/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>788006

Authorised King James Version. Go to www.tbsonlinebible.com for a free version or buy it from https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/branch#page/store/

>>788006

Read KJV for New Testament, read the Septuagint for Old Testament.

Douay-Rheims, Haydock commentary.

Basically anything is better than the KJV

>>788085

>he idolizes the KJV so much he strawman anyone who isn't also an biblidolater

NRSV. Accurate and modern translation of the oldest available texts.

>>788006

Wycliffe's Bible is the og English Bible. But if English isn't your native language, Middle English may be hard to read.

>>788146

There we go. Liking the commentary from it so far.

>>788141

Bible Gateway has a modernized rendering of it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=WYC

HCSB is pretty good imho. Very easily readable. ESV is readable but less pretty.

Tbh I think the ASV is the best translation of the Alexandrian text available but it does has the archaic pronouns for those whom it may be difficult.

Otherwise I like the way the hobbyist project of the American King James reads to the rest of the latter 20th century translations. Doesn't seem to exist in print though.

If I want apocrypha I can look elsewhere.

>>788146

It really is the best. Although I have a few complaints about the occasional note. I wish they made a compact edition without the notes, just to avoid the pitfalls of that entirely. Unlike Catholics, there is no ecclesiastical rule insisting on notes.. so I don't know why they simply can't do that.

douay rheims

>>788267

Yes, it's great. I just wish they'd combine with something like that with the OT translation, and then take out OSB notes. I couldn't ask for anything better. But I can't even rely on the translator to make a better edition of that NT. I wrote him and he said he had no plans for a hardcover. Which is a sad thing. Paperbacks stink for bibles. It's already bad enough that it's only a NT, but this makes it even worse.

I'm not Orthodox (on the fence), so I really shouldn't care.. but the disorganized nature of it all annoys me to no end. This must be what was lost when the great schism happened. Say all you want about Rome, but they're organized and get many things accomplished… across the whole planet no less. They'll dispense liturgical texts, bibles, and catechisms in 100 languages if they to. And then build hospitals and orphanages everywhere to boot :D

>>788006

Only the KJV is the perfect, inspired word of God in the English language. Every other Bible translation contains errors.

>>788112

>the oldest available texts.

Do you actually believe that God allowed His true word to be buried in some garbage pit in a desert for 1900 years and that no-one had the correct Bible before someone dug up those garbage pits in the 19th and 20th centuries? Because if so, I question whether you believe in God at all.

>>788006

NAB

ESV is a good second to (and in my opinion a bit more readable than) KJV

>>788006

>What version of the Bible should I read?

All of 'em!

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. - 2 Corinthians 2:17

Most modern versions change the word "corrupt" to something else. They effectively admit they do corrupt it.

Also, almost all modern versions remove "thou shalt not bear false witness" from out of Romans 13:9. They are bearing false witness in the process by removing it out. Check it for yourself by comparing it with the true Romans 13:9—

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

>>789152

I prefer that reading too, but that's not what bearing false witness means. It means falsely accusing someone. Which is precisely the commandment KJV Onlyists disobey when they see these readings: They accuse people of the worst kind of evils, when it's either due to accident or something else mundane.

It's removed though because of critical texts determined that older manuscripts (for now) don't have it. Either due to scribal accident and continuing on in a whole line of copies or on the flipside, some pious scribe included what he thought was missing and then continuing that on in a whole line of copies.

Not all of these things are necessarily nefarious. Another one is Luke 1:28 which has "Blessed are you among women" in Gabriel's greeting to Mary. It's not in the oldest copies. But it is still in Elizabeth's greeting to Mary later. It's possible that the original didn't have it, and some scribe included Elizabeth's greeting to that passage above.. and then it got copied.

The point is though, it doesn't mean that one disrespects Mary for removing it (since it's still below in Elizabeth's greeting). Just like it doesn't mean removing the false witness command in Romans was malicious.. since these bibles still have the original Exodus commandment. It's not like they delete all mention of "thou shalt not bear false witness" across the board. It'd be a whole different story if that happened, and I'd definitely call it malicious (for example, Valentinus/Marcion removed entire books of the Bible they didn't like).

>>789230

Ok sorry but this post makes abundant numbers of misrepresentations and I'm moved to point out each so bear with me on this.

>It's not like they delete all mention of "thou shalt not bear false witness" across the board.

Okay here's another example. In Luke 23:42 the thief on the cross calls out to Jesus and specifically calling him "Lord." This is the only recorded mention of it. But you just won't find it because these people took that one lone word out. Do you think that's consequential or not?

>I prefer that reading too,

It doesn't matter what we prefer, only what scripture actually says and the perfect order that God actually inspired.

Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. - Psalm 119:104

This will be important later on.

>but that's not what bearing false witness means.

Bearing false witness in the most fundamental terms is claiming something is a certain way which it actually isn't. The people who actually made these translations were very conscious of their actions and of their act of presenting it forward as their witness, it is their false witness.

>It means falsely accusing someone.

This would be railing, which is certainly one category of false witness among many.

>Which is precisely the commandment KJV Onlyists disobey when they see these readings:

Onlyist? Why are you calling me that? What did I say to claim that? Far more importantly though, why do you think the producers of modern versions were genuinely unaware of what they were doing if you simultaneously hold them in such scholarly regard. And furthermore, God had something to say about these specific people I'm talking about, who remove his words and add to them. I've read their works, I know what their false witness is and that's what I've been pointing out here. There is nothing untrue about what I've said they've done. Nobody is even disputing the factual basis of things they've done. No rather they're defending it. They are defending this rather, is what they're doing.

It's not an "accident" for example that they all changed fornication to "sexual immorality" to blur the lines of what these terms have always meant. These kinds of things happen because they are revisionists changing the meaning of words to fit a progressive line. But not only that, there are also simultaneously people inserting and subtracting words out entirely whole cloth, which is absolutely undeniable and yet not mentioned to the average run of the mill person when people go around comparing differing translations as if they were still somehow of the same thing when they no longer are. That's a massive and brutal deception.

And lastly, how is it my false accusation (as I presume you were directing at me) to directly open their work and point out the things they do in bearing false witness. Isn't that you falsely accusing me actually? albeit backhandedly?

I'm the one pointing out the facts of what has been done. There's nothing disputed on factual grounds about the things they've done. It's only pretended there is some dispute up until the point that the truth can be held off and denied through ignorance and then only grudgingly admitted. But their primary strategy is to just hope people don't notice the differences and to never point them out ("for their own good").

>They accuse people of the worst kind of evils,

Of corrupting and falsifying scripture yes, that's what I've said, but the intent here isn't to serve as an accusation or a condemnation by me to them so much as a warning to all of us here NOT to use them and dilligently pointing the readers here to concrete reasons why and giving them a fuller awareness of the current situation, a situation which the modern version sellers would rather cover up for very clear and present motivations which we can get into later if need be.

>when it's either due to accident or something else mundane.

How are either of the examples I brought up mundane or accidental though? Just because you bring up an example of your own, doesn't address the examples I've brought forward. Not in the least. And this is before the fact that these are actually not the least compared to some of the other examples I have in mind that I haven't brought to the table yet. I'm only just barely getting started.

>>789230

>It's removed though because of critical texts determined that older manuscripts (for now) don't have it.

The real problem here is that they WILL NOT ADMIT to the average reader that this is the case. They refuse to admit that their interpretation and their view on the Bible is subject to change. They could come up with completely new and never seen before readings tomorrow and put them in their new edition based on what they dig up. But the real problem is how they hide or downplay this fact to protect their own market shares from plunging if people at large really found out. But it's just what you'd expect from that sort of person though, even as scripture tells us. Deceiving others about the REAL nature of the changes. Relentlessly attacking and besmirching those who point it out. Not having a consistent foundational basis for their view, but just carrying out character attacks and spreading false misrepresentations of others just like they falsely misrepresent God.

>Not all of these things are necessarily nefarious.

Right. Some of the cases of changes are just incompetent. I can agree to this. Many of these translations just don't have that much effort put into them in terms of the actual work. But there are changes that need to be highlighted for the very dangerous doctrinal issues being selectively introduced as each of them see fit. Because they don't all fit the same mold. Far from it. Each modern version has selected its own major quirks based on each one's unique cafeteria approach to adding whatever they feel, this and that, from "eclectic" sources. They aren't sticking strictly to anything in the first place.

navarre bible

>>788006

Something based off the Septuagint:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKXGJjRU-bTV8i7pQ700Z4Jkw0WN1djiO

>>788006

King James Version

Watch this documentary as to why:

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

there are many english translations. it depends on what you're interested in: Catholic or Protestant, traditional or modern, literal or dynamic.

the most significant historical translations are the Douay-Rheims (original & challoner revision) for Catholics, and the King James Version for Protestants. these have had lasting influence on later translations. as an aside, the original D-R came first, which influenced the KJV, and that in turn strongly influenced Challoner-Rheims.

for Catholics:

Confraternity bible (sometimes bundled with challoner-rheims)

New American Bible (NAB) - the current approved version in the US

Jerusalem Bible (JB) - influenced by a French translation, interesting literary qualities, I believe this is approved in the british commonwealth.

New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) - an update on the above.

Knox Bible - very nice literary flow, while retaining a reasonable degree of accuracy.

RSV-2CE - the qualities of the RSV, but adjusted for Catholics.

ESV-CE - likewise for the ESV, very recently released.

for Protestants:

Revised Version (RV)

American Standard Version (ASV) - based on the RV, and the basis for most modern Protestant translations.

Revised Standard Version (RSV) - reliable and accurate (although its OT is criticized), comes in various editions

English Standard Version (ESV) - an update on the above.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) - highly accurate and literalist without sounding unnatural, high reading level.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) - fairly balanced and accessible, particularly Baptist.

New International Version (NIV) - notable for being accessible and striking a balance between dynamic and formal equivalence. it's Protestant, but feels fairly neutral overall. a decent choice for getting started.

there are also various updates to the KJV.

there are others, but that covers most of the major translations. I don't approve of politically correct, gender inclusive versions, which is why I omitted the NRSV, NABRE, and some others (there's a limited amount in NJB and NIV, but it's not excessive).

a few more that didn't fit above:

for an easy & dynamic translation, I'd recommend the New Living Translation (NLT). very accessible and naturally flowing, although not suitable for serious study.

for the extreme end of literalism, there's Young's Literal Translation (YLT). the only way to get more literal is the Interlinear Bible, which directly parses the original Hebrew and Koine Greek.

at the opposite extreme end, there's The Message (MSG), which is a paraphrase. I honestly wouldn't recommend it. The NLT is highly accessible as it is, wanting loose colloquial phrasing is just being lazy IMO. it's the Bible, it's not supposed to be YA literature. if English isn't your first language, then you should be reading a Bible in your native tongue, which most likely exists. also, MSG is criticized for using new age terminology.

that covers plenty of ground. I've been reading about this subject recently, and this post is the product of that. this is not exhaustive, but should be enough for an introduction.

>>789277

also, this chart is a fairly useful guide for sorting translations by literal/dynamic.

>>789315

>for the extreme end of literalism, there's Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

There's also Rotherham's Emphasized Bible which is even more literal. The first one or two editions were NT only and subsequent editions included the OT and used the Alexandrian readings for those.

In my opinion the "literal" translations are a bit of a meme though.

Those and other translations can however be helpful in allowing one to see different possible ways words and verses can be rendered, and thus helping you gain a fuller understanding of it.

>>789318

I should've mentioned there were a few other literal versions besides Young's. I wasn't familiar with Rotherham.

yes, the literal versions intentionally go to the extreme, so you can get close to the original at the cost of legibility. for a fairly literal but more natural version, I recommend the NASB.

I was also a bit vague on some of my commentary above, my main intention was to distill what I'd learned without making it tl;dr.

>>788006

Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ Editionis Sixti Quinti Pontificis Maximi iussu recognita atque edita

>>789320

Yeah makes sense.

It isn't so much about the legibility as it is that they purport to be literal but can be deviant in their interpretations and renderings as well, making them less precise at times than the popular interpretations they claim to improve.

KJV Hands down for regular reading.

If you want to delve deeper into every word and meaning, you would have to read Hebrew version and translate the words yourself.

>>789323

that can be an issue. that's why I mentioned the Interlinear Bible, which goes straight to the source.

I could've commented a bit more on Catholic translations, and will add on here. the New American Bible and New Jerusalem Bible are both fairly balanced, with NAB on the formal side and NJB on the dynamic side, with the JB being more dynamic.

>>789261

Well, we agree more than I thought then. Indeed, they need to be more open about the source texts. The NKJV is the only English translation that does a good job at showing the different variants. I wish more gave the readers the benefit of the doubt and provided this.

As for "completely new and never seen before" - I hate to point this out, but sometimes the KJV did that too. Or the Reformers did at least (and the KJV borrowed some readings from Luther and Calvin and previous English translations). For example, the notorious "tachash skins" of Exodus 25:5, when God instructs Moses on how to build the tabernacle and what type of leathers for the roof he wants. The Reformers came from left field with "badger skins" - a reading that wasn't found in the church before. And it's completely wrong just on doctrinal grounds - a badger is not a kosher animal. Why would God instruct one minute about unclean animals, and then tell them to construct with the very unclean materials.. in the very place where he resides and priests must wash themselves? It's nonsense.

But the reason why they even came to that reading was silly too. Luther believed Hebrew was the "original" language of humankind and ascribed magical primacy to it (maybe because he was a former Catholic and they also strangely ascribed magical meaning to Latin.. hence it created an equally silly person in Luther who countered it with his Hebrew mythology). He then further concluded that since Hebrew was the original language, there will be hints of it in other languages. He saw that Latin "taxus" (badger) and his own German "dachs" sounded like variants of this Hebrew word "tachash" and rendered it "badger skins".

All he had to do was stop trying to be inventive and look at the Septuagint, Syriac, or Vulgate - these are the three texts held under the stewardship of a once united Church. Their readings should not be pushed aside so easily - they all represent what was "normative" and handed down to us for teaching and prayer language. What centuries of Christians everywhere read. In those translations, it was a color. A purplish blue. Indigo or Hyacinth. Furthermore, an early outsider like Josephus said the tabernacle coverings were like the color of sky. Another hint. But after the first couple of centuries AD, the meaning got lost and Rabbis speculated on all sorts of nonsense on what tachash meant. They made a mountain out of a molehill and refused to listen to those ancients (especially any Christian texts) who came before them. Some invented entirely new magical creatures and said it died off after Moses' day. By Luther's time, he had such an unfounded suspicion of everything Catholic/old world related, and on top of that, gave Hebrew magical origins, that he decided to follow these stupid Rabbis and do some speculating of his own. And unfortunately, the KJV translators followed Luther's new and strange attempts, rather than rely on what the church had been teaching for millenia. That it's simply a color.

That said, a lot of newer translations aren't any better. Many speculated further throughout the following years after the KJV. Protestants commentators later admitted that badger skins was a bad translation.. but then they replaced it with their own equally ridiculous thoughts. By the 1800s, one scholar surmised that "tachash" sounded like the Arabic "tuhash" - which is the catchall word for various large sea animals. Like porpoises, dolphins, seals, etc.. But this is equally silly because they're not kosher animals either. Yet no one thought of that and just ran with the speculation. So by the time the ASV came out, it says "porpoise" skins. This retardery continues down the 20th century with multiple translations. Even the NIV has "sea cows" (at least until the recent 2011 version). Some realize how stupid porpoise or badgers would be, but then make up unfounded meanings. Like the RSV had "goatskins" (and the ESV it's based on). There are entirely different words for goats in Hebrew. That isn't it.. but they recognize how bad it would be a non-kosher animal to be indicated here, so they just make up their own meaning and put "goat" simply because it's kosher. Some translations have wisely given up on speculating, but give meaningless words like "fine leather" or "durable leather".

They refuse to just listen to ancient wisdom on the matter. It'd all be resolved if this was the case.

Anyways. That a long rant. Apologies. I love the KJV because more often than not, it does retain the types of readings that the church has always taught. It recognizes that the Bible is not some matter of "research" or inventive process. But it makes funny mistakes every once in awhile like above (just not as much as others). And at this point, I find "badger skins" charming. It makes me laugh more than the others at least.

>>789342

Early modern translations tended to echo each other since most were products of associated Protestant movements using similar methodologies and relying on each others' interpretations.

The Vulgate and the 1582 Douay-Rheims distinguished between hyacinth and ianthine, the Septuagint between hyacinth and "hyacinthine". The Douay-Rheims revision deviated from these rendering them both as violet. The Wycliffe Bible used jacinth/"iacynt" for both.

It was the 1977 NRSV which used "porpoise skins". The ASV uses "sealskins".

>>789320

>yes, the literal versions intentionally go to the extreme, so you can get close to the original at the cost of legibility.

Actually they literally remove the real meanings of things in their attempt to make a one to one for word translation. They are actually farther from a correct translation because they often refuse to look at a sentence as a sentence but go to lengths in an attempt to break it down into perfectly interchangeable parts when every language constantly uses the same words in more than one context, thus they are removing a lot of literal meaning from it. Of course even those translations don't fully go all out autist on it otherwise it really would be unreadable. They only partially sperg out in this direction which makes it seem slightly more mechanical which people tout as a strength.

>>789332

>that's why I mentioned the Interlinear Bible, which goes straight to the source.

There is not just one "The Interlinear Bible." Interlinear is a type where you place multiple texts in parallel, it is also called a polyglot. You should definitely be using the received text and translations of the received text if you order an interlinear. And you should definitely NOT use modernist scholarship's concordances, they redefine words, on both sides of the table, because they view the world through a progressive lens. You should be using historical concordances ONLY for proper lexicography.

>>789342

The issue you raised doesn't really address any of the examples I brought up. But I guess if you agree about the reasons why those modern versions are terrible then it can be resolved. But I don't see why you take such an issue with this case that you raised. I always took badger to be a coloration but I suppose I could be wrong on that.

For instance people sometimes object to bats being categorized as birds not realizing the scientific definitions of these things came later. They might also not realize the KJV margins in these cases provided more context for rare words like unicorn and satyr, being "rhinocerots" and goat respectively. Not the pagan greek mythological concepts that eventually became popularized under these terms. I still don't see where the stumblingblock really is in these cases. I have more serious objections to raise about the westcott-hort style of critical texts.

>>789367

>"Saul went in to cover his feet"

It is another way to say he was urinating etc. Consider Judges 3:24. They use this term for men because men wore breeches underneath whatever robes they might be wearing over it.

>>789554

I don't think word-for-word literalism is the correct approach to translation by any means. that's why I cited it as an extreme example, with MSG at the opposite end of the scale. ideally, there should be a balance between formal and dynamic, and going too far in either direction deviates from the original intent. I'm simply pointing out that literalism has the advantage of describing the structure of the original texts, which comes at excessive cost.

>There is not just one "The Interlinear Bible."

right, I was thinking of the one here https://biblehub.com/interlinear/ which uses Strong's Concordance. I should've used an indefinite article there.

I might put up an edited version of my intro based on feedback and further thought.

>>789554

>I always took badger to be a coloration but I suppose I could be wrong on that.

Well, as I mentioned, it started with Luther (and some isolated Rabbinic commentary, I think, who were all full of speculations on animals). And he indeed meant the animal we know as a badger. German "dachs" is still "badger" and where we get the "dachshund", for example (named after the badger because they could follow badgers into their holes).

Even if it did mean something other than what we understand as a badger, it's still poor English..we don't use badger as a color and haven't in any time I know. Even as early as Adam Clarke's commentary from the 1700s, the fault was pointed out here. So he didn't know how to use badger as a color either.

Opinions on Bearean Study Bible?

time to edit my intro

next post…

>>789702

>>789315

there are many english translations. it depends on what you're interested in: Catholic or Protestant, traditional or modern, formal or dynamic equivalence.

the most significant historical translations are the Douay-Rheims (original & challoner revision) for Catholics, and the King James Version for Protestants. these have had lasting influence on later translations. as an aside, the original D-R came first, which influenced the KJV, and that in turn strongly influenced Challoner-Rheims.

for Catholics:

Confraternity Bible (sometimes bundled with challoner-rheims)

New American Bible (NAB) - the current approved version in the US, leans towards formal

Jerusalem Bible (JB) - influenced by a French translation, interesting literary qualities, I believe this is approved in the british commonwealth. leans towards dynamic

New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) - an update on the above, a bit less dynamic.

Knox Bible - very nice literary flow, while retaining a reasonable degree of accuracy.

RSV-2CE - the qualities of the RSV, but adjusted for Catholics.

ESV-CE - likewise for the ESV, very recently released.

for Protestants:

Revised Version (RV)

American Standard Version (ASV) - based on the RV, and the basis for most modern Protestant translations.

Revised Standard Version (RSV) - reliable and accurate (although its OT is criticized), comes in various editions

English Standard Version (ESV) - an update on the above.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) - very accurate and literalist without sounding unnatural, high reading level.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) - fairly balanced and accessible, particularly Baptist.

New International Version (NIV) - notable for being accessible and striking a balance between dynamic and formal equivalence. it's Protestant, but feels fairly neutral overall. a decent choice for getting started.

there are also various updates to the KJV.

there are others, but that covers most of the major translations. I don't approve of politically correct, gender inclusive versions, which is why I omitted the NRSV, NABRE, and some others (there's a limited amount in NJB and NIV, but it's not excessive).

a few more that didn't fit above:

for an easy & dynamic translation, I'd recommend the New Living Translation (NLT). very accessible and naturally flowing, although not suitable for serious study.

for the extreme end of literalism, there are various options, including Young's Literal Translation (YLT), and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (EBR), the latter of which is quite informative. the most literal/formal of all is an Interlinear Bible, which directly parses the original Hebrew and Koine Greek. an example: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/

at the opposite extreme end, there are paraphrased works, including The Living Bible (TLB), and even moreso The Message (MSG). I honestly wouldn't recommend these. The NLT is highly accessible as it is, wanting loose colloquial phrasing is just being lazy IMO. it's the Bible, it's not supposed to be YA literature. if English isn't your first language, then you should be reading a Bible in your native tongue, which most likely exists. also, MSG is criticized for using new age terminology.

that covers plenty of ground. I've been reading about this subject recently, and this post is the product of that. this is not exhaustive, but should be enough for an introduction.

>>789651

I feel auroch, urus, owre (obsolete), or re'em are the best way to translate רְאֵם (Strongs 7214) when judging it from the context of Isaiah 34:7. Wild-oxen might sound oxymoronic.

Some interpret it as an oryx but this word of Greek origin is not used by the Septuagint. Other terms in the Hebrew bible are already translated as antelope and gazelle as well. It seems it would fit well in Isaiah taking it together with the young bulls and the mighty ones.

From the Re'em Wikipedia article

In Jewish folklore, the re'em was larger than a mountain and could dam the river Jordan with its dung. To survive during the deluge, Noah had to strap its horns to the side of the Ark so that its nostril could protrude into the Ark allowing the animal to breathe.

>>789595

There's also a Berean Literal Bible which looks slightly more precise. Only has the NT though.

https://studybible.info/BLB

You can also find other translations there that are in similar vein such as the LITV (Green's Literal Translation), the Concordant Literal Version (CLV), the Modern Literal Version (MLV), and the World English Bible among many other less well known translations. They can offer insight into different possible interpretations of meaning.

I however find the most all-around accurate and reliable is the ASV followed by the Darby Bible.

I also feel that the American King James is the next most all-around suitable if you find the use of archaic pronouns difficult.

>>789651

>What scientists call a "wastebasket taxon" of difficult to classify species. They would say the antelope is closest to deer, but only generally. Goats, deer, and cattle are all of the class "bovidae" and the antelope is in it's own category here.

Ok if you really want to get into this case then let me go ahead and explain the situation here. The common mistake as I mentioned with, for example, classifying bats instead of fowls, is that these scientific taxonomies were defined later. Yet many people today view these taxonomies they learned in school as if they were the word of God and so anything that goes against those naming decisions— even if it predates it— must be wrong. This probably stems from these being one of the few things many people remember from school so it just can't be "wrong" to them, in any context.

Anyway, I think the situation painted by the evidence I already mentioned before is pretty clear. Here's just one distinct possibility:

The word used for "jacinth" is a coloration. Now normally it refers to a specific color of zircon crystal (and only that color, btw!), but it can also refer to anything resembling that coloration, depending on the context. An example is how the word "zebra" may refer to both a coloration or to the animal it is based on. "Copper" is a material but also a color in abstract.

In the context mentioned before, the orange color of what are now called "jacinth" might be an accurate description of the skins and part of the name of them, but this word can also refer to an animal. The second definition of the badger which I posted, in specific. The only things we know about this word are that it "stows up its provision" and it would have needed to have quality pelts, to match the description.

Who knows dude. Maybe the word the Hebrews used to describe the color of the jacinth stone was derived from that alternate badger; Maybe it was the original. Or maybe the badger was so named in their tongue for having the coloration. Bottom line is the verse uses the coloration term in a specific context. And in English, it makes more sense to specify the animal because you know you're talking about its skins. Because in English, that's what it actually is.

It's similar to today how "orange zircon crystal" means jacinth but "orange skins" means something that tastes citrusy. But it uses the exact same word in English.

To the Hebrews their word could mean both at the same time, just like how "orange skins" are both visually orange and from the citrus called orange. So that's how I concluded that this word means a coloration as well as the name for some kind of skinnable animal according to the second definition by Johnson in 1755 English dictionary that has fallen out of use. The only difference is that since those times, one word (jacinth) has changed to mean "orange zircon" and the other now means "jacinth-colored badger." These are no longer homonyms. And this case is just more proof of the need for context to get the most literalness. Jacinth skins or just jacinth would be a nonsensical translation because in English that doesn't mean what it means in Hebrew. So this is why I understand the word in Exodus 25:5 to mean a coloration as well as an animal.

And on a side note this also certainly couldn't overlap with the regular use of the word badger because those animals are all grayscale in their coloration so they must necessarily be a different species in the scientific sense. But I'm not really too concerned about what exactly species they are, I just know they were orange. Therefore they meet the second definition in the original 1755 dictionary that I linked, but not the first. Therefore your original objection to the translation isn't really relevant.

>>790004

>Blatantly false. They were finished within less than a year of each other and the KJV project took seven years to complete.

it's true. while the D-R Old Testament came out just before KJV, the New Testament had been released almost 20 years earlier, in the late 1500s. so yes, D-R NT influenced the KJV NT.

>The Authorized version followed many of the precedents of the previous six English bibles, which all came long before (like fifty to eighty years before) the DRB.

of course, other English Bibles set a precedent and had influence on the KJV. I focused on the KJV and D-R because of their historical significance and influence.

>What do you mean scale? Why are you putting non-equivalent translations on a scale together? Many of the translations you've included remove "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22. How is there any comparison between one version that intentionally omits the full book and another that includes all the words?

for the most part, I avoided minor textual discrepancies. the exception is my omission of gender-inclusive translations which don't sit well with me. other than that, I figured dividing most by Catholic and Protestant would be sufficient.

>They tout this seemingly mechanical quality as a strength rather than a weakness, rather than a weaker and flawed translation that actually lost literalness. I don't believe those translations are more literal but less.

right, that's why there always has to be a balance. too literal, and it becomes wooden and mechanical, too free, and you're drifting away from the original text. the costs of mechanically adhering to the text are excessive, but it's not entirely useless. for example, YLT uses the present tense for the creation of light in Genesis ("and light is", instead of "and then there was light") which is an interesting insight. but for the most part, relegating such readings to footnotes may be better.

>So the italics are indeed useful and you can get the sentence structure without losing literalness in your translation.

italics are another useful workaround for this.

again, I'm not arguing that mechanical, word-for-word translations are the correct approach; they can indeed obscure the original intent of a passage. but sometimes, it gives you useful glimpses into the original, at the cost of being well-rounded. they can work as a supplement to a more balanced translation which captures both the words and the thoughts of the original.

>Maybe next time I find this intro I can dive more into the textual problems with almost all of the translations you mentioned in it.

as I said, I realize I glossed over discrepancies, but I didn't consider those to be of major significance, as you seem to be claiming.

>>788006

Learn Greek and become a Septuagint-onlyist tbh.

>>790004

The KJV is a heretical bible made by a gaggle of schismatics working for a fruity adulterer; picking it over the English Bible approved by the Catholic Church (DR) is risible.

>>790186

Matthew 5:22 seems to vary based on the manuscripts used. I was concerned with large scale structural differences rather than variations in particular verses. in any case, reading different translations gives you a better sense overall.

>>790206

Ok I apologize, I really don't like to see such things written. I realize you might not have been aware of these differences. Still, my question remains for why you want to place them on a scale together. I grasp the concept even though I mostly don't agree with it. But even if you did this, why would you include translations of different works? Clearly you'd have to limit yourself to translations of the same words in making comparisons. They can't have differences like Matthew 5:22. Otherwise it never ends, you just keep adding more and more corruptions into the pot. That's not a better sense. There is only one Word and one truth, not many variants for different people.

This is why all these people using multiple sources for truth have fallen to the place where we're at today. I'd rather trust in the pure, uncorrupted, everlasting word of God.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. - 1 Peter 1:23

>>790012

Fair enough.. but my original objection is about Luther's methology. It was terrible. Whatever his word meant, he came about it the wrong way. That and I refuse to listen to any proposals other than a kosher animal. When scholars propose things like seals and porpoises, they literally become like the stereotypical "stupid goy". They should know better. And that's not even a KJV issue specifically.. as we know, it's pervasive across modern translations.

>>790232

I don't claim to be an expert, although I am interested in these matters. as I said, I've been researching this recently, and wanted to sum up my findings.

the Scriptures are based on different sources: Byzantine, Western, and Alexandrian. historical translations tend to rely on the Byzantine texts, while modern works emphasize the Alexandrian texts, as these are older and considered more accurate. there's also the Latin Vulgate, which may be a translation, but it's an ancient translation using primary sources we may not have today, which makes it significant.

all these sources are in broad agreement with one another, but vary in details. naturally, this is reflected across different translations, depending on their sources and methodology. since I don't know of any single perfect text, the best approach therefore is to read different versions (provided they are reputable) to get a sense of the composite whole. that's the approach I took to this.

>>790269

Correct, there's also the fact that no single manuscript reads like a textus receptus or a KJV and they are compilations of various manuscripts just like the Alexandrian text.

The Alexandrian texts are also artifacts of important value to the attestation of New Testament texts with the oldest fragments dating to the second century AD and according to some, possibly the first. Without them the earliest physical evidence of New Testament texts would be pushed several centuries later.

>>790293

that is true. I've also read that the Byzantine scribes had a tendency to edit the texts, for example, they would 'iron out' minor differences between the Gospels to make them more uniform.

on that point, the Gospels are four eyewitness accounts of the life and works of Jesus. if you had four witnesses give testimony to the same event, you'd expect them to have a broad consensus, while differing on details. that's what we see in the Alexandrian texts, which is another reason to give them greater weight.

>>790269

>modern works emphasize the Alexandrian texts, as these are older and considered more accurate.

These weren't discovered until Tischendorf in 1859. So basically you're saying that God allowed the word to be lost until then. Sorry but that contradicts scripture in Matthew 24:35, Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-25, Psalm 12:6-7. You are basically admitting that the prophecy about God's word never passing away failed.

>there's also the Latin Vulgate, which may be a translation, but it's an ancient translation using primary sources we may not have today, which makes it significant.

So you admit you think there are primary sources we "may not have today." Despite what Scripture says about God preserving his word to every generation. Does that reveal a serious lack of faith? Yes, it does.

>>790293

>Correct, there's also the fact that no single manuscript reads like a textus receptus or a KJV and they are compilations of various manuscripts just like the Alexandrian text.

No they're not just like the Alexandrian text. Want to know the difference? The Alexandrian eclectic text was discovered around 1859 by Tischendorf. So you're saying the entire world had no clue what the Bible really said until that day. You really need to understand how fundamentally and institutionally unfaithful this WHOLE premise is.

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

- Matthew 24:35

>>790373

all the text-types are 80-90% similar, and many of the differences are superficial in nature (spelling, word order, etc). others mostly consist of different readings or added/dropped phrases, without significant change in meaning. given that the NT was copied by hand and disseminated across the Roman Empire, it's remarkable how consistent the sources are. the differences that do exist are modest, given the lack of information technology (ie internet and printing press/movable type).

the major point here is, the fundamental meaning of the NT has always been consistent. there are no doctrinal ambiguities or theological contradictions between the various text-types. early Christians in antiquity and Christians today, in spite of living in different civilizations, still follow the same teaching. in this way, the Word has been preserved, even if we don't have the precise Koine Greek texts as they were first written.

as for why the Scriptures should be diffused like this? I came across a very good defense: perhaps this was to prevent their corruption. if only a few people had the texts, they could introduce substantial changes to the doctrine, with no one being the wiser. but because the NT proliferated widely, it was impossible for any individual or group to compromise them this way. thus, the basic integrity of the NT was ensured, even while minor differences crept in.

>>790373

Well it does look like enough people were aware of the tradition as manuscripts with Alexandrian readings were being produced right up to the invention of the printing press and the discovery of the oldest codices and papyri only confirmed their antiquity. The manuscript discovered by Tischendorf provides the oldest witness for some of the Antiochean readings.

>>790337

why'd you delete this?

here, I'll restore it for you:

I'm just going to say to get a generally conservative and literal translation. That's it. You'll go mad thinking about it too much. KJV, NASB, NKJV, Douay, OSB.. they'll all serve you well tbh. I don't like the Alexandrian text (NASB), but to me, it's merely strange. Not necessarily heretical. John 1:18 comes to mind ("only begotten Son" vs "only begotten God". wut). It doesn't make sense how that was the original reading, but whatever.

Just take my advice and keep it simple, as I'm an example of someone who has gone mad myself. As much as I like the KJV, I'm the anon who obsessed earlier about "badgers". And there's more from where that came from. I dislike almost every edition of the KJV put out just on publishing grounds alone, despite liking the translation. The reason being that I'm not an evangelical, but the KJV has been sadly the domain of only evangelical publishers who push most of the editions out there. If it had maintained it's original Anglican origins, there'd be broader editions out there. But Anglicans don't even care about the Bible anymore. If you look at the 19th century bibles, you'll see how beautiful and caring they used to be about this.

TL;DR rant: One major problem is most strip the apocrypha and the "Translators to the Readers" out (that Preface is absolutely based btw). On top of that, most are bound with unsewn (glued) bindings or cheap pigskin leathers under the generic titles "Bonded" and "Genuine Leather". Get a bible that was made with love and that will last you.

The other 9% of good KJVs are made by Cambridge and proper "boutique" publishers.. but while they're properly bound like real books should be, they're messed up for stripping out the Apocrypha too (but if you're a Protestant, you have amazing options here). Only Cambridge alone is left with some versions with the Apocrypha. And even then, their versions are bad too. I just put up with them. There's the new Cambridge Paragraph Bible which screws up the format by including modern quotation marks, along with reintroducing some bad readings from 1611 that were actually corrected by the original translators themselves in later editions. The most notorious I've found is it brings back the purposely deceptive 1611 rendering in 1 Cor 12:28 as "helps in governments" (later properly corrected to "helps, governments"). If you're thinking of it getting this, just be aware of the "errata".

The one decent version they have is out of print (luckily I have it), but it annoys me too just for having "Moody" bible maps in the back. Maybe that's a minor thing, but I can't think of a group that I disgusts me more than dispensationalists. I don't dislike Evangelicals (just their publishing), but I can't stand these people. Maybe it should also include a picture of Netanyahu on my Presentation Page giving me a "Thumbs Up!".. I could always gaze at it to assure me that I'll never find a proper Bible in English. Nor will you. It's the Word of God, but the fallibility of men can't help from intruding on it, one way or another. Just hope that the good outweighs the bad.

>>790412

>many of the differences are superficial in nature (spelling, word order, etc)

I know but this doesn't change my point

>others mostly consist of different readings or added/dropped phrases, without significant change in meaning.

No, there is significant change in meaning.

>given that the NT was copied by hand and disseminated across the Roman Empire, it's remarkable how consistent the sources are.

Yeah, EXCEPT THE ALEXANDRIAN VERSIONS.

>even if we don't have the precise Koine Greek texts as they were first written.

We have the words though, anon. We absolutely have the words. Just stop trying to defend something corrupted by satan and mixed into modern satanic translations. That's all I'm saying. This is where the problems are coming from. The entire world got this from Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort. But the real Bible came from the Apostles in the first century and was never lost. If you knew that then you would see the plot that has been spinning into motion all these corrupted bibles and culminating in the 1970's with massive adoption of them through sales schemes like the NIV, NASB and so forth.>>790426

>>790426

>Well it does look like enough people were aware of the tradition as manuscripts with Alexandrian readings were being produced right up to the invention of the printing press

Nobody had this until 1881 when Westcott and Hort came up with a critical text. They are the ones who made this and I don't trust any of their sources because they change and alter the word of God and the corruptions coming from that source are overwhelmingly devious. Exactly what satan would try to do to get corrupted bibles into people's hands. And isn't it interesting how these corrupted versions really took off in sales in the 1970's? You'd have to be an idiot not to see the obvious decline into corruption and apathy in these churches that use them. It's part of satan's plan.

Here is a few examples of what current day modern versions will do to the word of God. Note that there's no telling what FUTURE modern versions and critical texts might do to remove even more. These corruptions are systematic attacks on the deity of Christ and on the Person and the eternal pre-existence of Jesus Christ:

>Luke 2:33 no longer says "Joseph and his mother" but says "his father and his mother" or "his parents"

>Luke 23:42 "Lord" removed

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

<Acts 2:30 "Christ" removed and replaced with "a descendant"

>Acts 20:21 "Christ" removed (NIV, NLT, NET)

>1 Corinthians 16:22 "Jesus Christ" removed (great for the dispensationalist)

>Galatians 4:7 "through Christ" removed ("through God" in ESV, NASB, NET) (great for the dispensationalist)

>Ephesians 3:9 "who created all things by Jesus Christ" removed

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

>Philippians 2:6 meaning changed to imply the opposite (one of the most satanic changes of all)

>1 Timothy 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh" removed

>Hebrews 1:8 changed so that it is not clearly showing the Father speaking to the Son (see KJV)

>1 John 4:3 "Christ is come in the flesh" removed (great for the dispensationalist)

>Revelation 1:11 "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," removed

<Isaiah 63:16 "thy name is from ancient times" instead of "everlasting"

<Micah 5:2 exact same change (*Micah 5:1 in NAB)

Also in Isaiah 14:12 most or all modern versions change the name of satan into the name of Jesus Christ (see Revelation 22:16), which causes it to say that Jesus was cast down to the ground from heaven. I wonder who would possibly use such corruptions? The antichrist maybe? I've personally seen people use these changes to argue against Jesus' divinity already. Who knows what future changes might pile on top of these. The ASV was a prototype where the modern versions change more. There's no reason to think future versions will add on even more corruptions.

Satan wants to take the sharp, accurate sword that is God's word out of my hand and replace it with a dull butterknife, and to a large extent this plan has been taking root since about fifty years ago. We can document the changes that the earliest modern versions made and look at how newer ones corrupt progressively more and more.

>>790591

Oh and I might as well mention just a few more changes you might find in them. You tell me yourself whether these unique statements change any doctrine.

>Matthew 5:22 "without a cause" removed

>Matthew 7:14 altered to say "difficult" (ESV, NLT, NET, NKJV)

>Matthew 18:11 removed (ESV, NIV, NET) (same deletion made in Luke 9:55-56)

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

>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)

>John 1:18 "only begotten Son" replaced with "only God" (ESV, NET)

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

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

>Acts 8:37 verse removed (ESV, NIV, NLT, NET)

>Romans 3:25 "through faith in his blood" removed

>Romans 11:6 second half removed

>2 Corinthians 2:17 "corrupt the word of God" changed (incl. NKJV)

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

>Hebrews 11:6 "diligently" removed

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

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

>2 John 1:9 "transgresseth" changed to "goes on ahead"

>Revelation 21:24 "them which are saved" removed

<Genesis 22:17 plural "descendants" and "their enemies" (note Galatians 3:16) (found in NKJV, great for dispensationalist)

>>790591

>>790601

Actually multiple communities possessed Alexandrian manuscripts and many majority text manuscripts contain their readings also.

There was no textus receptus compilation until the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type#Manuscripts_of_the_Alexandrian_text-type

They don't remove anything as they wouldn't be present in the source texts they use. If your faith is contingent on such differences then it probably has bigger problems.

>Satan wants to take the sharp, accurate sword that is God's word out of my hand and replace it with a dull butterknife

It's rather that the text represents an older less embellished witness in some verses, but is nonetheless the rawer text without crutches.

>And isn't it interesting how these corrupted versions really took off in sales in the 1970's? You'd have to be an idiot not to see the obvious decline into corruption and apathy in these churches that use them.

The older 19th to early 20th centuries didn't experience such an increase in sales, only those which received revisions about that time did.

Meanwhile dishonest KJOists have little to show in contributions to textual scholarship due to opting to remain in a stagnant and flawed ideology instead, and likley for unspiritual 'worldly' motives as well.

https://8ch.net/christ/res/16872.html#16880

https://youtu.be/cW5IUr7nzsg

Kim Jong-il Version

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/Korean-English-Bible-Leather-Golden/dp/B005DPPENA&ved=2ahUKEwifnOWEyqrhAhVCi1kKHb-WAy4QFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2ieUcKoH0Uxn0FudQWMKjL

>>790591

>>790601

Nice list. Definitely worth studying more if you are serious about that kind of thing.

>>790481

I just thought I needed to back off the conversation and deleted that. Most of it was just publishing specific issues and wasn't pertinent to translation issues.

The New Jerusalem Bible, or indeed the Revised New Jerusalem Bible, Ali's the perfect English translation. It's modern English, without any modern words or pathetic attempts to be relevant. Inclusive language is used only were specific genders are not indicated. It uses strong language where the originals do, unlike the NIV. It's better than the ESV too, because that translates stilted and off

Over all the NJB is clear, poetic, and accurate.

>>791045

Took a look and it seriously looks dull, the NIV is a better translation. The Bible is a much more beautiful read. If I wanted to be entertained with an alternate interpretation I'd look at something like the Living Oracle's, the exeGesis Companion Bible, or the Knox translation.

The original Jerusalem Bible looks better though.

>>790589

>No, there is significant change in meaning.

I don't know of any major differences, only minor.

>Yeah, EXCEPT THE ALEXANDRIAN VERSIONS.

I see no problem with the Alexandrian manuscripts. they are another source which is most likely more accurate, and in any case gives us more material to compare and contrast with.

>We have the words though, anon. We absolutely have the words. Just stop trying to defend something corrupted by satan and mixed into modern satanic translations. That's all I'm saying. This is where the problems are coming from. The entire world got this from Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort. But the real Bible came from the Apostles in the first century and was never lost. If you knew that then you would see the plot that has been spinning into motion all these corrupted bibles and culminating in the 1970's with massive adoption of them through sales schemes like the NIV, NASB and so forth.

I agree that there are problems with modern translations, notably those that water-down & paraphrase, and excessive gender-inclusive language. but to claim that they are corrupted by Satan is going too far. whether you go by the textus receptus or by the critical text, you're still getting essentially the same narrative and doctrine. the differences are in details and wording, which are still relevant, which is why there's room for more translations.

if there were a single perfect translation into English, then I would support that above all others, but I don't know of any. instead, I recommend reading various respectable versions to get a full appreciation of it. by using more sources, we get a better approximation to the Koine Greek as it was originally written.

>>791261

>I don't know of any major differences, only minor.

See >>790591

>>790601

>they are another source which is most likely more accurate,

Nobody in the world had it until Tischendorf in 1859. So did God hide his more accurate words until then? Was the gospel being corrupted for that time?

>and in any case gives us more material to compare and contrast with.

So you'll start comparing and contrasting corruptions with the accurate and taking the middle road. Exactly what they aimed for. And not only that but now you're taking others with you down that road.

>I recommend reading various respectable versions

You mean ones that disagree with each other? Why would you do that?? And don't you know that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? This middle of the road good time rock and roll kind of approach is exactly why the state of affairs have reached a low point. It's exactly why the morality has gone so southward. It's this kind of sophistic thinking right here.

Read the list again and don't hide from the truth any longer. How is saying "we must work" the same as saying "I must work." How is saying "he thought it not robbery to be equal to God" the same as saying "he thought it not something to be grasped." How is removing Acts 8:37, the verse where Philip says the eunuch has to profess faith to be baptised, a minor point? How is removing the fact that Christ specifically is the son of David and not merely "a descendant" a minor point in Acts 2:30? I could keep going down the entire list; How do you not see how removing mention of Christ from both 1 Corinthians 16:22 and 1 John 4:3 isn't a strategic change to change doctrine? What about its strategically blurring all clear statements the Trinity? And then even further how do you not see how the various modern versions keep coming out with new textual changes all the time and adding in more and more changes progressively to string you along so that pretty soon all the doctrinal statements will be changed in the future? What about the plain contradictions in it such as Mark 1:2 saying something is written in Isaiah that isn't. How do these things mean nothing to you, if they really do mean nothing to you. For a person not to care about this they would have to not believe God really inspired and entrusted his perfect word to man but botched it.

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. - Proverbs 30:5-6

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.

- Psalm 12:6-7

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. - Psalm 119:160

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. - Matthew 24:35

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. - Isaiah 40:8

>>791293

>Nobody in the world had it until Tischendorf in 1859. So did God hide his more accurate words until then? Was the gospel being corrupted for that time?

I believe the Alexandrian readings were historically available, and the 19th century findings only confirmed their antiquity, as other anons have stated.

>So you'll start comparing and contrasting corruptions with the accurate and taking the middle road. Exactly what they aimed for. And not only that but now you're taking others with you down that road.

any degree of corruption or bad-faith editing should be dismissed. that's why I'm unwilling to accept excessive 'gender inclusion', as well as paraphrases that dilute the content and spoon-feed the reader. make no mistake, if a translation altered the meaning of john 3:16, or inserted a made-up passage into the gospels, I would reject it entirely, as this would subvert textual integrity.

but if translations diverge to a limited extent based on differing source materials and/or different translation philosophy, I wouldn't condemn this unless bad faith was in play.

>You mean ones that disagree with each other? Why would you do that?? And don't you know that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? This middle of the road good time rock and roll kind of approach is exactly why the state of affairs have reached a low point. It's exactly why the morality has gone so southward. It's this kind of sophistic thinking right here.

it seems to me that you can get the same fundamental message in spite of these variations, especially since there are many different verses which connect and overlap. as for a lack of morality, that has more to do with our current point in history than anything.

>Read the list again and don't hide from the truth any longer.

I'll have to review this. I understand there's been alot of debate over these discrepancies. some are caused by the omission of certain phrases from some manuscripts, others from different ways of translating greek words. for example, in philippians 2:6, the word 'harpagmon' could refer to grasping or robbery, and you could interpret the negation and overall meaning in different ways. this ambiguity is within the bounds of good-faith translation, at least in theory.

> For a person not to care about this they would have to not believe God really inspired and entrusted his perfect word to man but botched it.

I don't think it's botched. but the fact remains, we don't have an exact, to-the-letter copy of the Koine Greek as it was first written. variations creeped in because the NT proliferated in the real world, which has always been a chaotic, sinful place. if a person burns a copy of the Bible, Divine Providence won't reach down and prevent this. but the fundamental teaching has been transmitted worldwide, however imperfectly. those changes are a cause for concern, I'll admit, but they don't drastically alter the overall structure.

I'll also admit that if some malicious entity were trying to subvert the NT, incremental changes would be a likely strategy. the problems I mentioned earlier, such as gender inclusiveness, brainlet-tier paraphrasing, and MSGs use of New Age terminology would certainly fit with this. However, I'm not convinced that other departures from the KJV are necessarily underhanded. as I said, I'd have to read more on those points.

>>791300

to reiterate, this is a potential concern, but I'm not convinced that all or most of the modern translations are intentionally subversive.

>>788044

https://web.archive.org/web/20170722002017/http://haydock1859.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/HaydockBible2.epub

Here's a link too, btw.

>>791351

>I'm not convinced that all or most of the modern translations are intentionally subversive.

You don't have to be. You just have to see the changes for what they are, true corruptions of the text introduced late in the game by Westcott and Hort which were never seen before them and their time.

>I believe the Alexandrian readings were historically available

There was no bible on earth that had a corrupted Mark 10:24. So I guess no one on earth knew the actual Gospel account until the prophet Tischendorf revealed it to the world.

>especially since there are many different verses which connect and overlap

All the verses I brought up are without parallels. The exception is Matthew 18:11 which also had its parallel removed however, in Luke 9:55-56.

> this ambiguity is within the bounds of good-faith translation, at least in theory.

The alexandrian corrupt form of Philippians 2:6 literally says that Jesus Christ did not think equality with God was something to be grasped. How much more do you need to show this goes against all kinds of scripture.

Also Titus 3:10 is altered to say "divisive" in many modern translations including NKJV, but this contradicts Luke 12:51. Another example of producing a translation that intentionally creates contradictions within it. Another example of this is Mark 1:2 where the corrupted form verse says that a quote found only in Malachi was "written in the prophet Isaiah."

No, actually the word of God says in the beginning of Mark that these things were written "in the prophets," and the author of any corrupt version will have to answer for the contradictions it has created in misrepresenting God.

>the fact remains, we don't have an exact, to-the-letter copy of the Koine Greek as it was first written.

We have the words actually, which is more precisely what God said he would preserve. The variations you will find in Mill's TR apparatus will be spelling differences that don't matter such as placement of the movable nu in Greek. Nothing even remotely the same as what I've been talking about.

What I'm saying is that the introduction of corruptions starts at Alexandria. You can't just ignore the vast chasms of difference between that and the received text. Where entire verses are removed, mangled and mutilated to create entire new contradictions. But at the end of the day, its up for you to decide, I've only tried to make people aware of these facts and aware of the dishonesty of those pushing modern versions that they consistently sell to the masses as "updated language." When those changes suddenly occured with Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort in the 1860's through early 1880's, and their reason for implementing them was because they were open in their disagreement with the received text being "wrong."

The best defense for the Textus Receptus/Majority Text is simply appealing to Authority and Tradition. Something many Protestants will always be resistant to. It's not in their makeup to think this way. The way to them making decisions relies on rationalism. Not authority. To them, given the current facts (as they see them) it's only natural to start adopting things like the Alexandrian text. They hold up the ideal "original autographs" of scripture in the highest regard, and so their quest is always going to be about tracing back to that.. and distrusting any criteria but age of manuscript. They're blinded by it. Anything else falls on deaf ears and is distrusted.

I've given up even trying to appeal to them. Protestants are the same people who killed their own kings. So I doubt simply telling them "scripture is what the Church tells you it is" is going to have any appeal to this kind of person.

I suppose I could give some brief, rational reasons to adopt the Byzantine text though: It's found across a wider area of the Roman empire. And not just in standalone texts, but church father quotations and liturgical readings as well. It reflects something that people across a widespread area of the known world were using in both teaching and worship. But no, that's not good enough, I guess, and you must think God hid the scriptures in some cave only known to a group of desert dwelling heretics. Or in the case of Sinaiticus, think that ALL of their scriptures were worthless in that monastery, except that one obscure copy that they didn't know they had (because otherwise, St. Catherine's is an Orthodox monastery and uses the Byzantine text).

People who think it's this hard to find the scriptures and this distrustful that he has ANY worthy stewards for over 2000 years except some remote group of heretics… Well, they must have a pretty sad idea of who God is. So maybe it's not even worth appealing to them to begin with.

I'm not Catholic either though. They're not immune to any of this these days. Modern Catholics have adopted much of Protestant habits in scholarship. Even the Vatican updated their own Vulgate to reflect the Critical text. It's not Jerome's Vulgate anymore, despite resembling it in places.

>>797253

there are discrepancies. however, it's not like the TR and CT represent two different works, they're variations of the same work which differ in a number of details. on the other hand, details are not always insignificant.

I personally have no issue with using different sources, as long as those sources have integrity. most scholars give more weight to the Alexandrian text-type due to its antiquity. would you say these ancient manuscripts are a fabrication or corruption? there's this assumption that older = more accurate, which seems intuitive, but there is the possibility that they were the result of an early deviation from the more accurate forms represented by Byzantine & Western text-types and the Latin Vulgate (which are the sources of the Textus Receptus, with a strong emphasis on Byzantine readings).

I'm not sure which text-types are best. in either case, I think it's better to include verses rather than exclude (maybe put a footnote mentioning that the verse isn't in all manuscripts). I also respect the D-R and KJV for their literary qualities and gravitas, which are sometimes missing from modern translations. however, I can't completely ignore the CT either, since I'm not sure which texts are most accurate.

>>797389

>there's this assumption that older = more accurate, which seems intuitive, but there is the possibility that they were the result of an early deviation from the more accurate forms

You're asking the right questions here in trying to find accuracy. This is the question that has to be focused on, I agree. With that in mind, I'll attempt to explain the basis of a biblical approach and to drill down to underlying issues at play here.

>I personally have no issue with using different sources, as long as those sources have integrity.

The idea of integrity diverges in two directions depending on whether you approach this topic from a secular historical or from a biblical mindset, this is very particularly because of what scripture says, very specific things, about itself.

Those who are more interested in coming up with a fascinating problem meant to tell a story about academic rigour and "advancing the field" will tend to have great affection towards new discoveries. This is because it gives them a door to open a new narrative about how they personally advanced the field of biblical study. They will be more inclined to follow the attractive narrative about finding rare manuscripts locked away for millenia that redefined everything we know about scripture. Of course, the more level headed presenters of this view will know when to temper this with the outward posturing of a belief in the integrity of scripture. But really, at the core its more about telling the story about how they are part of an exciting field of research where new discoveries are emerging and constantly redefining what we thought we knew about biblical. Throw anything into the mix and it only gives them more tools to play with.

The problem with this is that it ignores what scripture and the word of God says about itself. It's as simple as turning to Matthew 24:35, where Jesus said that heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away. We have similar statements of integrity (1 Peter 1:23-25, Luke 16:17) throughout the generations which shows that, were the word of God true, no amount of trickery, errors or corruption would be able to erase knowledge of its existence in its purity and correctness. These are likewise reflected in the Old Testament as well, see Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5, Isaiah 30:8, Isaiah 40:8, Isaiah 59:21. So this is the divergence on integrity. The word of God itself makes certain truth claims that one must accept in order to take a biblical approach. Isaiah 55:11 says that his word shall not return void, but shall accomplish its purpose wherein it was sent. However, the secular historical minded scholar I mentioned above would not be inclined to readily accept these prophecies as based in fact. He is more interested in presenting a story about piecing together lost artifacts to imperfectly approach a perpetually imperfect solution, and is so designed to support a neverending quest to reach new levels of textual criticism, and thus to guarantee a well of neverending academic debates and publications far into the future. The textual critic follows certain ground rules to ensure the debate, and thus their livelihood, can continue indefinitely.

That's his idea of integrity which is convenient for him, and will press it in resistance to the concept of God providentially preserving his word to every generation.

Cont'd

In the process of supporting their modern day "discipline," they have resorted to evangelizing the world with all kinds of relativism in regards to how we approach scripture, much of which is itself predicated on the very existence of the varying translations they have put out, as a kind of circular self-reinforcing and gratifying and addictive mindset that really anything goes. Any variant goes, since any translation word choice can be rationally relativized, because words have all become subjectivized now. It's happy feel good rock and roll time in their world. In their world, every definition they or their friend doesn't like is always up for debate and "restructuring" to fit the present mold. The only thing such a mindset could not tolerate, would be someone who maintains that biblical integrity had lasted throughout all ages and to every generation. Because that would have implications. Those prophecies they were inclined not to follow, and whoever out there is still believing in them, become the witness standing in the way of fun, of scholarship, of profit. This is how you see the level of ridicule and misrepresentation of any who dares to question their assessment, about the received text being more correct than their life's work. That their lifes' work was, in sum, a massive lie. This is part of the underlying resistance to truth and of the malicious disinformation you see out there. It originates from a sort of twofold arrogance, on the one hand of their superior and peerless scholarship arrived at never before seen biblical translation (made possible by individual selective picking pieces, a bit here and a bit there, from "eclectic sources" couched with an outward veneer of scholarship), and also in ruthlessly deriding as "intellectually inferior" anyone who, for the right reasons, opposes the overarching ideology that we must likewise respect and tolerate any approach to biblical scholarship whatsoever as long as it appears respectable in the present moment. And in their system, anyone who doesn't subscribe to that has voluntarily forfeited the right to be treated with due respect or represented fairly.

So as a result, all sorts of horrible disinformation is out there. All conceived for the collective benefit of the corruption party at the expense collectively of everyday readers, people who don't suspect the real forces at play in supplying them with these translations. Because they've been lied to in a great marketing campaign. It really has nothing to do with making things more understandable.

It has more to do with a tireless, decades long campaign of getting people collectively to become more relativist.

Now having clarified these few things, let me just quickly try to respond to a few of your points here, with accuracy in focus.

>most scholars give more weight to the Alexandrian text-type due to its antiquity. would you say these ancient manuscripts are a fabrication or corruption?

By a faithful reckoning of antiquity, the preserved text of God's word goes back to the originals. Thus these later corruptions were lost in due course by the very fact they were corruptions not preserved by God.

>there's this assumption that older = more accurate,

Two things here. First, that is the secular scholarship approach because they assume that there was once a perfect inspired text and that over time it was corrupted, so that they need to rely on the "oldest" sources to get the "closest" to the original. But this reveals their belief that we have never had access to the original words like God promised.

Secondly, this isn't even an incorrect assumption, since the version that God preserved is the oldest text. I simply place more belief in the words of God for determining its age and veracity than in manuscript dating methods. Furthermore it has to meet certain truth claims about itself, truth claims which the same say is "impossible" and who insist "doesn't exist" because if it did it would invalidate all of their work.

>literary qualities and gravitas, which are sometimes missing from modern translations.

This is aside from the main point, but it is also relevant in so far as getting people to accept a lower quality of work with less effort put in many "google translate" quality translations that are being marketed and sold. The widespread adoption of such translations further deteriorates the expectations people have regarding accuracy in translations, and helping to create a common environment which is more enabling for relativism to take root, which is part of their goal.

>>797745

Sorry for the typos in this one but I think you get my point. I can't complain about the word limit, it's pretty high.

KJV if you're feeling older English but ESV is my personal pick for modern English translation. If you're interested in the apocrypha, you'll be able to find some Catholic Bible's at your local Barnes & Noble.

>>797744

>the concept of God providentially preserving his word to every generation.

from the religious perspective, this is a strong argument in favor of the majority text and the textus receptus compiled by Erasmus. others approach this topic from the secular perspective of piecing together an ancient text, which introduces its own biases, as you said.

>>797745

that's true, it's in their vested interest to favor any and all new discoveries over what's already known. this supports both their careers and their hubris. I hadn't really thought of that, and that's an important variable to consider.

>It has more to do with a tireless, decades long campaign of getting people collectively to become more relativist.

yes, I've seen this trend too. the postmodernists attack religion, philosophy, and mythos, because these make definite statements on good/bad, beautiful/ugly, right/wrong, the world, the human condition, etc. this goes against the postmodern, cultural marxist view, in which everything depends on your perspective, with no universal standards. according to them, the claim that a dog turd is more significant than a great work of art is perfectly valid, depending on your point of view. no right or wrong answers!

>This is aside from the main point, but it is also relevant in so far as getting people to accept a lower quality of work with less effort put in many "google translate" quality translations that are being marketed and sold. The widespread adoption of such translations further deteriorates the expectations people have regarding accuracy in translations, and helping to create a common environment which is more enabling for relativism to take root, which is part of their goal.

my comment on literary quality was a tangent, but it seemed relevant to the discussion. there's no avoiding the fact that modern translations based on the CT vary in quality. you're right, it all goes back to postmodern relativism. Eugene Peterson's The Message is one of the worst offenders when it comes to this, which is why it's widely mocked around here. it represents an ambitious effort at watering down and corrupting the Bible. not that you couldn't have an easier translation, but you must always maintain textual integrity, which has been undermined in some cases.

I think there is room for textual criticism, such as the majority text vs latin vulgate, or LXX vs Masoretic vs Dead Sea Scrolls (for the OT), but it's difficult to proceed with this when standards and good faith are not being consistently upheld.

I haven't made up my mind on this. I can't embrace KJV-onlyism, on the other hand, older translations tend to be better, and KJV and D-R are both excellent.

>>797949

The ASV follows the critical text while retaining the old archaic style language. Of course Mr. Fundypants up there is likely to hurl another slew of precopied pasta at the thought of this.

>>797949

Checkout Murdock's translation of the Peshitta also. It's a testament to how Alexandrian readings are attested by supposed Antiochean texts as well.

https://studybible.info/Murdock/Matthew

>>798007

I overlooked the Peshitta. yes, that's another important source.

to clarify on what I said above, if you believe that the Scriptures are supernaturally preserved and made widely available, then that's a strong argument for the majority text. if the stipulation is only that they're preserved, then the correct form could be any of the available text-types.

this also depends on how important those minor alterations are between the various types. arguably, the the condition of preserved/available could be met by any of the text-types, given their common ground.

and there are other issues: the Textus Receptus is based mostly on the Byzantine text, but also on the Western type and Latin Vulgate. if the TR is the ultimate form, then this emerged in the 1500's – what about the 1500 years before that? was the Majority text the 'true form' before this? and what about the early centuries before the Byzantines?

even when I try to entertain this view, I still come up with more issues.

>>798295

Right there was no single manuscript that the TR compilation was based on that read fully like it. At the same time there is also attestation of Alexandrian readings up to that point and after.

Much of the contemporary dislike of modern translations is probably a reaction to their mediocrity in translating. It's dishonest though to behave as if the Alexandrian and Antiochean texts weren't 90+% identical and act as if they represented entirely different books.

Also as stated in previous posts some Alexandrian manuscripts also present the earliest evidence for majority readings.

>>797949

Thanks for discussing these points of interest with me here. Three more things here. First, the received text is far beyond what Erasmus did. Actually, in those time when standard movable type copies became possible, Erasmus was simply one of the first to rush his version of the TR to press. Not to diminish his accomplishment but his earlier editions weren't as carefully edited as later and its interesting to look back at the history here. There is a much deeper history regarding this.

In the time after Erasmus early types, came other scholars who worked with the same material over a much longer period of time, and they released much more type-accurate versions of the TR. Later in the century that Erasmus worked, Stephanus and Beza independently came out with much stronger editions of the TR, which were at that time shown to be more accurate to the sources when compared with Erasmus' early work. We can see a comparison between the these TR in a later apparatus released by John Mill in 1707 which collates the work of these three. The fact they had access to the same resources, and both Stephanus and Beza were able to spot and correct certain errors they found scattered in the TR of Erasmus shows that their scholarship had achieved a meticulous attention to detail down to the minor spelling variants, and agreed.

But I should point out, even if you take Erasmus early editions, there is nothing in there comparable to the alexandrian. And it is this fact which today helps to show that each of these three was able to independently through scholarship arrive at the same words for the received text just by looking at the sources available at the time. The only reason why later editions got closer to their goal is because they had more time available to scrutinize all the manuscripts. It wasn't long before all the Textus Receptus were functionally equivalent, with the source of variants being inconsequential spelling variations of a percentage of words. And it was this environment that gave rise to another two sources which pass the witness to us, namely the KJV translators (by far the most time and resources) and also the Elzevir TR in the 1620's and 30's. All agreed among these, but all were independent enterprises. And when you're converging this closely and incessantly to the one solution, there is only so much room before you end up with nowhere left to go, which is why I think Mill's apparatus in 1707 serves as an excellent reminder why no further TR editions were needed.

It wasn't until Tischendorf that a new attack on this academically settled question emerged.

Second thing I wanted to mention. Often when you bring up the issue of integrity of the word of God, you will see a divergence between my definition and the so-called "critical" definition of what integrity really is. I have a much more stringent and rigorous definition. It has to be the unaltered originals. And what it always boils down to, though, is my insistence that the only consistent view is that the words God brought into the world never faded out of consciousness; my insistence that there is an asymmetry between us, and their insistence that I'm "just like them" and that there's nothing special about my position compared to theirs. Essentially and effectively they are denying that there even exists an original source for God's word today, so that no one has an objective means to determine right and wrong. This is their essential premise, and those who know for sure what it says cannot be suffered to speak in any other premise than this. The difference I want to underline is I'm insisting what they have is a corruption, whereas they really insist we are all imperfect. Because they already admit they themselves accept something imperfect.

They ultimately advocate Something that had to be gradually rediscovered and will probably be further clarified by future archaeological discoveries. This is what they claim to believe in. But I'm only believing in perfect things.

My third and final point is that there can only be One revealed word, according to the Old Testament… not many different variants with different sentences and words deleted and gone from it. So if that's the case then you should probably hope that they were preserved like it says elsewhere, that is, if you're taking the time to believe the Bible you're reading.

Psalm 12:6

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Proverbs 30:5

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

>>798299

>Much of the contemporary dislike of modern translations is probably a reaction to their mediocrity in translating.

pretty much this. it's possible to work with the critical text and put out quality translations, as >>798003 mentioned.

>>798301

interesting. if you insist on believing that there's always been one perfect version, then that'll outweigh other points and you won't be dissuaded.

personally, while I respect the MT and TR, I think there are other useful sources to draw from, including the Alexandrian text-type. I'm not convinced that the variance between the text-types is significant enough to undermine integrity, given how much else they have in common. in any case, you can denote alternate readings with footnotes, which iirc is done in the RSV Bibles.

what about NET? is it decent enough?

if not which version is decent for casual reading (im trying to finish the entire bible for the first time) and is available on the youversion bible app? i live in a 3rd world country so variance of physical english translation is almost impossible to get

>>798323

That's not necessarily true. I'm not so "KJVOnly" to knock these translations entirely and do think they can be a blessing (I even recommend some.. like I've occasionally mentioned my liking for RSV and NIV here), but there are some serious flaws with the critical text of the NT. The chief of which may be the infamous John 1:18. The only reason it doesn't cause as much controversy as it should is that translators themselves are cowards about their own textual basis and know it's heretical.. and try to rationalize around it (the translators that is.. the actual textual critics proudly would want people to use this nonsense). Only the NASB and (sadly) the Jehovah's Witness version are bold enough to be literal and show it for the travesty that it is:

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

Only begotten God was an alteration by Gnostics and Arians in Egypt - heavily preferred and quoted by them in multiple writings and even the damned Arian CREED - and people are wrongly treating it with canonical authority now. A tragic error. Even one of the basis manuscripts for the critical text ("Vaticanus") disgrees with Sinai and Alexandria here. And it's barely quoted by any church fathers. Starting from Irenaeus down to Chrysostom, they say the traditional wording: "Only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father". Even Athanasius, who was from Egypt himself, knew of it and refused to use it.. and he was a champion of the Trinity either way. Because he knew this is not truly Trinitarian teaching at first glance, like the modern Evangelicals assume it is (besides, if ANYONE wanted to bolster his argument for the Trinity, Athanasius would have happily used this.. but he didn't. That speaks volumes). It's not talking about Jesus being THE GOD, but a separate begotten god. Gnostics in general had a plethora of "subset" gods to boot (Sophia is another, for example), but the Logos was the only begotten directly from the Father or some such (and not the image of God.. the Very God of Very God as the Nicene Creed states).

Things like the NIV scoot around and don't translate it correctly. "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

By wording it that way, they're making it more palpable, but it isn't what the Greek says. The Greek is straight heresy and the translators who try to make palpable are either disingenuous or naive.

The only Church father of real note who uses it is St. Basil, but the Evangelicals who use him as an example don't really examine the intangibles of his life and why he may have done that. They're not Orthodox and don't know a thing about Basil. They're just zealous about looking for "proof texts" without any real context (Some say Irenaeus used it as well, but if you research it, it's obviously a corruption of one of his books.. just chapters before in the same manuscript, he uses the traditional wording, while the "only begotten god" part is fitted in a strange way). Basil was Orthodox, but unlike his sister and brother (Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa) he became a bishop and was more educated.. and a little more adventurous than his siblings. He by no means used this text in any Arian sense, but I think he just adopted this because it made it's way into Caesarea - and I don't think was as stubborn as St. Athanasius, blessed though Basil is. His own brother still uses "only begotten Son" in his writings. This tells me they both grew up reading the same scriptures, but the more cosmopolitan Basil ventured out where he shouldn't have.

Check this out…

https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/03/the-gnostic-arian-corruption-of-john-118/

One other thing, when I say textual critics (rather than translators) happily embrace these things, it's because they operate by a strange criteria. I think it was Bruce Metzger who gave an axiom along the lines of "the more difficult reading is the best". That's retarded. Basically, their main basis for propping some things over others is that if something makes people cringe, it means it was the original reading. I hate to joke about something sacred, but they are literally being trolls.

But it's well attested (as seen in my link above) as early as Tertullian (the second century) that many alterations in the text circulated even in his day and it sickened him. And they all disagreed with each other (like Sinai/Vaticanus/Alexandria do). He actually called this a hallmark of their false nature: that they often disagree with each other and only reflect the teachings of some local sect.

While the Byzantine has no such flaws. It's everywhere and also well reflected in Latin and Syriac (the standard Syriac Peshitta.. not the early "beta" copies that textual critics prefer).

As for Latin, it's sad because they too have succumbed to this nonsense. The Vatican's Nova Vulgata now says "unigenitus Deus". Something that would have made St. Jerome and Augustine puke (it was known in some of the older non Vulgate Latin mss of their day.. and they still insisted on the traditional wording).

>>798540

Constitution of the Apostles isn't even authoritative. It's later Syrian and not even Apostolic (but claims it is). It's in the oddball category of "NT apocrypha" rather than patristics. Not even a binding document in orthodoxy. This is what I mean by evangelicals mining things they don't know the context about. I won't call you disingenous yourself, but overzealous in looking for support.

I would add that if Evangelicals want to embrace this, then they should do what they want. They don't care about tradition anyways. Their whole movement is founded on casting a suspicious eye on tradition and ever-seeking older and older sources if possible. This is how they've fallen into this trap of oddball manuscripts in the first place. They see everyone and everything in bad faith, except when using the criteria of "age". Satan knows this too, and will provide you the snare along the pathway you've chosen. You've chosen not to trust the Church and this is where you'll wind up: In trickery.

Personally, I think it's a sin to always look at the Church in bad faith like this. But I can't change your mind no matter what I say.

I do have to wonder however why wouldn't you want to share the same basic text the church has generally had? Why don't you want to be of the same mind as Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory, or fast forward.. even your own Reformers? Why wouldn't you want some sense of brotherhood in a textual basis with them, and see the same things they did, and hear their teachings with the same text they used? Why do you suddenly share a text that you can't share with the bulk of the church? Do you actually enjoy reading a text that throws you off and says different things than they do? Or even removes things? What's the mindset here? Do you think this is some "new age" where we're suddenly evolved and we have new insignt in the scripture.. and you're blessed to know things they never did? How arrogant, if so. And insulting to the Holy Spirit most of all, whom Jesus said would guide us into all truth in the first. According to you, it's all been hidden in a cave among heretics. The truth doesn't belong to the Holy Spirit apparently, but this.

>>798544

>>798548

Oh so now we're moving the goalposts when the evidence is no longer being demonstrated to say what we want it to when just moments ago it was being used to make the claim that it was.

Antioch was historically within the regional definition of "Syria" and Syrian churches are in fact heirs to Antiochean traditions. Furthermore the Constitutions of the Apostles is indeed an influential document to the tradition of apostolic churches and is not considered "apocryphal" by them.

>While the Byzantine has no such flaws. It's everywhere and also well reflected in Latin and Syriac (the standard Syriac Peshitta.. not the early "beta" copies that textual critics prefer).

Actually it is the early Syriac which contains the "only-begotten son" reading rather than the standard Peshitta. But I'm sure textual traditionalists could find faults among other readings in it as well. To be calling things "beta" and corrupt demonstrates a willful desire to simply slander rather than to examine things with diligence and honesty. There's no justifiable reason to ignore the various aspects biblical manuscripts nor to overlook the erroneousness of incorrect claims made by fundagelical apologists.

It takes more time to draft truthful answers to questions than it does to heave another batch of unscrutinized and unsubstantiated claims in the hopes that people may be overwhelmed by it.

As for the last of your questioning I'll answer again by restating that the texts are overwhelmingly identical and that these readings are not unique to the present time either. They have been attested throughout all of Christian history and the manuscripts which contain them provide the earliest physical evidence of Christian texts that would not exist otherwise.

>>798503

>>798507

>John 1:18

>No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

that must be a distortion. in John 3:16, monogenes (one of a kind, only begotten) is applied to the Son, so I'd expect John 1:18 to follow the same form. that must be a trick pulled by Gnostics/Arians. I hadn't realized there was corruption to that extent – variations are one thing, but subverting the meaning of a verse is not acceptable.

I still think different sources can be consulted, as long as corruptions (which that undoubtedly is) are sifted out. unfortunately, when you have bad-faith actors, this is made more difficult.

BTW, the intervening posts are from other anons.

>>798608

>variations are one thing, but subverting the meaning of a verse is not acceptable.

Did you even read this list?

>>790601

Every single one of them demonstrably does that.

>>790591

>>790601

All of these were carefully selected as examples of the most deviously egregious subversions found in modern translations.

These are only some of the concrete and presentable reasons never to use such corrupted versions, nor to ever recommend them, lest you inadvertently create a stumblingblock for someone else, who might get the idea to use such a corrupt version because of you.

>>798608

You're allowing yourself to be too easily swayed by the largely emotive appeals of others. Aside from Gnosticism and Arianism being used indiscriminately as a catchall buzzword for everything heterodox, the fact is that Arians actually should have been more supportive of the majority readings since the Alexandrian reading can be taken to affirm the divinity of the Christ. As I said, it was rendered using a nomina sacra which would distinguish it from ordinary uses of the word.

It should be known that case distinctions did not always exist in alphabets. When the nomina sacra fell out of use this could have presented a problem. Nothing is ultimately certain, but one argument in favor of the Alexandrian reading would be to ask which is more likley, that some scribe clumsily introduced such a glaring "error", or that later scribes may have mistakenly corrected this seeming inconsistency?

The field of textual research is filled with other such discrepancies of similar nature.

>>798666

>The field of textual research

You mean "reasoned eclecticism"? the subjectivist relativism that promotes acceptance of corruption and leads to nihilism which was already described here? >>797745

Question for you, is it because someone you know uses it that you feel forced to defend the alexandrian version or did you participate in making one of its translations perhaps? Do you just like being able to choose which variant you like best?

What other areas are you relativist in?

>>798666

>>798669

Oh yeah and how do you explain Matthew 24:35 and all the other prophecies about God preserving his word? Guess those ran into some kind of expiration date huh?

>>798669

Just shows that you have nothing to contribute other than your own wilfully constrained reasoning. The driving motive behind modern textual research shows no difference from that of early modern research and before. The goal has always been to compile the best witnesses possible, and not just the ones with the greatest amount of copies or popularity.

I feel compelled to defend it from baseless attacks by provenly unscrutinous groups who are alone in their token reasoning unlike their rivals who stand united.

It is an attack on Christian heritage and world heritage by extension and in my view is very likely for ulterior unspiritual worldly motives such as to instill an irrational conformity to manipulate.

The hurler (of falseties and slander) is the meaning behind devil.

>>798689

>The goal has always been to compile the best witnesses possible, and not just the ones with the greatest amount of copies or popularity.

Yeah, so why would anyone use lost manuscripts that had never been seen before. I guess I need to reask all the previous questions that were unanswered in this thread now. Why would anyone think that the whole world was dead wrong until Tischendorf's revelations in 1859 revealed all Bibles in existence to that point as false. It's blatantly revisionist and done for relativist reasons.

I'm not arguing for mere majority text in case you haven't noticed, which you seem to think I was. I haven't seen anyone in here who really has. And if I saw someone who was, I would kindly remind you that you are referring to todays majority. Because the majority can change if stuff is lost or discovered. So the majority text is a potentially changing thing and therefore, at least in principle, not the right methodology.

>I feel compelled to defend it from baseless attacks

What about any of those scripture references is baseless? I literally showed you a list of actual alterations. That is my basis for calling it corrupt as well as the fact no one on earth contained changes like Mark 10:24 until the year 1881 and yet you continue to expect people to believe in it. This is because when some even newer thing is revealed, they will be able to "update" all our Bibles again. And we have absolutely no way to know what else they'll change.

>I feel compelled to defend it from baseless attacks by provenly unscrutinous groups

Unscrutinous? You mean like how I went in depth on the methodology of Stephanus, Beza, Authorized version translators and Elzevir? Oh wait, we've forgotten all that already.

>unlike their rivals who stand united.

Who exactly is this? Why is it that only some critical text translations change things like John 1:18 or Galatians 4:7? These "united groups" seem to have plenty of different opinions about how to do things. And they keep changing their minds with new discoveries, which is exactly how I know they don't believe the truth claims of scripture about its eternality.

Where is the unity? Unity in agreeing that they DONT know what the word of God really says. Good. Because I also agree their methods are imperfect as a result of their unbelieving philosophy. But my reasoning however is different. I only believe the words that were originally inspired and I believe God that we have them.

>The hurler (of falseties and slander) is the meaning behind devil.

You mean like how you called people fundagelicals just a minute ago? That kind of name-calling?

>>798689

It's not the best witnesses. As I pointed out earlier, the main criteria of textual criticism is "the more difficult reading is best". I literally meant it when I called them trolls. This is exactly how trolls think. Trolls gravitate towards shock and iconoclasm. This methodology for judging manuscript witnesses is no different. It instinctively dismisses the Church, tradition, and what is commonly taught, and wants to push forward the shocking elements tucked away in caves as the "real truth". The more cringe inducing and strange sounding, the better.

I don't say Evangelicals are necessarily the iconoclasts themselves, but they are instinctively persuaded by it.. because they've been taught to have a distrust of tradition in general. The whole paradigm of the Evangelical mindset is that the conspiracy is always WITHIN the Church. Always scowling and always pointing fingers to something within. Always looking at all of it with bad faith and imagining conspiracy. At best, Evangelicals try to soften this tone. Like James White imagines it was Orthodox scribes copying the Byzantine text that were "adding" things out of "piety" to sound better. Rather than conspiracy, he chalks it up to some retarded "folksy" form of piety. It's still condescending. It still looks at the Church as dishonest and props up heretics instead. Same goes for the fetish for Masoretic text with the OT. A text dating only to late medieval times, but NO.. No way.. No sir.. The Jews have attained such sacred levels of Autism that they would never tamper with their text. Not like that rascally monk did.

It's never atheists or Jews with you guys. You've been taught to despise your own brothers. And you think that only if you dig further and further "before" this era of the Church and reach this nebulous, idealized era where the Church didn't exist as strongly, then you'll find the truth. Whatever ends up there gets called "best".

But more importantly, it's not YOU that's deciding what's best anyways. Like I said, it's trolls. Most Evangelicals don't win the respect to reach useful jobs in Higher Critical research. You will always be a joke. Higher Learning only promotes their own. And you are subservient in having to simply accept their results. But you're fine with that. Even though most of them are atheists and agnostics, these figures hate the Church themselves, so you imagine that you've found an ally to explore the past with and "get to the truth" with them.

>>798707

Considering your falsehoods, feigned ignorance, and miscontruals of arguments do not cease, the name calling might be accurate. It is also a response to supporters of textual research being referred to as evangelicals.

The supporters of textual research stand united against baseless translational exclusivism.

>>798717

Yeah yeah, how to type a bunch of meaningless babble. What do you have to show for your recognition of historical church tradition assuming you're a fundy, or for appreciation to textual research for serving to validate Septuagintal readings assuming you're an Orthodox traditionalist. Or for appreciation to the earliest witnesses to any Christian scripture.

Instead you choose to slander Christian heritage in numerous ways, while those who accept textual research merely evaluate and comment. It seems evident that those promoting textual exclusivism willingly are composed of an ignorant rabble.

>>798722

There have probably been more moronic fundamentalists than there have been researchers of scripture unironically.

>>798635

>>798645

I'll have to consider this.

>>788146

>>788146

Except there are done rather blatant translation issues: https://youtu.be/7BzYh3WskL4

Any Spanish here? What is the best translation?

I like nácar-colunga and usually read that, new translation of the CEE is meh, at least for my favourite parts

>>800078

No he visto mejor reproduccion que de la RV Antigua. Sea qual sea el desacuerdo que pueda tener uno con algunas de sus interpretaciones, en su mayoria suele ser mas precisa que las demas versiones que he visto. En fin, no debe ser despreciada debida a su edad o procedencia ya que tambien debe ser buena la razon por su popularidad.

why is it so hard to find NJB bible on android? the only decent bible apps, the youversion bible and quick bible from yuku doesn't have it

and the others are riddled with ads

>>803505

Install F-Droid. There's a decent Bible app on there (no ads/malware since everything on that platform is FOSS).

>>800078

What are the notes like in that? Is it as bad as the American/NAB notes, full of skeptic/higher critical commentary? I'm curious if all of these Bishops Conferences are as lax as America.

>>803512

i checked, both doesn't have njb (and osb im looking for that too)

and if we're talking about decent i liked the 2 i mentioned before more

It's unlikely you'll find many materials for the NJB. It's already been revised by it's own translator. Called the "RNJB" now. It took out the "Yahweh" wording (a good thing btw). There's also the British "CTS" (Catholic Truth Society) version that was the older Jerusalem Bible, but it also took out Yahweh. Not sure how easy that is to find, but it seems popular enough that it gets used to British parishes or something.