/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>Are there any actual non-meme reasons why I should read the KJV over other translations?

No.

>Are the Byzantine manuscripts underlying the text really more reliable than the modern critical texts?

No.

>>715395

Elaborate? Genuinely curious

>>715393

The only legitimate reason to read the KJV over other Bibles is the fact that it’s an exceptionally good translation (in both a scholarly and literary way) and it was in common use in the anglosphere for 400 years. However, you should recognize that it has minor flaws based on translator bias (the main time this comes up is in the angelic greeting to Mary) and archaic scholarship (there are a ton of manuscripts and editions they didn’t have access to). I prefer the KJV in my personal scripture reading, and I’d say it’s probably the most beautiful translation ever made, but I wouldn’t say it’s the only acceptable Bible.

>no copyright

>no "edits reflecting our culture so we can understand" such as gender bullshit

>fags and post/modernists hate it

>catholics hate it, but i'm repeating myself about fags and post/modernists

>used by the most faithful and fervent

Not even meming, it's a good version, if not the best in English.

catholicbible.online

Includes the Vulgate, DR (which is superior to KJV), and the Knox translations.

If you really wanna be hardcore, open a side tab of the LXX and do your own research.

>>715406

>DR (which is superior to KJV)

A translation of a translation is superior to a translation?

>>715410

For bibles circa the 1600s, yes. At the time, there was a wealth of Latin Bibles in the west and the Latin manuscript line was better preserved compared to the Greek lines in the West. Today, with better communication between the West and the East and the greater wealth of Greek manuscripts compared to what was known in the 1600s, the Greek is a superior source.

>>715393

>non-meme

It is an important work of English literature and a generally beautiful book. It shouldn't be used over –other– better translations though.

>>715406

>>715413

The douay rheims is legitimately not a good Bible. It’s extremely rushed cause the church wanted an English Bible ASAP and some passages read like the vulgate put through google translate. It’s a lot better to pick a later Catholic translation like the RSVCE/Ignatius version

>>715425

I use RSVCE2 actually, but it's a good online reference.

>>715410

the LXX is a greek translation tho

>>715405

catholicism is the par opposite of post modernism

Is there a direct English translation from the LXX?

>>715456

Brenton's Septuagint, OSB.

>>715393

"You should read the KJV over other translations" isn't the same as KJV-onlyism, which usually includes the belief that other translations are straight up wrong and harmful. I'm not a KJV-onlyist but I do like the KJV a lot.

Someone had posed a question like this: did the world have access to the word of God between 500 and 1870 or whenever someone dug up some manuscripts from a basement or a tomb, or did it not? If the general answer to this question is "yes", there's no reason to keep fiddling with the text worrying about critical translations: a translation with the texts available in 1611 is sufficient.

One of my own is that Scripture deserves uniquely formal language to set it apart from secular writing. However there's no reason you couldn't dress up the RSV with thee's and thou's.

>>715405

You will never have to argue that "sexual immorality" includes "fornication" with the KJV.

>>715462

>You will never have to argue that "sexual immorality" includes "fornication" with the KJV.

You only have to argue this if you're a literalist, and then you have many other issues on top of that.

>>715425

The Wycliffe bible translates the Vulgate the most literally I've seen and versions of it to early modern and contemporary renderings of English from the original middle English have been made. Unfortunately the church had to declare him a heretic but the translation is said to have continued being used by Catholics and that it has also influenced the DR translation.

>>715403

>translator bias (the main time this comes up is in the angelic greeting to Mary)

There are Catholic approved bibles (NRSVCE, I know) that just say "favored one" instead of "full of grace" or "highly favored" like the KJV. More on this here: https://www.catholic.com/qa/full-of-grace-versus-highly-favored

Also the KJV says "hail" which people make a big deal of on this board while the NRSVCE just says "greetings".

>>715463

Sure, but just try convincing some teenager not to commit fornication with his girlfriend using the text of the NIV.

>>715468

The sins of the flesh are obvious; you should accept that the teenager isn't raising a valid theological objection and simply wants to sin.

>>715466

And he came in/went in/entered toward her and said Joy/Rejoice, graced one, the Lord with thee. Well spoken/Eulogized art thou in women.

Wonder if that would be of satisfaction to more.

>>715396

I was watching a Defenders lecture from William Lane Craig where he makes a side note slamming the KJV because the Byzantine manuscripts are one of the most corrupted by copyist errors and called it not fit for real Biblical study. (~22:21)

what if someone doesnt speak english?

It says dumb ass in the KJV Bible.

>>715513

Then they don’t use an English Bible, lamebrain

>>715516

yeah use the kjv in that language

>>715413

Umm but the original NT language is Greek so the Latin tradition is irrelevant.

That’s like saying Plato’s tradition is more complete in English than Greek, therefore when we translate Plato to Spanish we should use the English tradition. Very silly.

>>715610

I only mean Greek was ALWAYS the better choice.

>>715393

Well,

>isn't critical text (ei. We removed verses just because)

>was made for general usage for English speakers (no denominational preferencing)

>one of the better English translations there is

>Textus Receptus

It could be better if the OT was Septuagint though….

>>715645

Well, translating from the Hebrew only makes sense, since it is closest to what the original language would have said, linguistically speaking, but a textual critic/translator still needs to be mindful of textual variations between different OT scriptures such as the Old Greek (or "Septuagint"), Syriac Peshitta, Dead Sea Scrolls, NT quotations, etc. Textual criticism/translation of the OT is a much, much more complicated endeavor than doing so of the NT.

One thing that is mainly in dispute, though, concerning either the favoritism or rejection of the KJV (or the NKJV for that matter) is whether or not the Byzantine Majority Text is preferable over the critical texts underlying newer translations which, to the best of my humble knowledge, prioritize Alexandrian manuscripts (like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). I understand that the Textus Receptus has some significant differences with the Majority Text, but it is relatively close.

I am not that interested in the theological arguments for KJV-onlyism like those which are propagated by the likes of Peter Ruckman, Kent Hovind, and His All Holiness Patriarch Stefanos Andersoniki of Tempe (pbuh). They are trash.

Maybe there are better places to ask such questions than the backwaters of internet Christendom that is /christian/…

>>715707

>/r/AcademicBiblical looks interesting. You should take a look.

>>715721

I was on that sub for a while when I was just starting in my faith. I saw some very strange secular claims from people there, and not much in the way of actual Christian arguments from Christians. I showed something from there to my friend / mentor in the Faith, and he just told me to stop going there. Really be wary of what you hear from there.

>>715768

I don't suggest it's the most remarkable place on the net, there probably isn't one tbh but you could probably get more discourse in the direction of what anon was looking for and at a more continual rate.

>>715393

>Are there any actual non-meme reasons why I should read the KJV over other translations?

It depends on what you mean by this. If you mean reading different translations of the received text as laid down by the line of textual critics that were around at the time where widespread publication of books of that scale were possible, then there are fairly good reasons why the KJV is considered best among English translations of the received original language Old and New Testaments.

But, if you mean to compare it with modern "critical text" versions that began to appear around 1880 with the publication of Westcott-Hort, then there is every reason not to use those. They change substantially what the New Testament says in, according to what I've seen, at least one hundred doctrinally important places. Here is but one example:

Matthew 5:22

>KJV: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

>ESV (and others): But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment;

Notice how the critical text versions removed the words "without a cause."

There is no equivocating between these. Either Jesus said those words at that specific place and time, or he didn't speak those words at that place and time. Only one reflects the facts. Therefore we have on our hands two translations which, logically, cannot both be true. This is not how the promoters of the modern versions frame the issue. They frame their version as "updated language" and "bringing it into modern terms." Because they don't think you need to know.