/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>People point out the KJV is a shitty translation

>"Your valid criticisms just strengthen my faith! You wouldn't be criticizing the KJV if you were true Christians!"

Is there any wonder why there is a deep anti-intellectual current running through Protestant denominations?

>>704949

What's wrong with KJV?

What are the KJVs of their languages? I don't believe the word of god is preserved only in English as some people claim

>>704951

Changes the lines referring to St. Mary from "full of grace" to "highly favoured", a deadly heresy.

>>704954

how is that a “deadly” heresy?

>>704957

It denies St. Mary Her importance, thus denying Jesus Christ His own. If you attack the one who bore Christ, you quite simply end up attacking Christ Himself.

>>704955

Your pride will be your undoing.

>>704959

>>704958

i dont worship mary, i worship Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.

im sure mary was a wonderful woman who had a normal relationship with her husband joseph which included the consummate act of sexual intercourse after Jesus’ birth.

it has nothing to do with pride. please try to follow the rules and stick to edifying discourse, please.

>>704943

>i wouldnt be so convinced that it was the best version if not for how quickly any and all of the “which version of the bible should inread” threads didnt almost automatically descend into attacks against it.

This logic reminds me of people who quote: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first" in response to any critique pressed against them.

i think the KJV is fine, it even corrects its dubious masoretic manuscript at times, instead of saying 'young girl' it does say 'virgin' like the original sept would say.

>>704951

Poor quality source documents led to several errors. It has translations that are outright wrong that lead to incorrect doctrine. For example it translates John 3:36 as:

>He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him

But that is a flat out incorrect translation of the Greek, the correct translation is:

>"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Note the change from "believeth not" to "he who does not OBEY the Son". This is important because KJV onlyists will use this verse to support their sola fide doctrine when the Greek contradicts what they're trying to support by saying that people who do not obey will not see life.

>>704964

>im sure mary was a wonderful woman

>proceeds to ponder her sex life

so silly.

in the bible Mary says "all generations shall call me blessed" but I hardly ever hear protestants even mention her, let alone her blessedness. The only times they talk about her is to confirm her sex life and to mock people who call her blessed for being idolaters

>>704969

the importance of that verse is to clarify that faith is not merely mental assent, but also a form of allegiance. If you claim faith in something you should abide in it, ally with it, obey it.

Sola Fide is actually fine if we understand Fide in the biblical sense, not in the modern purely mental sense.

>>704958

Don't you think that's an over overexaggeration of a mere difference in speech?

>>704969

But they're literally the same thing said in different words.

Honestly this sounds like some sola scriptura nonsesne from you anons.

>>704974

Absolutely not. "Full of Grace" is a huge theological difference from being merely "highly favoured".

>>704975

It has everything to do with being more innately blessed and full of grace than any other woman, for this woman would bear Jesus Christ.

St. Mary is not full of grace because She is St. Mary, She is St. Mary because She bore Christ.

And Jesus Christ is the first-born of all creatures, known before all. St. Mary would then be…more than a bit blessed, right?

>>704964

nobody is asking you to worship St. Mary, by venerating St. Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant, you are worshiping Jesus Christ.

>im sure mary was a wonderful woman who had a normal relationship with her husband joseph which included the consummate act of sexual intercourse after Jesus’ birth.

Neither the Scripture or the Tradition teach this.

>it has nothing to do with pride

It has everything to do with pride.

>>704977

prots gonna prot

whats hilarious is the former prots turned larpordox trying to say that they have more in common with larpodox than cats? haha, haha, hahahaha oh right, tell me that again? hahahhah

>>704976

How so?

>>704983

i hope one day i can understand the prot larper's pain. imagine being taught since you were a kitten that the catholic church is wrong blah blah… i'm sure it's hard to shake off.

>>704988

im not sure i can speak to your degree of cognitive dissonance.

im in a great mood, actually. and i am very confident in my rejection of the roman catholic chvrch. thank you for your concern. your sincerity is very palpable. i can sleep better now.

>>704989

literally no prot has ever been able to articulate anything coherent, but it's okay, i empathize with you, it can't be easy following a "church" (which one) with no roots, with literally random doctrine, and what's more the new thing is claiming, (no one has it perfect, we all have a bit of it) hahahaha

trust me i feel for you. i went to a protestant elementary school. i love you all. i pity you, but i love you all too.

>>704987

>saving faith is trust in Jesus Christ

that's mental assent, trust/confidence.

a mental "yes" will not save anything.

Faith is an abiding, a living, a form of existing in the world. Those that do not abide do not bear good fruit, those that bear no good fruit will be cut from the tree and thrown into the fire.

>>704993

the word repent is derived from the latin word “pensar” which means to think.

you sound like a calvinist or primitive baptist who accepts TULIP.

>>704996

repent; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia_(theology)

Doctrines/understanding can't be extracted from etymology of one word though, so while a change of mind is required, the change has to be embodied in the heart and the person, how he manifests in the world.

Mere mental assent never saved anyone. You have to be born again, and that is transformation of the self.

>you sound like calvinist

calvinist adhere to the naive view of faith, as merely mental assent, it's so silly in fact that they think "saying yes" to historical facts about Jesus will "impute" righteousness on them. No such thing happens.

>>705001

>And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 11:6

grace or works. pick one.

>>705006

>Not in the bible it isn't.

>Faith is not about abiding

''Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. ''

>That would be justification by works of the law

justification by work is when a person believes he is earning salvation by his own power, through his actions. I am not saying that at all. By yourself you can do nothing.

We have to abide in him and then he will use us to bear good fruit, and to keep his commandments, and that is how we personally know our faith is salvific, because it is a work of God in us, and not our own.

>>705009

grace requires allegiance, mental assent saves nothing and no one, even the demons can believe in historical facts and say "Jesus rose and paid for sins, I believe it".

>>705021

or I should say 'grace requires cooperation' if we reject it and don't abide in Christ then we fall away and get thrown into the fire

>>705027

Putting your trust is a work then, in your bizarre view of faith and salvation.

>>705027

>It's being used simply as a verb of being (i.e. be, is, are etc.), particularly with Christ as its object, which is not how you used it

If you do not abide you will be thrown into the fire. Abiding is a verb.

>No, it is when a man believes he is at all contributing to his salvation in any way, shape, or form.

Salvation comes from the power of God by grace into man, but man has to cooperate with that grace synergistically, because of free-will and because of love. Real love is cooperative, it is not forced upon you unwillingly. God saves you as long as you abide in his grace, abide in Christ.

>>705022

>>705021

here, let me put it this way.

i believe that Jesus Christ saved me on the cross at cavalry and there is nothing man can do or say to make me believe otherwise.

I know for a fact that Jesus saved me.

If God and Jesus Christ ask(s) me why i should be allowed into heaven, i will say “because i believed in you and trusted you.”

mods why did some of these posts get deleted?

>>705100

Christ wants you to abide in him and be born again. Go get baptized while you're at it and obey the commandments.

>>705124

already done, friend.

>>705121

>church father

Jesus explicitly said to call no man on earth father.

and that christians were called christians first at antioch, not rome. not even jerusalem which is called spiritually sodom and egypt according to revelation.

you lot need to be born again.

>>705132

oh whoops! lol

>>704975

>like the vulgate which had 1 john 5:7 and acts 8:37?

No one says the Vulgate is a high quality source document. Also, the oldest and best copies of the Vulgate do not include those verses.

>did God just let everyone think those verses were scripture

I don't know what you mean by "everyone" because outside of Latin manuscripts, the comma Johanneum is totally absent for over 1500 years. It doesn't appear in any Greek manuscript until that time, anyway.

>then let english become the longua franca

Who cares? The NT was written in Greek.

>incorrect verses that both catholics and muh 30000 peotestant denominations believed to be there for centuries?

1 John 5:7 specifically has basically always been disputed–even as far back as the Lateran council. It's not like this controversy appeared yesterday.

>sorry breh. thats dumb.

Not relying on the wealth of textual witnesses God gave is us dumb.

>>705021

>even the demons can believe in historical facts and say "Jesus rose and paid for sins, I believe it"

I would love to see you prove this. Not that demons can believe that Christ was God and that he died to save all men, but that demons are capable of trusting that Christ's death was sufficient to save their souls from damnation. Provide evidence.

>>705151

>thinking denomination matters

how about i just read the bible and believe it?

“deus vult”

>>705152

Because we're not muslims

>>705144

Trust all you want if you don't abide in Christ and keep his words you will be cut from the vine and thrown in the fire with the rest of the talkers and cheerleaders…christ wants disciples not just fans. Get baptized and get saved and continue to obey else you will lose it like Adam lost life.

>>705156

if something is eternal it cannot be lost because that would contradict the definition of eternal. the thief on the cross wasnt baptized nor did he have any works.

when you look at works its talking about bodies of believers (churches). and since the churches are completely dead, i for one am glad that going to heaven isnt about works.

i mean, just look at the roman catholic church a great example.

their works are clearly of the devil. they molest children.

>>705155

>because we arent muslims

ok, and?

>>705134

>1 John 5:7 specifically has basically always been disputed–even as far back as the Lateran council. It's not like this controversy appeared yesterday.

Someone has always been questioning the word of God. That's how I know they're wrong.

>Not relying on the wealth of textual witnesses God gave is us dumb.

So basically are you suggesting that we had to wait for the discovery of the Alexandrian minority text in order to have the word of God? All the printers in the world didn't know it? The Westcott-hort New Testament was first created in 1881 from newly produced sources. That's where all the modern versions translate from; I guess nobody knew it before then. I'm trying to show you why this present-day concept is absurd.

>>705161

>the thief on the cross wasnt baptized nor did he have any works

How do you know? Scripture is silent on this.

>>705168

because he is being crucified for being a thief?

what do you mean the scriptures are silent on this? one of the ten commandments is thou shalt not steal.

>>705168

This is a new one.

>>705161

>, i for one am glad that going to heaven isnt about works.

The way an OSAS christian "loses" his salvation is by doing bad stuff, being enslaved to sin and realizing he wasn't saved to begin with, and his trust was nominal and just emotional, dead faith with no obedience, hopefully this happens before judgment so he can aquire actual faith which is active abiding in Christ. If this realization happens at judgment time you'll be in for a rude awakening.

>>705174

and i, to you, hope that the scales are removed from your eyes so that you stop trying to justify your flesh because by your standards paul wasnt saved.

>14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

>15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

>16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

>17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

>18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Romans 7

>19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

>20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

>21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

>22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

>23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

>24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

>>705173

>>705172

Scripture does not say whether he was baptized. It's entirely possible he was baptized, lapsed, and asked Jesus for forgiveness after.

>>704943

The reason the KJV gets shit on is because the translators embellished some parts like changing goat into satyr and auroch into unicorn. The are also other parts that make no damn sense in the translation like when Daniel genocides the giants. As a poetic form of the bible it isn't to bad but it is a good idea to compare it to more direct translations.

>Mary wasn't special

Except she was special. Her mother was barren the Lord responded to the fasting and praying of her father by allowing them to conceive Mary her own birth is a Miracle. Mary then lived a pious life upholding all the Laws and Commandments set out and praying at all hours of the day the Lord seeing this choose her to be the vessel that would deliver the Savior into the World God could have choose any woman but he choose Mary. When the Angel Gabriel met her he told her "Hail Mary Full of Grace the Lord is With You Blessed are you Among Women." signifying that yes she is indeed special. Jesus performed his first public miracle at the urging of Mary and although Jesus rebuked her he still gave in because he loved her. On the Cross before death Jesus looked down at the Apostle present and told him to take care of his Mother who was there as well. At her death Mary was taken into heaven Body and Soul according to the witness of the Apostles something reserved for only a handful of people in the bible.

>>705182

You don't "lapse" from a baptism. That concept doesn't even make sense.

>>705166

>Someone has always been questioning the word of God. That's how I know they're wrong.

If 1 John 5:7 was not written by the blessed apostle, it is not the word of God.

>So basically are you suggesting that we had to wait for the discovery of the Alexandrian minority text in order to have the word of God?

Not at all, but nice strawman. I am however suggesting that God gave us the resources necessary to correct and eliminate corruptions that worked their way into the text.

>All the printers in the world didn't know it?

Let's do a small thought experiment.

Let's pretend the word of God was: "God bless America." These are the inspired words of God written down by a blessed apostle moved by the Holy Spirit.

What happens if, when copying this text 200 years later, I write "God bless America and Canada." Did we lose the word of God? No. Not at all, the divinely inspired words are still there. But The addition of "and Canada" is a corruption; it's not inspired. Should it not then be purged?

>I'm trying to show you why this present-day concept is absurd.

And you've failed. Relying on about a dozen, relatively young manuscripts from 600 years ago when we have much older and purer texts is absurd.

>>705185

Good think I didn't say he "lapsed from a baptism" then, huh?

>>705191

>If 1 John 5:7 was not written by the blessed apostle, it is not the word of God.

It actually was.

>I am however suggesting that God gave us the resources necessary to correct and eliminate corruptions that worked their way into the text.

I wouldn't disagree at all. I would insist that we have always had the word of God and the corruptions never got into it.

>Did we lose the word of God? No. Not at all, the divinely inspired words are still there. But The addition of "and Canada" is a corruption; it's not inspired. Should it not then be purged?

The alexandrian texts add words to 1 Peter 2:2.

>when we have much older and purer texts is absurd.

They're not pure.

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.

>>705196

Notice scripture says from this generation for ever.

Matthew 24:35

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

Psalm 119:160

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

Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Every time I think how easy this would be if they just added the Didache to the bible and yes the early church considered it canon they didn't add it because it was basically a How to Be a Christian introduction Pack.

>>705201

They didn't because they couldn't get away with it; they couldn't get away with adding whole books, if they had tried. It wasn't until the council of Trent that they tried.

>>705196

>It actually was.

Then why is it completely absent in every Greek new testament until the 1500s? Why don't any of the early Christians quote it when defending the trinity? Why does it only appear in Latin manuscripts and not other translations until about the year 1000? The facts make 1 john 5:7 of dubious reliability.

>I would insist that we have always had the word of God

agreed

and the corruptions never got into it.

disagree.

>The alexandrian texts add words to 1 Peter 2:2.

Even assuming this was relevant to our discussion on 1 John 5:7, you'd insist on those added words in 1 peter being removed, right?

>They're not pure.

The manuscripts used for the KJV are demonstrably corrupt.

>psalm 12

irrelevant.

>Notice scripture says from this generation for ever.

Notice scripture doesn't say how God will preserve His words

>Matthew 24:35

God bless America and Canada

>Psalm 119

God bless America and Canada

>Proverbs 30

God bless America and Canada

>>705204

>Why don't any of the early Christians quote it when defending the trinity?

Sabellians who attack the trinity were using John 10:30 to argue their heresy. 1 John 5:7 says basically the same thing.

>Then why is it completely absent in every Greek new testament until the 1500s?

You don't have every Greek new testament that ever existed. So why are you acting like you do?

I could argue the exact same way just by demanding a 1st century copy of everything and not accepting any copies after that date. I could say there existed no 1st century scripture on the basis that we don't have any today. I could say give me the first century manuscripts and it would use all the same arguments, just change pre-earliest manuscript date you accept to an older time.

The fact is that God preserved his word through the TR and the copyists before them. They had access to resources that haven't survived to today, but it doesn't matter because the word reach us. It's not about trusting the dating of ink on some manuscript, it's about trusting God and the word of God. And I know that we've never lost it.

>God bless America and Canada

I told you, 1 Peter 2:2 in modern versions adds extra words. That's the opposite of cutting away. Also Mark 1:2 adds in the word Isaiah where it wasn't before.

>>705168

I've had a Mormon tell me this exact same thing.

It's interesting how counterfeit Christs all line up.

>>705037

It is not. It is not a condition set by God that if men meet it, they will therefore be saved, and it is not something man of himself wills. Faith is created by God in the hearts of His elect people for their salvation, and does not properly justify, but only justifies insofar as it apprehends the righteousness of Christ, which alone properly justifies.

>>705040

>but man has to cooperate with that grace synergistically

He is unable. Man is such a disgustingly wicked creature, that he is consumed in his soul with hatred for God and His just law, so that he will not come to repentance, unless God unilaterally raises him to spiritual life.

>>705209

>Sabellians who attack the trinity were using John 10:30 to argue their heresy. 1 John 5:7 says basically the same thing.

This didn't address my question.

>You don't have every Greek new testament that ever existed. So why are you acting like you do?

I don't need every Greek new testament that ever existed. I only need the manuscripts God gave us. And the evidence God gave us leads me and the majority of Christians to conclude 1 John 5:7 is a forgery.

>I could argue the exact same way just by demanding a 1st century copy of everything and not accepting any copies after that date. I could say there existed no 1st century scripture on the basis that we don't have any today. I could say give me the first century manuscripts and it would use all the same arguments, just change pre-earliest manuscript date you accept to an older time.

This is so stupid and fallacious I refuse to insult your intelligence by bothering to address it.

>The fact is that God preserved his word through the TR and the copyists before them.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no reason for me to believe this claim. The manuscripts Erasmus used to compile the TR don't even agree with each other!

>They had access to resources that haven't survived to today, but it doesn't matter because the word reach us.

And we have resources Erasmus and the translators of the KJV didn't have. Many more, in fact. I see no reason to rely exclusively on the fewer, younger manuscripts used in the KJV than the wealth that God has given us.

>It's not about trusting the dating of ink on some manuscript, it's about trusting God and the word of God.

Textual criticism is not "about trusting the date of ink on some manuscript" either. It seems your position is based on ignorance.

>And I know that we've never lost it.

God bless America and Canada

>I told you

You didn't answer my question. Should we purge extra words added to the text that the blessed apostles did not write or should we keep them where they are? Should we remove "and Canada" ?

>>705297

>This is so stupid and fallacious I refuse to insult your intelligence by bothering to address it.

Because I'm right.

>>704943

>"Hey, should I try and jump into a pool out of a fourth story window?

<"No, that's retarded"

>"LMAO, all these people trying to get me not to jump out of a fourth story window, imma go do it"

>>705297

Look if you're taking some modern scholar and their fallible opinions as your final authority on truth, that's your own fault. Don't go extending that argument from a fallible authority on others. It doesn't matter how much he and the world promotes himself, he's still spreading misinformation and it's no use stubbornly clinging to the opinions of some scholar. I DID answer the questions, you just can't accept them and you don't get "another try." If you lack the fortitude to even ask clarifying questions and instead want to persist in your misunderstanding, perhaps because you're copying the questions you asked from someone else's book or blog, then you either have to accept the answer you're given or deal with it. Only choices available.

>>705299

>comparing a bible translation to jumping out of a window

see what I mean?

>>704958

>capitalized pronouns for Mary

>>704949

"Your valid criticisms just strengthen my faith!

Isn't that what Christians do all the time?

:^)

>>705401

>valid

If the KJV isn't the inspired word of God, then why did God write it and not all the other bibles?

>>704975

Consider this. She had free will. The angel addressed her with the title before she gave an answer. She could have said no. So she was already blessed and graced before she ever bore Jesus, she was clearly not an ordinary woman that God just randomly chose and "blessed" with an invitation. She was not graced with the opportunity, she was graced thus she was worthy of the opportunity to bear Jesus.

>>704981

Why did you dovetail from attacking protestants to attacking orthodox converts? Got a serious case of buttpain here.

>>705376

They do it for the pope as well. It makes me sad, honestly.

>>705376

>>706255

>crying about muh preferred pronouns

the absolute state

>>704986

Because one is saying Mary is literally sinless through the grace of God. While the other one is saying that she's favored in God's eyes. These two, obviously, have very distinct theological connotations that follow.

>>704957

>>704954

>How is that a deadly heresy?

This is the absolute state of sola scriptura.

>>705121

>Sounds like you're trying to turn away prots from the one true faith

Wait here man. Your "sola fide" means there is NO one true faith. Your reduced "minimal requirements" theology has no basis of claiming One true faith/One true church. No apostolic succession, no tradition before 16th century….What does the term "one true faith" even means for you?

Trying to larp as catholic/orthodox?

If you truly are Protestant your "sola fide" denies the existence of one true faith. According to your "doctrine" just believing Jesus is the savior is enough.

>>705152

>Denomination does not matter

where do you draw the line..your worldview eventually leads to "all religions lead to God"

How about listening to Christ when he talks about his church? He specifically says that it will prevail. Therefore it is logical why you should care about denomination

>>705151

This.

>But muh baste Putin

>Muh Filioque

>Muh papal supremacy

>Muh Stepinac

>Catholic was once mean to me

Deus Vult brother.

>>704979

>>first born of all creatures

>>of all creatures

>>creatures

Chill, he's quoting Colossians 1:15

>Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

>>705198

How do you know the preserved word of God is the KJV (or Textus Receptus)? Why not some other translation or text?

>>705209

Wow you can quote KJVToday

>>704974

You think "not obey" and "not believe" mean the same thing in different wording? You have got to be kidding me.

>>707934

Thanks for asking. To answer your question, it's the same reason I know the Koran is wrong.

I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that you know why you don't believe the Koran of islam. Well, by this same reasoning that's how I know the modern versions is false and inaccurate. It says false things.

I can back that claim up if needed.

>>707941

What false things does the critical text say? It cuts out much more than it adds to the TR so I don't know what "errors" you can find in it.

>>707950

>kerrupt pagan gnostic, minimizes the divinity of Jesus, make's God a liar

>>704954

>Changes the lines referring to St. Mary from "full of grace" to "highly favoured", a deadly heresy.

It's an accurate translation. "κεχαριτωμένη" (Gabriel's greeting to her) It means grace or favor being bestowed on her. " πλήρης χάριτος" would more accurately describe a trait for someone with their own capacity to bestow grace themselves.

>>707950

Here's some examples. In Mark 1:2 the modern versions all say that the following quote is "written in the prophet Isaiah." If the word of God says something is "written in Isaiah" then it would be strange if you searched through the entire book and could not find that quotation. Because, in fact, the part of the quotation in Mark 1:2 is only found in Malachi 3:1. It is not written in Isaiah. Whoever added that changed it so it's no longer accurate. If you say something is written in Isaiah and it isn't written anywhere in there, then you've made a false statement.

In Luke 2:33, the modern versions have it that Joseph was in fact Jesus' own "father." Yet this contradicts the facts of Luke 1, Matthew 1 and so on.

In Micah 5:2, the modern versions say of the ruler of Israel that will be born in Bethlehem that his goings forth are only "from ancient times." and not "from everlasting." This contradicts Colossians 1:15-17.

In Genesis 22:17, modern versions refer to "thy seed" as a plural and not a singular. This is significant because of what Galatians 3:16 says and for the modern versions this amounts to a contradiction.

Maybe worst of these is in Isaiah 14:12, where the modern versions take out the word "Lucifer" and in its place write the name that Jesus took for himself in Revelation 22:16. That's a contradiction for obvious reasons, because Jesus Christ is not cut down from heaven as Isaiah 14:12 describes. Also there are places where the modern versions say the exact opposite of what it had originally said, such as in Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 2:18.

In Philippians 2:6 in particular, they change the meaning of the verse to say that Jesus did not try to grasp equality with God, as if the Lord Jesus literally wasn't equal to and didn't try to be equal with God. This is the exact opposite of what the Bible says there, which is that he "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Why did he not think that? Because he actually was. The opposite implies he wasn't, it implies he didn't even try to grasp it. That sounds a lot like these people who go around today claiming that "Jesus never claimed to be God." Maybe they were reading Philippians 2:6 in a modern version and that's where they got that… because it's clearly the case that Jesus is God.

Furthermore, the NIV in John 3:13 says that no one has ever gone into heaven. The actual text is that no man hath ascended up to heaven. Emphasis on the ascending toward heaven, which is what the statement is actually about.

The ESV in John 1:18 says that "no one has ever seen God," but the only God has made him known. This is a nonsensical statement. I could go on showing various mistakes different modern versions make, only to show that it is deranged to act like they all say the same thing either, making the whole "critical text" line of thought lose any sense of coherency. Which seems to me to be the underlying point, it's the incoherent collection of critical text translations that don't agree with each other or themselves, against the coherent.

>>707964

Later translations often just say favored, maybe simply "graced" would have worked.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%87%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%82#Derived_terms

>>707965

I'm not going to address the issues of translations you brought up because I'm more interested in the Greek/Hebrew variants than any English rendering of them.

It is true Mark 1:2 is only found in Malachi 3:1, but immediately after in Mark 1:3 it is a citation of Isaiah 40:3, so it is a proper citation to say it is from Isaiah the prophet. Jews would cite the major prophet when quoting multiple prophets IIRC

There is no issue in Luke 2:33, for example in Luke 2:41 in the KJV it reads "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." Joseph was Jesus's adoptive father.

I agree with you on a lot of the translational issues, especially Phil 2:6 which modern versions are butchering, but there are no doctrinal errors in the critical text itself.

As someone who has not read much of the Bible, which bible should I get?

>>707973

>It is true Mark 1:2 is only found in Malachi 3:1, but immediately after in Mark 1:3 it is a citation of Isaiah 40:3, so it is a proper citation to say it is from Isaiah the prophet.

It's incorrect to say that it is written in Isaiah the prophet when it is not written there. Like I said, the portion of the quote in Mark 1:2 is not.

>Jews would cite the major prophet when quoting multiple prophets IIRC

Let me guess, your source for that is Mark 1:2. And another thing, Mark 1:2 is the only place where this would have happened in the actual NT. God is the author of scripture, he does not make mistakes like Jews do. If you don't believe that then there's no point in the discussion. I believe what 2 Peter 1:21 says. Mark 1:2 says it is "written in the prophets," because it comes from more than one prophet, and every single time that the actual NT uses the phrase "it is written in" it references it accurately, both in Mark 1:2 and elsewhere. That is how I know every other variation must be wrong and there's no other way.

>There is no issue in Luke 2:33

As long as it doesn't say "his father and mother" then you are correct there is no issue. Find me a place anywhere that Jesus or the writer says "his father" instead of Joseph. You can't, but you can find a place where they tried to kill him because he called God his Father in John 5:18!

>but there are no doctrinal errors in the critical text itself.

From what I can tell, there is no actual "critical text" but rather there is a mish-mash of dozens of different eclectic gatherings of minority text variants mixed together in different combinations. This is why I'm referencing the English translations; because each one uses its own special underlying "constructed" source text. There is no "the" critical text, but rather a collection of different constructions used for different translations, none of which agree with each other.

For instance, the NASB critical text removes the words "in me" from Mark 9:42, while the rest of them leave the words intact. But two verses later, the ESV, NIV, NLT and others remove Mark 9:44 and 46 completely while the NASB leaves it in. So which one are you talking about?

Also the ESV and NASB in 1 John 3:5 says "take away sins" whereas the NIV, NLT and others says "take away our sins." So do they remove the word "our," or not? In John 1:18, the NLT and NASB change "Son" to "God." The ESV and NET take it a step further and also remove the words "only begotten" as well. Meanwhile the NIV still says "one and only Son." So which one is the critical text?

The minority texts have many variants that no one, yet, has chosen to include. This includes things like having Revelation 4:8 repeat the word "holy" eight times. For some reason no modern translation has taken that, but they gladly take other things from the same source– those that are to their personal liking. This is on top of their dynamic translation and the reinterpretation of English words. The bottom line is they all fail on the most basic level for using corrupt sources; the fact they only partially use them whenever they feel like it only makes it worse and more obvious how much of a fraud it really is. Their sales strategy is no different than the textbook publishers who always want to come out with new versions to sell to the masses, only these individuals are actually tampering with scripture all while posturing themselves as scholars. I guarantee you it's ruined millions of lives.

>there are no doctrinal errors in the critical text itself.

Oh you want doctrinal errors? That could be arranged. For instance compare Matthew 5:22 with Ephesians 4:26.

>>708327

>It's incorrect to say that it is written in Isaiah the prophet when it is not written there.

>Let me guess, your source for that is Mark 1:2.

"Second, as Robert Gundry noted some time ago, it was common practice when dealing with composite quotations, if a source was to be cited, to name only the most important author (The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, 125). Mark is simply informing the reader that his primary interpretative horizon is Isaiah. And as is well recognized, Isaiah and in particular his vision of new exodus salvation do indeed play a fundamental role in his Gospel (see my Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark)."

>Find me a place anywhere that Jesus or the writer says "his father" instead of Joseph.

I just showed you in Luke 2:41 "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." which is calling Joseph his father (adoptive father).

>From what I can tell, there is no actual "critical text"

Yes there is, the latest edition is the NA28/UBS5. Differences between versions are based either on different translations (as is the case with John 1:18 in the examples you cited) or an outdated critical text.

>The minority texts have many variants that no one, yet, has chosen to include.

I'm not a proponent of reasoned eclecticism myself, but at least they have consistent methods to apply to determine if a reading is authentic or not. This is impossible with TR-onlyism. "hagios" 8 times is only in Sinaiticus and readings are never accepted based on Sinaiticus alone (which is known to have many errors).

>Oh you want doctrinal errors?

Since I am not a proponent of reasoned eclecticism as I just said, I won't argue over the validity of some of the variants mentioned (because I think many of them are inauthentic), but I will argue that they are completely acceptable doctrinally. For example I prefer the reading "without cause" but the generally accepted reading is not a contradiction to Eph 4:26 any more than Eph 4:31 is a contradiction to Eph 4:26.

>>708409

>The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel

Are you going to provide a reason why it's correct to say that these words from Malachi were "written in the prophet Isaiah"? As I believe I made clear in my previous post, common practice among Jews who are tending toward Jewish fables and fabrications is not an influence on God's words. So will you focus us to somewhere in scripture where this is common practice? Even one place?

>which is calling Joseph his father (adoptive father).

I don't see where it says "his father". I'm pretty sure that's what I just asked.

>Yes there is, the latest edition is the NA28/UBS5.

Oh okay, so basically everyone today is completely on board that this is the word of God and that it's never going to be subjected to further changes, and it will never become outdated, right? Because as Scripture states in Matthew 24:35,

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

And furthermore in Psalm 119 it is written,

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

>>708414

>I'm pretty sure that's what I just asked.

And the reason I'm being specific here is because scripture is carefully avoiding saying this throughout. I get that Joseph's lineage plays a crucial part in Jesus' heritage according to Old Testament law and for fulfilling prophecy. Believe me, I get that very much. It's just that the statement is never made, except by Mary in Luke 2:48, who was wrong, and Jesus himself rebuked it immediately. To include this deception that he was born of Joseph as fact by the writer in Luke 2:33, when it is factually incorrect, amounts to an internal contradiction— so naturally I've included it here, because it contradicts the facts of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, etc.

>>708414

"Your parents" are your mother and father.

I've never seen a KJV-Onlyist win a debate, just sayin'