/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The King James

>>705656

This.

>>705656

>>705658

For both New Testament and Hebrew?

Also, I should have mentioned this in the OP, but if possible - please explain as to why the certain translation is considered most accurate, as there is some contention, from what I understand. Thank you.

>>705665

Sure. It's based on the received words of God passed down to us from antiquity, unchanged from the original day it was written, and not based on newly discovered and corrupt versions that were first uncovered in the late 1800's after being lost for centuries, nor is it a translation based on a translation as if the original word spoken of in Matthew 24:35 and Isaiah 59:21 had been lost.

The newly produced "modern" versions are not equivalent to the authorized version because of the fact that they drawn from modern discovered sources, which in doing so implies that they had to rediscover what the Bible said and that everyone before 1881, the year that it was first created and published, had it wrong.

For instance, they remove the words "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22 where the KJV has it. They remove the words "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24.

Also in Luke 2:33 they change "Joseph and his mother" into "his father and his mother" or "his parents," which implies Joseph was his actual father. They remove the part where the thief on the cross says "Lord" to Jesus in Luke 23:42. They remove the part where the Jews "sought to slay him" in John 5:16.

For this and many more doctrinally relevant reasons, I never use the modern versions and never recommend them. There is only one actual word of God, not many different variations, it's time to stop acting like non-equivalent versions which I can show to you are non-equivalent should be regarded as the same. And the fact all publishers of modern versions hide this fact that all of their versions are different, and market them as merely "updated language" while downplaying and hiding these differences should tell you enough about their motivations.

>>705628

Young literal translation.

>>705656

>Dynamic translation

>Close to original

Also, Erasmus pet project is not original NT.

>>705681

Based and redpilled

>>705685

>original hebrew manuscripts of the prophets (which is what they spoke) and greek epistles (to the GREEK-speaking churches) were not the ORIGINAL

okay chef

>>705731

>Leningrad Codex by anti christian talmudist

>original hebrew manuscripts of the prophets

>Critical edition by monk from sixteenth century

>greek epistles

Are you historically illiterate or willingly ignorant?

>>705665

King James for new testament at least, the TR uses the majority text and 98% of discovered manuscripts agree with it. Modern versions use "older" recently discovered manuscripts in the nestles text that differ from almost all the other ones.

>>705771

>look at me i don't have an argument

>>705773

I can't speak to your translation argument since I don't speak greek and I doubt you do either, at least compared to over 54 of the top scholars in all of Europe who worked on the KJV for 7 years.

>>705780

Actually I can read Koine Greek and have read almost the entire New Testament purely in Greek. Also, you're making an argument for authority. You do know that they had their own biases right? King James even instructed them to translate the KJV in such a way as to support the doctrine of the Church of England.

>>705787

Pretty sure you just watched some james white vids and think you're a bible scholar now

>>705789

Why would I watch videos by a heretical Protestant?

Also, once again, you have no argument. The only thing you can do now it attack my credibility instead of actually making an argument.

>>705790

Because I don't speak greek idiot, your argument is going to come from why they got it wrong. Their translation team was obviously the best in the world and the process included many checks from different teams over several years. Maybe start with how the coe doctrines made salvation an act if they did.

>>705793

>Because I don't speak greek idiot

Rule 2.

Also, that's why I'm telling you about this, so you know that their translation was winnie the poohed up.

>heir translation team was obviously the best in the world and the process included many checks from different teams over several years. Maybe start with how the coe doctrines made salvation an act if they did.

Once again, you're making an argument from authority. You're not taking into account their biases. They were translating on command of King James I & VI trying to stay in line with the standard Protestant theology in Britain at the time.

They were also using other older English Bibles for reference which had also wrongly translated this verse like Tyndale's shitty translation which 90% of the KJV is based off of (I'm not exaggerating see my source below), and it's been estimated that 1/3 of the KJV is the same as Tyndale's word for word. The RSV translators even noted:

"It [the KJV] kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale"

Scholars Brian Moynahan also notes:

""A complete analysis of the Authorised Version, known down the generations as "the AV" or "the King James" was made in 1998. It shows that Tyndale's words account for 84% of the New Testament and for 75.8% of the Old Testament books that he translated."

Scholar Joan Bridgman also notes,

"He [Tyndale] is the mainly unrecognised translator of the most influential book in the world. Although the Authorised King James Version is ostensibly the production of a learned committee of churchmen, it is mostly cribbed from Tyndale with some reworking of his translation."

Your precious KJV is basically just a plagiarized version from another shitty version from William Tyndale.

>>705799

>You're not taking into account their biases.

Their personal biases were already taken into account by their specific verification teams that were checked by people who didn't translate the same part originally. And now you're making an argument from authority from the RSV translators!

>>705800

>Their personal biases were already taken into account by their specific verification teams that were checked by people who didn't translate the same part originally.

You Baptists are beyond anti-intellectual. Did you literally not read what I wrote?

>And now you're making an argument from authority from the RSV translators!

No I'm not, I'm using it as a source out of many sources as evidence. I'm actually quoting it as evidence. Your argument is from authority because it doesn't actually have evidence just the assertion that because this person is a scholar they must be correct, but you don't provide actual evidence for their translation policy while I did.

>>705806

>You Baptists

I'm not a baptist

>Did you literally not read what I wrote?

I read what you wrote, and no personal bias would make the translation incorrect. Unless you can tell me why the coe would want it changed you have no substance.

>I'm using it as a source out of many sources as evidence

I'm not asserting that "because this person is a scholar they must be correct" at all, it's about the specific translation process they used to remove personal bias with verification from teams.

>>705806

54 scholars were appointed in 1604, and a few overseers were also present, who went from group to group. In time through death the number of translators diminished to 47. They were given three locations to work: Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster. And two groups worked at each location, making a total of six groups. The Bible was also divided up into six sections. Each group took one section, working on one book at a time.

First, each translator made his own translation of the book, which was reviewed by each other member of the group. Then the whole group reviewed the book. When they all agreed on the translation, they sent it to the other five groups for evaluation. Those groups then returned it to the original committee, marking anything they disagreed with. The original group would then go over the book again.

When all six committees finished with the book, it was sent, with any differences that were left, to a special committee made up of one leader from each of the six groups. They solved any remaining problems, and the book was sent to the printers.

But they did not work in secret, as did the "Revisers" in 1871 - 1881. At any time, the translators could ask an outside scholar for his understanding, and anyone could find out about the progress. The churches were kept informed at all times1.

In all, every single verse of the Bible was carefully examined and decided upon a total of fourteen times, by as many as 50 or more people! This made it impossible for any one translator to impose his personal viewpoint on a passage. He had to have logical reasons for a translation that were good enough to persuade every other scholar before it could be written into the text. There was no "private interpretation" here!

(2 Peter 1:20-21)

© 2001 by David W. Daniels

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/translate.asp

>>705770

>makes a bad argument demonstrating misunderstanding

>unwarranted profanity

BEING SAVED from what?

being saved from the lake of fire

every waking moment from the time you get SAVED until you die is BEING SAVED. there is no difference, “us which are saved” is the most biblically consistent rendering, you foul-mouthed degenerate.

>>705685

I used to think that to be the most literal translation until I came across Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, there's substantial difference between the first and later editions of that.

Now I think the Darby Bible is probably the best of those lesser used literal translations

>>705824

Yes, and they heavily used Tyndale's Bible (as well as the Bishops' Bible) for reference. As said, 33% of the KJV is word for word Tyndale's Bible and 80-90% of it is based off of Tyndale's.

(The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today, By David Norton)

>>705829

Yes there is. "Being saved" indicates salvation is still happening, "are saved" indicates it already happened in the past.

>>705821

>I'm not asserting that "because this person is a scholar they must be correct" at all, it's about the specific translation process they used to remove personal bias with verification from teams.

But they didn't as I just showed you.

>>705841

To me, there is no difference.

>And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment

I'm already going to die, but since in this life I accepted Christ as my savior, then I have both BEEN saved and am going to BE saved. It's his promise.

>13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

>14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Ephesians 1

It's the only way the bible makes consistent sense. And hallelujah to God that I can know that I have eternal life:

>These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

1 John 5:13

>>705842

Yes, they did. You are not smarter than the over 50 people who translated the KJV and verified each verse with each other 14 times. If you really think your knowledge is better than every one of them, that's laughable.

>>705770

The Greek verb σωζομενοις is the present passive participle, which is an ongoing passive action. In English, an ongoing passive act can be expressed as either “are being + (past participle)” or “are + (past participle)”.

For example, the declaration "The eggs are stored in the fridge" is equivalent to the declaration "The eggs are being stored in the fridge." In both cases, the eggs are within the fridge in the current moment. You can replace the eggs and fridge and the verb with anything else, this is just an example.

It must be noted however, in specific the phrase "are being saved" is needlessly wordy since "are saved" denotes the same meaning. Furthermore, "are being saved" has an unintended connotation of an ongoing but incomplete process. This connotation is not found in the original.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (KJV)

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Acts 2:47 (KJV)

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Other translations apply this shift in English inconsistently. They don't do it according to any grammatical standard, but they just apply “are being” haphazardly just wherever they decided to.

To give a few examples, the NKJV changes the tense to “are being” in 1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Acts 2:47, and Hebrews 10:14, but does not do so in Luke 13:23 or Revelation 21:24.

The MEV changes the tense in 1 Cor. 1:18, Acts 2:47, and Luke 13:23, but the publishers elected not to do so in 2 Cor. 2:15 or Hebrews 10:14.

Meanwhile, the WEB only changes Acts 2:47 and Hebrews 10:14, and leaves all the others alone.

Most modern “critical text” versions tend to change all of them, but only some change Luke 13:23 or Hebrews 10:14. For instance, the NASB does change Luke 13:23 to “are being saved” but not Hebrews 10:14, while the ESV changes Hebrews 10:14 to “are being sanctified” but NOT Luke 13:23.

This shows that all modern translations are applying this grammatical change in English haphazardly, not according to any sort of rule or grammatical understanding; but the Authorized version uses English consistently as described, in 1 Corinthians 1:18 and in all the other places. “Are saved” and not “are being saved.” Every time. They are actually consistent in translation on this.

>>705799

>They were also using other older English Bibles for reference which had also wrongly translated this verse

So which is it… Did the 4 teams of 50 translators make changes according to their bias or did they all copy someone else's translation work? Which one are we supposed to be character attacking here?

>>705838

>80-90% of it is based off of Tyndale's.

You must be misinterpreting the figures you were given. Tyndale didn't have time to translate more than about 40% of the Bible until he was executed. The rest was done purely by other men; that remaining 60% has zero influence from him.

Another thing you want to keep in mind is that English in its formative stage took its definitions from the KJV. Webster's 1828 and before him Johnson's 1755 dictionary of the English language all took definitions from the authorized Bible. So English as we know it, proper English, the language we speak is actually defined by that book. You can say it's wrong but by what standard then?

By what standard is it wrong, I ask? It's right by Webster's 1828 and Johnson's 1755 English dictionaries.

>>706426

Nice copy pasta you got going there, I know exactly where you got that from.

"The eggs are being stored in the fridge" and "The eggs are stored in the fridge" are not equivalent. Both are present passive but the former is the simple present passive whereas the latter is not. Theoretically it could be translated that way and work but if the two had to be picked the latter would be more ideal because it expresses the original idea in Greek much better.

>So which is it… Did the 4 teams of 50 translators make changes according to their bias or did they all copy someone else's translation work? Which one are we supposed to be character attacking here?

Well they used Tyndale's which is bias.

>You must be misinterpreting the figures you were given. Tyndale didn't have time to translate more than about 40% of the Bible until he was executed. The rest was done purely by other men; that remaining 60% has zero influence from him.

Yes I understand this but the New Testament was completed which the KJV was heavily influenced from.

>>705658

>>706455

*the latter is simple present passive whereas the former is not

*the former would be more ideal

Sorry

>>705656

>being this dishonest