 not "Joseph and his mother" but "his father and his mother"

<Luke 23:42 "Lord" removed

>John 5:16 "sought to slay him" removed

>John 6:47 "on me" removed

>John 16:16 "because I go to the Father" removed

<Acts 16:31 "Christ" removed

>Romans 11:6 second half removed

<1 Corinthians 16:22 "Jesus Christ" removed

>2 Corinthians 2:17 "corrupt the word of God" changed to "peddling the word of God"

>2 Corinthians 12:21 "humiliated" (NASB only)

<Ephesians 3:14 "of our Lord Jesus Christ" removed

>Philippians 2:6 meaning changed to imply the opposite

>Colossians 2:18 "they have seen" instead of "they hath not seen"

>Hebrews 11:6 "diligently" removed

>1 Peter 3:3 "merely" added (NASB only)

>1 John 4:3 "Christ is come in the flesh" removed

>1 John 5:13 "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" removed

>>673037

The problem here is that you're assuming the KJV is the gold standard and any deviations from its translation are errors on the part of modern translation. In fact the KJV was based off comparatively few manuscripts compared to what we have today, so it's silly to claim that the KJV is the standard by which all other translations are measured because it has glaring faults itself.

The language of the KJV is nice but don't let that fool you into thinking it's a reliable translation, it isn't. It's the work of medieval scholars who didn't have the resources they needed and made errors because of that and most of what you've listed there is actually errors in the KJV, not the modern translations which fixed them

HWP is the infallable word of God.

>"God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva." John 3:16

>>673039

>It's the work of medieval scholars who didn't have the resources they needed

You mean resources nobody in the entire world had because they were lost until around 1860. If you think the word of God was only rediscovered after being lost for that long then you don't believe the prophecies which the word of God itself contains, about how his word shall never pass away, and that his words shall not depart out of the prophet's mouth, nor out of the mouth of his seed, nor out of the mouth of his seed's seed from henceforth and for ever. What you've presented fundamentally disbelieves these things, yet these things are found in the Bible.

And one other thing, your supposed "best manuscripts" were lost for a reason. Because nobody used them. So yeah bottom line you're wrong. The modern versions are translations of the wrong document. And worse still, only partial, because each one takes different bits and pieces from the codex sinaiticus and vaticanus. They are not even mutually consistent. And it seems like they don't care which one you pick, as long as you doubt the veracity of Scripture you are ok in their book. It's only people saying the scripture cannot be broken, and that it says one thing, that they attack.

>>672695

Apostolic Bible Polyglot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Bible_Polyglot

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/genesis/1.htm

Can DL free or buy here: https://www.apostolicbible.com/text.htm

>>672719

>I go not up yet

>>673039

So what version do you recomend that wouldn't make God a liar if it were true? The only version on earth that I am aware of is the KJV, of which no one has yet to show me a place where it would make God a liar if it were true, which it is true, in said version.

>>674233

All of them since the passage you're so hung up about doesn't "make God a liar" if it's interpreted in a slightly different way than the KJV. Jesus says he's not going down YET, then goes down later. There is no issue you're just being autistic because you need to find a way for the KJV to be the bestest and most great translation EVAR even though everyone knows it's riddled with flaws. Here's a little activity for you

http://biblehub.com/john/3-36.htm

Read these and tell me which one is the odd one out. One of those translations is not like the others, one of those translations does not belong…

>>673039

>In fact the KJV was based off comparatively few manuscripts compared to what we have today

The vast majority of the thousands of Greek manuscripts we have today belong to the Byzantine family of manuscripts, which largely align with Textus Receptus Bibles like the KJV more closely than they do to modern Alexandrian based Bibles.

>>674241

The NASB is generally considered the most accurate and faithful English translation available today and it conflicts with the KJV in many verses

>>674237

>weasel words proving nothing

<Read these and tell me which one is the odd one out. One of those translations is not like the others, one of those translations does not belong…

You do realise that, any of those could be true? You might not like them, you might thing they sound weird, but they could still be true. That is not the case with john 7:8-10 unless it has that "yet" in it.

>>674245

>any of those could be true?

No, they couldn't because the original Greek clearly means "Those who do not OBEY". Translating it is "Those who do not believe" was an obvious screw up, but not the only one the KJV makes.

>>674244

>most accurate

You can be as accurate as you want, and a liar that won't have a word out of their mouths believed. 2 samuel 21:19 NASB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+21&version=NASB https://archive.fo/rpLPH

>There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

Who killed goliath the gittite in this version? David in 1 samuel 17:51 or Elhanan? Or in that same battle did Elhanan kill goliath's brother in 1 chronicles 20:5? Only one can be true, which would make the other false and you a, very accurate, liar thereof.

>>674246

More information on the Greek and why the KJV makes a poor translation here:

https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/king-james-translation-john-336/

>>674249

That's not a translation error, that's a problem with the original texts

>>674246

Are you forgetting 2 peter 1:20 so readily?

>Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Tell me how you came to the conclusion, based on what manuscript, and based on what concordence, that those words mean what you say. Or recomend a version I might see you by your fruits for as you keep calling others liars without proof.

>>674251

But these aren't the original texts as they are copies of copies of copies of toilet paper and scraps. The original comes straight from God being the word of God as stated in 2 peter 1:21

>For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

>>674253

That is unless it is scripture i.e 2 timothy 3:16, which the KJV is scripture inspired by God, if it is scripture.

>>674252

>Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Huh that is a pretty good rebuttal of Protestantism and people who think they can interpret scripture themselves. I recommend you join a proper Church with apostolic authority.

>>674259

>Huh that is a pretty good rebuttal of Protestantism and people who think they can interpret scripture themselves.

Indeed as our understanding of scripture is supposed to come from proverbs 3:5-7

>Trust in the LORDwith all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

>In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

>Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD,and depart from evil.

Hence why 1 corinthians 3:3-7 exists

>For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

>For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

>Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

>I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

>So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Hence again why Paul, and we by extension, need to give glory to God for understanding like in galatians 1:11-12

>But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

>For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

<I recommend you join a proper Church with apostolic authority.

>implying understanding from the apostle's matters

>implying I shouldn't just get my understanding straight from the revelation of Jesus Christ

1 corinthians 1:12-13

>Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

>Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

<say you are of the pope anon instead of Christ

no

>>674246

>No, they couldn't because the original Greek clearly means "Those who do not OBEY".

Seems more like you are misunderstanding the original Greek than anything.

>>674251

No actually it's not. The sentence structure in that verse in Hebrew implies "brother of." The word appearing right before Goliath's name in that verse means "among." Modern translations that miss this (which is only some of them) were simply done poorly. Not surprising considering what poor work they were in general.

>>674262

>Seems more like you are misunderstanding the original Greek than anything.

Nope. Read this:

https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/king-james-translation-john-336/

If John wanted to it to read the way the KJV does then he would've written ὁ ἀπιστέων as the opposite of ὁ πιστεύων as "atheist" is the opposite of "theist". He didn't though, he used a different word that is properly translated as "obey", not "believe", meaning the KJV is incorrect and most modern translations correct that mistake as can be seen here: http://biblehub.com/john/3-36.htm

>>674269

You still haven't told us how you came to this conclusion, what manuscript and family are you looking at for this? There are a huge variety of famliles and manuscripts for this verse that all say different things. This still doesn't change that "obey" or "believe" could have either as true and not make God a liar if it were true for that verse.

>>674272

> what manuscript and family are you looking at for this?

Stephanus Greek New Testament of 1550, http://biblehub.com/tr/john/3.htm

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν ἀλλ' ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ' αὐτόν

The word used in the TR is ἀπειθῶν, which does not mean "those who do not believe" as rendered in the KJV.

>>674269

>If John wanted to it to read the way the KJV does then he would've written ὁ ἀπιστέων

Where does that word occur anywhere in Scripture?

To me the RSV and ESV look similar.

Wikipedia ESV history

>A translation committee was formed, and it sought and received permission from the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 edition of the RSV as the English textual basis for the ESV. About 6 percent was revised in the ESV.

What I saw the NASB do was translate equivalent verses like in the synoptics identically whereas in the original they might be slightly different. Maybe this is where the claims of it being literal come from.

>>674287

The main problem I have with the NASB is the fact it uses corrupt sources (and calls them "the most reliable") to get entirely new readings that no one had until sometime after 1860 with the first discovery and publication of the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

But even beyond the crucial fact that it is a translation of a different/wrong document, the NASB isn't even that great when it comes to translation methodology. For instance, as an example they just blatantly inserted the word "merely" into 1 Peter 3:3 to "soften it up" a bit.

But this completely changes its intended meaning and turns it into a green light to do those things, as long as they aren't merely doing them only. Even the other modern translations don't do this in 1 Peter 3:3, only the NASB (and NKJV) do. This is just blatant corruption by the translators.

>KJV: Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

>NASB: Your adornment must not be merely external– braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

Yeah it's a predicament. I feel like compiling a translation based on a modernized KJ translation that doesn't deviate as much as the NKJV with deuterocanon added.

>>674291

Let me know if you find one. I've seen several that try, but they still manage to somehow insert some corruptions. For example the WEB still removes the word "diligently" from Hebrews 11:6, it still cuts off part of Jesus' statement in Revelation 1:11, and it changes Acts 2:47 to say "being saved" instead of "be saved" and has other random changes too, like changing the angel to an eagle in Revelation 8:13.

And another one, the MEV, has its own problems. The MEV reverses the meaning of Philippians 2:6 from the KJV, and it tells you that being divisive is bad in Titus 3:10, yet see what Jesus said in Luke 12:51. And I could still go on about various word choices it makes that exculpate sodomites in Jude 1:7, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Kings 15:12, or word choices that blur the connection to prophecy like in Genesis 22:17 saying "their" enemies instead of what it should say "his" enemies (see Galatians 3:16), or where the MEV says "being saved" instead of "are saved" in 1 Cor. 1:18. The list of major differences here is still long, if you really want to get into it. So I'd like to see a translation that doesn't change these major doctrines which the Authorized Bible consistently depicts in very clear language. From looking closely at these translations, the difference is not a matter of merely changed grammar, as far as I'm concerned. Oh and of course, the NKJV is yet worse than the ones I just mentioned, if such things can be quantified.

>>674306

From what I see a version called the King James Clarified and the American King James seem to be the most faithful to the original KJ wording.

The verb in Acts 2:47 appears to be a present or passive participle though rather than an infinitive "to be" or imperative.

>>672902

>>672913

>>673037

The RSV 2nd edition (aka Ignatius Bible) fixes Isaiah 7:14 and doesn't use gender neutral language.

>>674532

I'm willing to bet that most of the things from my list are still removed from the RSVCE. Like "without a cause" removed from Matthew 5:22, "through his blood" removed from Colossians 1:14, and "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" removed from Ephesians 3:14, and "Christ is come in the flesh" removed from 1 John 4:3. And in the footnotes it will be casting doubt on various verses, to make sure you don't place any certainty on the translation.

I don't want a translation that tells you it was "probably" right in some place. The translator and printer of the RSVCE should just pack up their bags and find another job if they aren't sure. And they should STOP spreading false bibles.

The Wycliffe Bible is great, amazing accuracy for the time.

Matt. 1:18

But the generacioun of Crist was thus. Whanne Marie, the modir of Jhesu, was spousid to Joseph, bifore thei camen togidere, she was foundun hauynge of the Hooli Goost in the wombe.

>>674226

Thangs mayne

>>674604

>>674226

That version is altered from the Septuagint in Genesis 5:25. The Septuagint actuallysays Methuselah was 167 years of age when he begat Lamech (thus he outlived the flood according to Septuagint), but this is an altered translation that says he was 187.

http://biblehub.com/sep/genesis/5.htm

So do you admit the Septuagint was wrong to say 167 years in Genesis 5:25? And so you just changed it to 187 in this version?

Also, your version here agrees with the KJV and goes opposite of the DRB in 1 Timothy 3:16, Ephesians 3:9, 1 John 4:3 and John 4:42. So do you agree with these then and realize the DRB was wrong? Honest question.

>>674538

I swear, KJV only-ists are by far the most autistic group of Christians in the world.

personally I read the esv and the orthodox study bible.

>>674550

> Whanne Marie, the modir of Jhesu, was spousid to Joseph, bifore thei camen togidere

one of the guys I work with speaks like this, accent makes him sound like his IQ is 65

>>674816

I imagine it sounding like a cross between a Caribbean accent and Groundskeeper Willie with a touch of French.

>>672698

the septuigent(besides Gen-Due) was written after the NT

>>675028

Also this

LXX: Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (Genesis 5:27)

MAS: Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (Genesis 5:27

LXX: Meth. 167 years old when Lamech born (Gen 5:25)

MAS: Meth. 187 years old when Lamech born (Gen 5:25)

LXX: Lamech 188 years old when Noah born (Gen 5:28)

MAS: Lamech 182 years old when Noah born (Gen 5:28)

LXX: Noah 600 years old when flood began (Gen 7:6)

MAS: Noah 600 years old when flood began (Gen 7:6)

LXX: 167+188+600=955 years old when flood began

MAS: 187+182+600=969 years old when flood began

http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/genesis/gen_005.htm

Thus, according to the LXX, Methuselah lived another 14 years after the flood began.

>>674798

At this point, I'm starting to think most of the Kjvonlyists on the board are just trolls

>>674798

Too bad they're not even the hyper-intelligent but socially inept kind of autists. They're just straight-up mentally impaired.

>>672295

The Anti KJV. It intentionally makes sure none of the verses are translated the same as the KJV.

>>675029

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE

Watch this. The masoretic text is corrupted beyond usefulness. The LXX is the ONLY version of the Old Testament that Christians should use because the Apostles, Jesus and Paul all quote from the LXX

>>672698

>CJB

>Not KJV

thou art demented.

>>675318

First of all, this guy's entire theory is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the originals are gone and admits this at 18:43, that his favored Septuagint is not perfect, while also criticizing the so-called Masoretic. He claims the original Hebrew is lost today. But this contradicts Psalm 12:6-7, which says that the words of the LORD will be preserved by Him "from this generation for ever", and it contradicts the words of Isaiah 59:21 as well.

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

At 5:23 he states that it is incorrect that the sojourn in Egypt was 430 years, that it was only 215 years. Yet Galatians 3:17 clearly states that it was 430 years: therefore this video is completely mistaken from the beginning and operating on a false premise from the very start. It was 430 years in fact.

>>675336

Now, the main claim that it "makes more sense" to follow the Septuagint timeline for Shem-to-Abraham is not based on any kind of impossibility argument, for instance saying that fathers dying before their sons is simply "the way of life" (9:21) is not a disproof, and arguing that 30,000 workers were needed to build Babel is a baseless assumption in itself. And life isn't necessarily made to look neat on a graph chart.

Arguing that multiple witnesses are always better is turning a qualitative argument into a quantitative one. The other witnesses being used could simply be copies of the first. So, another fallacy used repeatedly, and with obnoxious graphics.

And lastly, the chronology derived from the received sources in the real OT gives the flood at c. 2620 BC. This is because flood to Abraham's birth is 352 years, birth of Abraham to the sojourn is 290 years, the sojourn lasts exactly 430 years plus 40 years in wilderness, the return to Canaan to the first temple is 480 years, the temple construction to the captivity is 419 years, and there is 70 years from the captivity to the first year of King Cyrus (~539 BC). This gives 539+70+420+480+470+290+352 = 2620 BC. This can be considered with a precision give-or-take about 20 years due to rounding to the nearest year.

Therefore, the given date of "2350 BC" by the video, as the premise for all of this, is not accurate either.

Now, regarding the "motive" given for corrupting the Scripture in this place. I would start by directing the reader to Jeremiah 36 where it is related that the king of the Jews burned the writings of Jeremiah in his fire on the hearth, but God simply directed Jeremiah to re-write, inerrantly, from scratch, the whole book to that point.

Jeremiah 36:32

>Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

We see from this account that any efforts to corrupt the received text are entirely in God's ability to prevent, even to the point of miraculously giving Jeremiah the ability to copy down again the entire book of his prophecy until that point. Even though the original was destroyed. No Jewish effort to erase or change the original words of scripture is possible, as God does not allow it to happen.

>>675337

The same can't be said for the greek translation known as Septuagint. The earliest known manuscripts date far later than the given date for the translation.

>Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.

Thus, from all the sources before these, there is only attested the existence of the first five books of Moses only as having been translated to Greek: the other books of the Septuagint Old Testament being produced much later, as late as the 4th century AD. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the version of the Septuagint we have now is the same as that which was translated in pre-New Testament times. It is not the received original scripture after all, it's a translation, so it might have been altered. The version of Septuagint that we have today may have in fact been EDITED to include such things as Cainan from Luke 3, and ALL of the alleged quotations made by the New Testament writers— because the Septuagint as we know it was produced after the New Testament! Promoters of this manuscript, such as the video creator, constantly attempt to conflate the historical Pentateuch translation that was called "Septuagint" and existed for the apostles, with the post-New Testament Septuagint (from Codex Vaticanus) that we actually have. But these are certainly not the same thing, the latter has clearly been influenced by the New Testament in its translation of the Old Testament, the former consisted only of Genesis-Deuteronomy, which may have subsequently been edited to account for Luke 3:36 and Acts 7:14.

>>675339

Now regarding the matter of Acts 7:14, this is easily shown, firstly, to be consistent in the KJV source account. The 70 people methodically being counted up in Genesis 46:8-27 consist of "the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt," which are explicitly counted and named; namely 66 people, plus Jacob himself, plus Joseph and his two sons, which totals to 70 people OF THE SEED OF JACOB WHICH CAME INTO EGYPT. This counts Jacob, Joseph, and in the loins of Joseph, his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.

Now read Acts 7:14. Stephen clearly states that Joseph "called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." First, you will notice Stephen counts Jacob separate. There are 75 plus Jacob himself. Yet Joseph didn't call HIMSELF into Egypt, or his two sons. This can be explained. Take the 70 people of Genesis 46:27. Remove Jacob, Joseph and his two sons. You have 66 people. Now remove from this 66 the two sons of Pharez, Hezron and Hamul: Pharez himself was born in Genesis 38, if you will recall. So, he was not yet old enough to have had children. Joseph hadn't been in Egypt that long. This leaves 64 people. Now add the 11 wives of Jacob's sons. This is 75 people, plus Jacob himself who were called by Joseph into Egypt.

Now about Hezron and Hamul. They were counted in the 70 as entering Egypt in the loins of Pharez, but they were not counted in the 75 as being explicitly invited into Egypt by Joseph, because they weren't born yet, whereas the 11 wives were NOT of the seed of Jacob, they were NOT listed in the 66 people of Genesis 46:8-26 (confirmed by verse 26). But they were invited by Joseph, making that count 75.

So, the KJV is consistent. Whereas the Septuagint is not, because the editors thought to modify the supposed error in Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5 to say 75, based on Acts 7:14. And they even added a false explanation for the extra 5 people being the grandsons of Joseph. But there's one major problem. Those grandsons weren't born yet when this happened, and they forgot Deuteronomy 10:22. All versions say 70 there. The Septuagint and the originals both say 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22, so the OT account of the Septuagint is in disagreement with itself, whereas the originals say 70 in all three places.

And finally, the prophecy of recovery of sight to the blind is found in the KJV in Isaiah 28:19. It's not missing.

>>675336

>He claims the original Hebrew is lost today. But this contradicts Psalm 12:6-7, which says that the words of the LORD will be preserved by Him "from this generation for ever", and it contradicts the words of Isaiah 59:21 as well.

ah, ok so you like the Vulgate, very catholic of you

>>675336

If you don't follow the Septuagint then you're not Christian, it's that simple. The Masoretic text is corrupted and so is any Bible which bases its translation on it.

>>675353

He admitted at 18:43 that the septuagint isn't perfect.

I only accept the incorruptible, everlasting word of God. No substitutes. Even if they come from Alexandria and Origen.

Psalm 119:160

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

>>675339

>The earliest known manuscripts date far later than the given date for the translation.

This is true of the gospels as well. Do you doubt that the gospels were written in the first century? The Septuagint was the version of the OT that Paul used. It was the version that the authors of the gospels use. When Jesus quotes the Old Testament he is quoted by citing the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is simply the definitive version of the Old Testament for Christian use. Period. Paul used it, the early Church fathers used it and Jesus quotes it.

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

Read this and understand. If you read any Bible based on the masoretic text you are reading a CORRUPTED translation that was deliberately edited by the Jews to remove prophecy about Jesus.

>>675354

>I only accept the incorruptible, everlasting word of God.

So you accept the Septuagint and reject the corrupted Masoretic text. Good.

>>675355

>The Septuagint is simply the definitive version of the Old Testament for Christian use. Period. Paul used it, the early Church fathers used it and Jesus quotes it.

Actually the Septuagint was re-written to look like they quoted it. It's that simple. What you're reading was written after the NT by people in Alexandria, probably edited by Origen as well. So no, they couldn't quote something that didn't exist yet, and was later made to look like it was quoted. And lastly, we know that the original Hebrew always existed and it is directly quoted many times in the NT, whereas other times it's more of a paraphrase. Origen couldn't change the direct quotes of the real OT, so he simply edited his own Greek OT translation to match the NT quotes that weren't exact matches and then slapped the name LXX on it, thus many were deceived. I'm surprised you don't understand that.

>>675358

Isn't this some dumb conspiracy theory that KJV onlyists spout to try and make their ridiculous claims look better? I assure you, you're wrong. The septuagint existed before Jesus was born and the writers of the gospels used the septuagint as their reference when quoting the Old Testament, which makes sense, they wrote in greek so they used a greek source.

>so he simply edited his own Greek OT translation to match the NT quotes that weren't exact matches and then slapped the name LXX on it, thus many were deceived

lol. The KJV is a terrible translation full of errors and the only person being deceived is you my gullible Baptist friend

>>675358

Also whoever edited the alexandrian version of the septuagint (the one we have) was aware of Acts 7:14. It's a giveaway, because they took the number 75 from Acts 7:14 and altered Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5 to say 75 instead of 70. And their fatal error was, they forgot to change Deuteronomy 10:22, where it still says 70! The number 75 came from Acts 7:14.

>>684432

>>684431

Ok, you can stop now.

>>684432

get a life already

What do you think about WEB (World English Bible)?

>>672542

>The KJV is universally recognized as a shitty translation

>muh limited number of manuscripts

>Modern translations are much more accurate

How dead is your soul?

I use the KJV and the ESV. KJV-Onlyism is a weird cult and the adherents use circular logic constantly.

>>684458

If you reject all circular logic. How do you prove logical conclusions are valid without using logic?

>>675336

>At 5:23 he states that it is incorrect that the sojourn in Egypt was 430 years, that it was only 215 years. Yet Galatians 3:17 clearly states that it was 430 years

According to Galatians 3:17 there were 430 years from the covenant of Abraham to the covenant at Sinai. According to all versions there are 215 years from Abraham to the migration in Egypt. According to the Septuagint and the Samaritan version the stay in Egypt was 215 years too. This corresponds to Galatians 3:17 because 430=215+215.

BTW, according to Acts 7:4 Abraham moves from Haran to Canaan only after the death of his father Terah. This contradicts the data in both the masoretic version and the Septuagint but instead supports the Samaritan version.

All versions: Terah begat Abraham at age of 70. (Genesis 11:26)

All versions: Abraham departed from Haran at age of 75. (Genesis 12:4)

Therefore Terah was of age 70+75=145 when Abraham departed from Haran.

According to the masoretic version and the Septuagint Terah lived 205 years. This means he died in Haran 205-70-75=60 years after the departure of Abraham.

But according to the Samaritan version Terah lived 145 years. In this version Abraham departed from Haran only after the death of his father.

Anyway, guys, I hope you don't choose your Bible version based on numeric calculations. Remember the error in Numbers 3:39 where 7500+8600+6200=22000.

Was going to ask this in another thread, but seemed appropiate to ask here…

What is the best latin version of the BIble? The Vulgata? Nova Vulgata? Something else? It's important that it's in latin in this case.

>>684469

Epistemology is stupid.

>>684510

Clementine Vulgate

>>684481

>According to Galatians 3:17 there were 430 years from the covenant of Abraham to the covenant at Sinai.

No, actually according to Galatians 3:17 there were 430 years from the confirmation of the covenant of Abraham to the one at Sinai.

The covenant was confirmed in Genesis 46:2-4.

According to Genesis 15:13, they were afflicted in a land not theirs for 400 years. Thus, we may conclude the first 30 years in Egypt were under Joseph, then the 400 years of Genesis 15:13 started after Exodus 1:8. While the 430 years began after the confirmation of the covenant in Genesis 46:2-4.

>According to the Septuagint and the Samaritan version the stay in Egypt was 215 years too.

This number was added in to make the numbers fit according to their reasoning. Just like they altered Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 (but not Deuteronomy 10:22) to say 75 instead of 70. Even though the 75 people of Acts 7:14 called by Joseph into Egypt didn't include Joseph himself or his two sons, yet the 70 listed in Genesis 46 does include them because these are different sets of people. The Greek and Samaritan versions tried to alter Genesis 46 (and Exodus 1:5) to match the number of Acts 7, but they forgot Deuteronomy 10:22!

>All versions: Terah begat Abraham at age of 70. (Genesis 11:26)

It says Terah lived 70 years then begat Abram, Nahor and Haran.

That doesn't imply they were triplets nor that Abram was born first. In fact the same thing happened with Noah's sons, Japheth was the elder according to Genesis 10:21, yet listed third in Genesis 10:1. This is important to understand because according to Genesis 11:10 Shem was 100 years old two years after the flood. The flood happens 100 years after Genesis 5:32, so if Shem was born immediately when Noah turned 500, he would have been 102 years old in Genesis 11:10, not 100. Japheth was likely 102 years old at the time.

So then Terah was at least 70 years old when Abram was born according to Genesis 11:26. He could have been older, and indeed was according to Acts 7:4. Don't take your pens out to correct it too soon.

>Remember the error in Numbers 3:39 where 7500+8600+6200=22000.

In Numbers 3:46 the 22000 Levites mentioned in Numbers 3:39 were taken to account for the 22,273 firstborn of Israel. The 273 extra are paid for a price in Numbers 3:46-51. The reason they couldn't use the extra 300 Levites is because those were firstborns among the Levites themselves. The small proportion of what are considered "firstborns" is accounted for by the similarly small proportion of firstborns among Israel, which was only 22,273 total out of at least 600,000 (likely many more if they had counted everyone from 1 mo. old, as with the Levites).

>>685304

Also what do you think of this?

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4300

I'm immediately suspicious because they say (((textual criticism))) is a good thing, but I'm not sure about what they say about the Vulgate. How much of it is true?

>>685304

It's good. The only downsides are that it is expensive and it's huge. But if you want a Latin/English Bible you can't get better quality

>>685305

>King James Not The First

With this heading, this article seems to imply some people think either the KJV or DRB was the first English translation. This is compounded by the fact the article never mentions any of the previous translations such as the influential (in English) Geneva Bible which was produced in 1560, before either one. So the DRB isn't really a "counterexample" as the article claims, considering that from Tyndale in the 1530's until then the Catholics were destroying all English translations, including the Geneva Bible. But the Geneva in particular was so mass produced it became impossible to keep this up, so they resorted to making a rival translation. It's not like the DRB was the first English translation produced.

As for the differences between editions, I don't know. But all the versions I've seen have the following differences from the KJV. (I know 16 others if you want them).

Ephesians 3:9

>KJV: which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

>DRB: which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things:

>RSV: hidden for ages in God who created all things;

1 John 4:3

>KJV: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:

>DRB: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God:

>RSV: and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.

1 Timothy 3:16

>KJV: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,

>RSV: Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh,

>DRB: And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh,

>>685305

Never listen to anything that Jimmy Akin says for your own sake. The dude is a protty heretic, who has spewed nonsense like "The jews are doubly justified" and things on the lines that we should respect them as older brothers in the faith. You know how them prots love to worship judaism to no end.

Now i'm against Taylor Marshall on many topics too, basically almost all Catholic apologists in the modern age suck to some degree or the other, but he has some good reasons on why the vulgate/DRC(only use the 1752, the 1899 is some wacky american revision) is good.

http://taylormarshall.com/2010/08/7-reasons-why-i-love-old-douay-rheims.html

The best reason to read the vulgate is that it has been infallibly declared to be free from all error in terms of faith and morals. It may not be the most accurate in terms of exactly what the word was, but it will never convey a wrong meaning in terms of faith and morals. For example

The lord reignth over me vs The lord is my shepherd. The lord is my shepherd is probably the original or right word, but there is no error in doctrine in that psalm.

Also i've started only reading the DRC1752, and only check the RSV2CE on occasion if I want to see a different rendering. I trust the DR a lot more. First of all the RSV and all these other translations are protestant translations, which us lowly cats have had to take from them and try and make our amendments to it. Like what the meow - we created the bible and now we have to take the scraps of heretics? The DR is a fully catholic translation by catholics based on an infallibly declared accurate bible. No manuscript is actually infallibly declared to be accurate other than the old vulgate. That means even if we find a bunch of first century manuscripts of something, and it says something contrary to what is in the vulgate (in terms of faith and morals, doctrine), those manuscripts are wrong, not the vulgate. They could be forgeries, serious errors, early drafts, we don't know. So yes actually in some/many senses the vulgate is superior to even the original documents. This doesn't mean that more manuscripts aren't correct, and indeed there could truly be a better vulgate produced in the future, which could also be infallibly declared to be accurate, but i wouldn't bet on the modernist nonsense of the state of the church now to do anything. The vulgate has served the purpose of scripture for almost all the greatest saints that the church has seen, it's definitely perfect to use. We have to realize we have basically no great saints anymore, with incredible theology and works like during the middle ages.

St. Jerome was a genius translator and an extremely saintly person, more saintly than anyone else who has translated the bible, and of course had access to many manuscripts that we don't have access to today.

And anyways yeah I plan on purchasing that version too, just to have a big bible, and want to have the vulgate to reference when i want more clarification for the english. Also there are some absolutely beautiful D-R bibles on ebay, really stunning, but expensive and vintage and many are in various conditions. Makes me really realize how far we've fallen. You literally can't buy a real beautiful bible like those works of art anymore. All the catholic bibles right now look awful tbh, with the exception of this very one the side by side version, and even then it's just alright.

>>685304

Also the RSV/RSV-2CE reads dry as hell. It doesn't sound poetic or beautiful at all. I only noticed it after reading it more and realized it just sounds crap. The ESV to me actually sounds better, and is probably closest in style (not the doctrinal / translation bias it has) to what i'd want a modern translation to have. It has a few key things that i want, like "what profits a man if he gains the world but loses his soul". no idea why the RSV-CE makes it loses his life. It's weird too because the RSV (which the ESV is based of) also does it right by using soul. Why on earth did the catholic editors make it life? Anyways in general I don't want to touch protestant tainted translations. I'm sick of these heretics destroying christianity.

>>672531

That's nice, I thought about doing that too. Do you think we could ever get something like that approved by the US bishops or something? Just a DRC2018 or something of the sort, just minor changes? i wouldn't change too much, just stuff like doth etc, although i have zero issue reading that stuff. But for people of today who get scared even seeing something like that it might help them.

>>685442

It's too liberal and introduces lots of words that aren't there. I don't think there's any practical advantage to using it over one of the more popular modern editions.

>>685442

i've read the knox and i have literally no idea why people like that. it reads totally ridiculous in my opinion. it's way too like of a resummarization and frankly sounds disgusting. it sounds nothing like the bible at all.

the jerusalem bible sucks too with the yahweh stuff and all

>>672531

this is the most based and redpilled post i have ever read, well done

>>685479

I usually just mentally block out Yahwehs and say LORD while i'm reading it, although there is a version in the UK (New Catholic Translation) that basically has the Jersualem Bible text with Yahweh replaced with 'The LORD' and the Psalms replaced with the 1963 Grail Translation, which from what i heard means it's exactly the same text used in British Catholic services. Seeing as I live in the states I can't verify that for sure though.

Also i haven't really read the Knox translation in depth but after reading Genesis 1 and John 3 I have to agree he takes too many liberties with the cadence. No worse then JB Phillips or the Passion translation though.

>>685444

I don't see the JB being any more liberal than the RSV, and I usually cross reference it with the KJV while doing studies and not just reading. Can you explain why you think it's too liberal?

>>685329

Thanks, what you said makes sense I just wanted to be sure. Earlier in the thread they were talking about how the masoretic texts are less reliable than the Vulgate, I guess I can sidestep that issue by reading the D-R since it was translated from the Vulgate.

>>685656

Well I was talking about the Knox translation but the JB also appears to do that too but perhaps to a lesser degree. It would probably take pointing out multiple words and sentences which appear to deviate or innovate in those translations to demonstrate why they are less faithful but to keep it short the RSV and classical translations like the KJV and the Douay-Rheims appear to have striven to be faithful to the original wording translating it verbatim mostly. This could be demonstrated by taking a look at any section of the Bible through something like an interlinear bible or a text analysis tool.

>>685322

>>685329

Also what's the difference between the three Vulgates? Is it just language updates and revisions or are there real substantive changes between each that make one better than the other?

>>685751

so yeah there are differences between them - I don't think there is actually a totally accurate st jeromes vulgate around, but the clementine vulgate is the best we have. the main issue with it is that it has the johaninne comma, but either way it's stil free from any error in doctrine (the comma). as for learning Latin to read the vulgate, I mean if you feel really called towards that sure, but in his day and age we have so many writings of saints and things to read translated in English there is so much work to do and study more than learning a new language. I think it's more beneficial to read the church fathers and their commentary which is more important because when you read scripture yourself and try to understand or draw new meanings, it cannot directly contradict with the consensus of most of the fathers etc.

there is so much to read just from the saints, there are many people who get overlooked like St Bonaventure or Hugh of St victor etc, and in the age where we are with access to so many translations and stuff I don't think it's necessary or the best use of many peoples times. however if I was raising kids I'd get them to learn Latin so they can read all this material in the source language. if you're older I don't think it's worth it personally.

>>685820

>I don't think there is actually a totally accurate st jeromes vulgate around

What about the Weber-Gryson (Stuttgart) edition?

>>685742

ah understandable. sorry for the confusion.

>>685930

they were probably referring to the most widely available copies of the KJV which only have the Protocanon and the New Testament

>>685479

>it sounds nothing like the bible at all.

Because it was translated to read naturally in English. The idea is it's supposed to read as if that was the language it was written in, not a translation. Personally I like it, the Knox takes some liberties but it reads very well. Bibles like the Knox are for reading entire books at a time. Save the KJV for quoting verses.

>>685442

>Knox’s translation is a pretty good

No it sucks. There is a reason why no one uses it.

>>685332

> RSV/RSV-2CE reads dry as hell.

>The ESV to me actually sounds better,

Dude, they're like 96% identical. That's not an exaggeration, either.

>>672574

I have this Bible, somebody recommended it to me that it's a good combo of archaic language and more modern readable language and it looks beautiful

King James

I have a geneva facsimile but the roman numerals and the f's make it hard to read.

>>696371

The book that tricked millions of Americans into thinking "Israel" refers to the nation and not the body of believers in Christ

>>685442

How many Bibles is too many Bibles?

KJV-only people are hilarious autists. I love reading their websites that all look like they're Geoshitties from the mid-90s.

I'm not anti-KJV, of course, because you have to respect the book that inspired our ancestors: the believers, the theologians, the artists, the poets, the apologists… it has its place and is a super important book.

Personally though, I favour the ESV for its essential literalism and exceptional footnoting.

I didn't opt for the regular ESV study version but went for the Hebrew-Greek Word Study version which is amazing for trying to zero in on the original Hebrew/Greek words as they appeared in the earliest manuscripts.

I've been checking out a lot of Daniel Wallace too, the NT scholar, who says that even if you gave all 5834 (or whatever it is now) Greek NT manuscripts to 5834 different Christians they would not disagree on any single major piece of theological doctrine.

Gideon's has adopted ESV as their translation which will make it one of the most widely distributed versions in the world after KJV and NIV.

>>696280

See: >>684569

>>700048

>if you gave all 5834 (or whatever it is now) Greek NT manuscripts to 5834 different Christians they would not disagree on any single major piece of theological doctrine

Dumbest thing I’ve read all day, unless, of course, you don’t count the 30,000+ non-apostolic protestant "churches" as Christian like I do; there is, indeed, little actual theological disagreement between apostolics.

>>696334

King James was a literal flamboyant sodomite so you might as well just read those archaic long S’s as actual F’s; it will make you sound like you have a fitting gay lisp.

>>700137

Lol, OK, sunshine… well it's got nothing to do with your precious church. It's a matter of what the text says.

Daniel Wallace's claim is that effectively the near 6000 MSSs dated between 200-1000AD are effectively all the same barring grammatical and syntactical differences and minor details. They do not disagree on any major theology.

Feel free to refute that with some evidence.

>>700186

>Feel free to refute that with some evidence.

I don’t disagree that the manuscripts themselves don’t contradict each other so I won’t even try to refute this new claim of yours; I do however disagree with your former absurd one that asserted that Christians do not contradict each other given that you included judeo-protestants* in this “Christian” grouping of yours and to refute this claim one only needs to look at the tens of thousands of different non-apostolic judeo-protestant “churches” and “McChurches” that exist and contradict each other on serious theological matters.

*John 6:52

>>700197

Oh I see you're intentionally misunderstanding a hypothetical to make some One True Catholic Church statement.

Whatever floats your boat, Cathobro.

>>700364

>no one believes in sola fide! stop misunderstanding me!

>>700440

I don't believe in sola fide because there's a stack of red letters saying what Jesus commands us as disciples to do but hey… you do you. 😘

>>684531

>Epistemology is stupid.

Is this epistemic?

I've been curious about the Geneva bible, the second earliest English translation (after the Great and before KJV). I am a bit of a stickler not so much for transliteration or translation, but of "localization" for lack of a better term. To strike a perfect balance between translating metaphors and communicating in the language as powerfully. I'm also a fan of anglish, it was a language from God, but now it is being mangled into a new babylonian language ?*I'm also a huge fan of the method and idea of baptizing the Nordic myths thru the Eddas. That to me is true Christianity, not the superiority of any one language, or church, or people, but of a unity through our diversity so to speak.**

>>701932

You should look into the language of the Old English translations, it used Drighten for Lord.

Someone should make a modernized edition of the gospel translations which retains as much of the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary as possible like "guilts" for sins.

The Wycliffe Bible deviates considerably from the more popular translation traditions and follows the Vulgate more precisely than any other.

There's a project to translate Biblical texts into Proto-Indo-European. I wonder how much it could help the language study by translating from the Greek since both languages would appear to share some similarities in their grammatical structure.

https://academiaprisca.org/en/resources/modern-indo-european-texts/

>>672295

>Favorite Bible Translation?

Depends on what I'm doing.

I use Berean Interlinear when I need to greek things up.

NRSVCE for normie tier reading.

I assume DRA as the reference a reader will have for anything I need to distribute (public domain, overlaps a lot with KJV and has imprimatur).

Vulgate for when I need to practice latin or argue with people from the 16th century.

>Thoughts on the CSB translation?

Never used it. Too new, no imprimatur. No need for a new non-public domain translation IMO, either.

>Is it slanted too much towards Protestant interpretation like the KJV?

A good apostolic can read NWT and prove apostolicism, and a protestant can read protestantism from the vulgate (hell, the OG prots like luther and melanchthon mostly worked from the vulgate).

Only time bias comes into play is if you're arguing, and as soon as you open that can of worms, force the point to agree on an interlinear greek text.

>>702006

why on earth are you using the NSRVCE rather than the RSVCE (or RSV2CE). The NSRVCE is nonsense with feminist language. DRC1752 is based, the DRA1899 is a bit iffy, but better than nothing.

The NT of the DRC is pretty good, i've been reading Exodus and yeah it's not really that straightforward to understand certain things, but also there's a lot of dry and boring stuff in there anyways.

Also on another note, while I guess greek and all is cool (although I actually would prefer the vulgate latin) I feel like it's far more worthwhile spending time reading commentary and works on the saints rather than trying to dissect a word here and there. This is all a side effect of prottyism where modern homofaguals try to twist words and say it doesn't really mean that! and so on and since you have to argue with these homofaguals on muh sola scriptura, you have to play their games. like saying the sin of sodom isn't faggotry. for a cat it's simple since we have like 1500+ years up until the council of trent all saying that the sin of sodom is faggotry, until some baptist preachers son decides to be a fag (matthew vines or whatever) and decides oh no it really was about something else.

also for these phags going on about sola scriptura they love to take loooads of stuff not in the bible saying "oh yeah when they said this they were really referring to pagan temple sex practices… is this in the bible? well know i read it on some pro sodomy book, but SOLA SCRIPTURA!"

heresy begets heresy

>>672567

if you like the KJV use the DRC1752 bro/sis. it's very good and poetic, better than the KJV in most parts (not everything though)

what one has the best hebrew translation

>>712104

>>712105

agreed. don't buy into the masoretic nonsense, that was written a thousand years after christ, based on an invented religion based solely on rejecting christ. the septuagint was good enough for the gospel writers but muh luther needed (((their))) 1000+ year old new invented book.

>>673037

i agree young woman is a bad translation, and the cat church shouldn't promote it, but it's technically not teaching "error" because being a young woman doesn't not make you a virgin. and still it's not an infallible declaration, but yes i agree they shouldn't be promoting this stuff. DR is based, it has very few issues

>>712105

Scan here, not sure how perfect this one is so might need to look for others.

https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren/page/n1