/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>679108

>If i already know it's satanic brainwashing?

Watch things critically, and turn off things produced or written by Jews which are the synagogue of Satan. There, you just fixed the vast majority of the problem.

Also, stop using a NWO bible version. 1 John 5:19 doesn't actually say "under control of the wicked one." That is a modern change, not what the Bible actually says. Here is what it actually says in the Authorized version and the received mss.:

1 John 5:19

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Your first step to building a foundation is to start using the uncorrupted Bible that wasn't formulated by scheming modernists and crypto-catholics.

Don't let them rip the word of God out of your hand. Because that's where all the problems really started with these modern versions.

>>679114

I actually use the KJV, i just get the NWO version because it's the most modern for everyone to understand, i'll use the KJV from now on.

>>679108

The sad reality is that technology, with the current values behind (cult of progress) inevitably leads to exploiting the worst of human nature for profit (addictions etc), destruction of the environment, and even abominations like transhumanism (read critics of technology and liberalism like Ted Kaczynski, Jacques Ellul, Lewis Mumford, Aleksandr Dugin if you want to know more).

The only proper way of life is with very slow progress, basic technologies that are not addictive (nobody got addicted to a hammer) i.e. a pre-modern mindset like in Christian middle ages and so on ('Small is Beautiful', see Leopold Kohr and E.F. Schumacher)

>>679114

But isn't the world under the control of the wicked one? Doesn't Jesus say that the world is Satan's kingdom? Isn't it shown in the Bible?

>and the whole world lieth in wickedness

>and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

I don't see the difference.

Also, could you please give some quick examples as to how the modern translations change the meaning of words, as compared to the authorised translations?

>>679119

>But isn't the world under the control of the wicked one?

Not the whole world, I don't believe it ever says that except in the corrupted 1 John 5:19 that is sometimes being thrown around. Anyway it was worth pointing out no matter what as that change changes the whole context of the chapter it is in, not to mention the sentence/verse itself.

>I don't see the difference.

It's definitely different. One mentions an individual, the other doesn't. And I have to point out that trying to say they are both right is a losing argument in principle, because even in the few cases where that might be true it still remains that in each specific place it must have only said one or the other and that they are irreconcilably different. Like if they changed what God said in some place in scripture to something else that happened to also be true, that wouldn't change the fact God didn't actually say that there and it subsequently throws off the whole passage. Because you know how important context can be in understanding a passage. Hope that helps.

>Also, could you please give some quick examples as to how the modern translations change the meaning of words,

Hmm, not sure what you mean by this exactly, but here's some examples of huge changes in meaning.

—Matthew 5:22 "without a cause" removed (modern versions)

—Matthew 5:32 "fornication" changed to "sexual immorality" (moderns and NKJV)

—Matthew 7:14 changed to say "difficult" (ESV, NLT, NKJV)

—Mark 1:41 "Jesus was indignant" (NIV)

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

—Mark 10:24 "for them that trust in riches" removed (all moderns)

—Luke 2:33 changed "Joseph and his mother" to either "his father and his mother" or "his parents"

—Luke 23:42 "Lord" removed

—John 1:18 "only begotten Son" replaced with "only God" (ESV only)

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

—John 6:47 "on me" removed

—John 9:4 "I must work" replaced with "we must work"

—Acts 2:30 "Christ" removed

—Acts 8:37 removed (ESV, NIV, NLT)

—Romans 11:6 second half removed

—Romans 13:9 "thou shalt not bear false witness" removed

—2 Corinthians 2:17 "corrupt the word of God" changed (moderns and NKJV)

—2 Corinthians 12:21 "humbled" changed to "humiliated" (NASB only)

—Philippians 2:6 meaning changed to imply the opposite! (moderns)

Colossians 2:18 "they have seen" instead of "they hath not seen" (most moderns)

Hebrews 12:8 "bastards" changed to "illegitimate" (moderns plus NKJV)

—1 Peter 2:2 "up into salvation" added

—1 Peter 3:3 "merely" added (NASB, NKJV)

—2 Peter 3:10 "burned up" changed to "exposed" (ESV, NIV, NLT)

—1 John 4:3 "Christ is come in the flesh" removed (all)

I could keep going for pages but I hope this serves as a starter.

>>679119

No. Also, "master of this world" merely implies that devil gas certain influence on the world via wickedness of humanity, not that he owns or controls it like with gn*stics

>>679145

I see. Thanks.

>>679137

Thanks, anon.

>>679137

Also, most of these translations I mentioned share many of their alterations with their "grandfather" translation, the ASV. The modern versions around today have since branched off of that inheritance and made many additional unique "mutations" of their own. It's a wild west out there. And nobody is really out there to stop them since the same "scholars" rabidly attack anyone who criticizes their little industry of lies. Also, the ASV itself came from the Revised version of 1885 (NT 1881). And before that, everyone used the Authorized version, aka the KJV.

So in the end these changes either didn't exist at all in any language before 1881, or strangely enough they got them from catholic bibles.

>>679166

Hope it helped. Was there anything mroe specific you were thinking of?

Scans of brains reading vs watching media are very different. And the latter is put in a very susceptible state of suggestivity.

I personally don't recommend anyone to consume any type of watchable material in great quantities. Reading and listening only.

I try to keep the rule of thumb of not consuming any media that is not explicitly Christian or of informative character. Even though I try to be careful on wolves in sheep's clothing.

>>679114

Having a good translation of the Bible isn't magic. No matter how good a translation is, if you consume the programming it's all out of the window because you'll alter which words point to which Platonic Form.

Get your low effort copy paste out of here, words aren't a set of letters.

>>679176

Not anon, but should we stick to American standard version, Kjv?

>>681109

ASV stands for American Standard version, which was basically the prototype for most modern versions, and it already had many of their changes in it, so it doesn't line up with the received word of God.

For instance just from the list posted before, the ASV also has the same changes for:

<Matthew 5:22

<Luke 2:33 and 23:42

<John 5:16, 6:47 and 9:4

<Acts 2:30 and removes Acts 8:37

<Both Romans 11:6 and 13:9

<Philippians 2:6

<Colossians 2:18

<1 Peter 2:2

<1 John 4:3

So 14 of the 25 listed before are also found in the ASV, such as removing "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22. Eleven of the 25 would come later, such as removing "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24. That would be in later modern versions.

Not all of the changes are even noted in the footnotes of ASV, for instance 1 John 4:3, Acts 2:30 and Romans 13:9 have the words removed without leaving a footnote. Compare in this place to the KJV and all translations made before 1881.

Now to get back to your question, the KJV had a format update in 1769 that standardized a lot of the word spelling on the basis of the 1755 English dictionary. None of the other translations were in use at the time, so none of them got any such an edition. I don't see any reason why someone to go back to an older, less complete translation than the KJV, and written in an older form of English.

The dictionary of 1755 and Webster's 1828 use it in their definitions, American and British dictionaries both used it as authoritative on the English language. So up until 1881 there was no reason why anyone wouldn't have used it. The reason people stopped is because they think new things were discovered that changes the words. But to make you think otherwise, they dress it up purely as updated language.

>>679137

>being this pharisaic