/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

i would go osb and nkjv

RSV2CE

KJV

NASB is just as accurate as the KJV for the most part, but it's NT also uses an eclectic/critical text - so in other words, it's actually translated well, but based off a poorer source text. So what it's actually translating isn't the Word of God all the time. It removes various verses that are in the majority of NT manuscripts, and includes readings that have no traditional support (like John 1:18, where it calls Jesus the "only begotten god" instead of the "only begotten Son". It's got other weird readings like this that emerged out Gnostic circles. But scholars over-value the worth of these readings simply because they're old).

Besides that, the NASB is actually being updated as we speak, so the current one will probably be obsolete by next year or so. That's another problem with so many bibles. They're in a constant state of flux or often become obsolete. But the KJV is reliable and good for memorizing and will always be here. It's the standard English Bible whether people like it or not. Even heathen know this. When they think of the bible in English, it's the KJV. That's amusing to me. Yet modern Christians somehow want to go against the grain and have made like a thousand versions.. yet the KJV still stands.

>>806211

KJV has literary merit, it's part of Bloom's Western Canon, if that counts for anything.

Just get a Douay-Rheims the NASB messes up the interpretation of some critical verses for a modern audience.

>>806211

Douay-Rheims

>>806211

1611 King James (with the Apocrypha) or the Douay-Rheims. I'd say the King James just because it's so wonderfully written you will actually want to read it, especially out loud.

>trust in riches!

>without a cause!

I'm not actually a KJOtard but it does read more true to the letter often but the NASB is probably easier to read. Check out the American King James if you can.

KJV

KJV

KJV

KJV

KJV

KJV

MOST ACCURATE BECAUSE LEAST TRANSLATIONAL ERRORS

THE BIBLE IS AN EASTERN CULTURE BOOK

WE ARE NOT OF THAT CULTURE

JESUS AINT A WESTCOAST tigga

HE EAST AF

AAAAAAAHHHHHH frfr

>>806335

Sorry, but no. NABRE is a travesty just for Isaiah 7:14. It's OT has a great modern flow and does poetry well, but Catholics have finally succumbed to the most notorious liberal renderings now.. which amazes me. You'd think that Catholics of all people would defend the Virgin.

I'm the anon who first proposed the KJV in this post >>806238, but I'd easily suggest a DR as well though. Bishop Challoner was a fan of the KJV and modified the original DR to read a little more smoothly like the KJV. And it's just as accurate, if not moreso.

The main rule of thumb - and I hope everyone takes this to heart - is to find a bible translation that makes it's number one guideline be that the New Testament determines everything. Hands down. No ifs, ands, or buts. If an OT reading doesn't reflect the New Testament, then that is a red flag. When Matthew quotes Isaiah with "virgin", but follows Rabbinic idiocy in their OT with "young woman", then something is wrong. Any Bible that says "we're rendering the OT more accurate than Jesus or even the Apostles did" is simply a bad translation. If a translator even once has a thought that he's a doing a better job than them, then they must be ignored. The implications of everything about our faith is put to the test on this. Do you really want to call the Apostles wrong? I hope not. And this sadly is the fault of so many modern bibles now.

Even some so called conservative translations get little things like this wrong (just not as badly as Isaiah 7:14). One example is the NIV. For example, it renders Psalm 8:4:

"what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?"

This destroys the quote in Hebrews 2:6, where it's given Messianic meaning: "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?"

The NIV is saying, in effect, that the writer of Hebrews was an idiot, and it was never Messianic, that "son of man" had nothing to do with a prophecy of Christ and his dominion, and the NIV translators are the smarter ones than the Apostles themselves for rendering it in the plural and in their "gender neutral" tone, with "what is mankind/human beings".

I'm just pointing this one thing out, but this same pattern shows up everywhere in bibles. I could go on all day. They do little things like this that subtly chip away at people's faith and destroy uniformity between Testaments and make people subconsciously think that the Apostles were wrong. It really amazes me though that the NABRE finally did this, since they are so fond of Mary, as well as expect the NAB to be read for devotion and liturgy. But they're doing harm to their own laity because of it. And I haven't even mentioned the footnotes, which cast doubt even further.

>>806238

The reason why the NASB exists is because of the ASV. The only reason the ASV existed was because of the Revised Version of 1881.

The only reason the english Revised Version was created was because Westcott, Hort and co. were going around telling everyone the KJV sources were wrong, removing 1 John 5:7 and other verses.

But nowadays, people who market the NASB call it an "language update" and pretend it's saying the same things as the Authorized version. That's because once you got two differing versions, its not a problem to make a third, and pretty soon most people are reading the gender-neutered 2011 NIV as it was being voted most popular. And they totally forgot the whole reason why Westcott and Hort originally argued why the KJV was false and needed to be replaced. They don't care anymore now that there are thirty different versions to choose from.

Also at the same time as this, due to being told lies by various conflicted "scholars" with a vested interest, people are allowing themselves to be told about "jewish cultural context" and all kinds of false blasphemous ideas seeping in from the talmud and since those people no longer care what the Bible says, due to trusting the exact same people with their modern word translation, they will think it might be possible. And this is all building up to something far worse, as we have seen unfolding today.

>>806335

>NASB is more accurate word for word

It's accurate to the wrong sources.

Also it doesn't use one source either, but a mix of old and new. For instance, it doesn't render Revelation 4:8 with eight "holy" in a row, like the original alexandrian text does.

>it uses a wider array of texts from the Quanram texts of the dead sea scrolls that weren’t available 500 years earlier.

So you admit you prefer non-inspired versions? Because only the one inspired word of God will go without corruption.

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

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

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

— Psalm 119:160

>>806335

> it uses a wider array of texts from the Quanram texts of the dead sea scrolls that weren’t available 500 years earlier.

You actually believe that God allowed his true word to be buried in a desert somewhere for thousands of years until the 20th century? Are you even Christian?>>806335

> it uses a wider array of texts from the Quanram texts of the dead sea scrolls that weren’t available 500 years earlier.

>>806360

>And this is all building up to something far worse, as we have seen unfolding today.

Let me expand on this if you think I'm just straining at gnats here.

Jesus warned that false christs would rise claiming to be the fulfillment of things and blaspheming himself, God. Well, don't you think a lot of these strategic changes would lend themselves toward that task?

<Philippians 2:6

<KJV: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

>NASB: who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

1 Timothy 3:16

<KJV: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,

>NASB: By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,

1 John 4:3

<KJV: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:

>NASB: and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God;

John 3:13

>KJV: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

>NASB: "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

Luke 2:33

<AV: And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

>NASB: And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.

1 Corinthians 15:47

<AV: The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

>NASB: The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.

Colossians 2:2

<AV: to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

>NASB: resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself,

Isaiah 63:16

<KJV: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

>NASB: You, O LORD, are our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Your name.

Micah 5:2 (note: verse 1 in the NAB/NABRE)

<KJV: Yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

>ESV: from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

And this is just the immediate examples I can think of. There is a lot more. For instance I've heard people argue that Jesus' appearance in Revelation 1 is not as the Lord because in their corrupted version of Revelation 1:11, it removes the part where he says "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end." But you say wait. He says this in verse 8. Yes, they say, but there are people that say it was a different person talking in verse 8 as opposed to verse 11. The only way they couldn've gotten to this is through an alexantrian "critical" text.

Also there's the fact that the modern versions will replace the proper name of Satan in Isaiah 14:12 with "O morning star" as a proper name. But wait. Jesus himself gives himself that name in Revelation 22:16! Could there be an Antichrist willing to go there? I'm not willing to say there wouldn't be.

Also with the gradual progression of changes, you have to keep in mind it's impossible to know what the modern versions are going to change next. So they could easily erase that last passage that supports some aspect of Christ's deity and then voila, in comes the antichrist telling people to look in their modern Bibles at the false "evidence" for denying Jesus. Because gradually all of the passages dealing with His divinity have been greadually altered. And then you look at everywhere the doctrine of salvation has been altered in modern versions; Matthew 7:14, Mark 10:24, Luke 23:42, John 1:18, John 9:4, 1 Corinthians 1:18, 1 Peter 2:2, etc.

There's just no way to know what else they'll change. For instance, the Revised Version and ASV didn't go so far as to change Mark 10:24, but later translations such as the NASB did. The NASB also changed Mark 9:42 so that it no longer says "that believe in me." By the way, it's the only one that does this. Not even the NIV or other modern versions go that far. But I'm sure like with genetics some future "evolution" of modern versions will adopt this change. Maybe some yid will produce another manuscript for them to pore over and announce all bibles up until that day to be obsolete.

Oh wait, they probably won't publically do that, despite thinking it because they've already got almost everyone claiming that it doesn't really matter man what that book says, because you're not reading it with "jewish cultural context" anyway and you didn't use the 2018 concordance filtered through google spellcheck.

>>806370

>And then you look at everywhere the doctrine of salvation has been altered in modern versions

Oh yeah and that one time where Christ tells us to preach the gospel to every creature? Oh wait, that's within Mark 16:9-20, which most modern versions reject. I've even heard it claimed that the Bible never says to preach the gospel to everyone. That's because they think Mark 16:9-20 is just a "story," as I've heard it called.

Use KJV. It was translated 400 years ago and isn't infected with modern heresies. Even if you find an uninfected modern Bible, you will need to argue with everyone why your choice is better than theirs. Catholics are making a big mistake pushing whatever translation they're pushing now. At some point the KJV will be ruled anti-Semitic and banned, and everyone will be forced to use a modern translation, and the Catholics who already use an official modern translation will switch to another official modern translation.

>>806376

Real Catholics all push Douay-Rheims. Only fake liberal modernist Catholics (basically members of the one-world anti-Christ religion) use the modern versions.

pick why you want for the NT but you have to use a Jewish translation if you want a real look at the OT as the Christian translations are open jokes

>>806378

>t. Schlomo Goldstein

>>806221

This.

>>806367

>>806360

- God allowed the text of 1 Kings 7:16-19, Hosea, and other parts of NT to be corrupted and impossible to accurately translate

- So God’s word didn’t exist until 1611? It wasn’t preserved when The Apocalypse of Peter and Epistle of Barnabas was part of New Testament cannon?

Preservation of God’s word doesn’t mean “every literal word of one particular translation.” It means God’s message, which doesn’t change by a few words with slightly different translations.

I’m glad you guys love your KJV, but watch out for idolatry and people convincing you that an English Bible translation is part of the trinity. That’s really how you guys sound sometimes.

>>806425

OT*

https://catholicebooks.wordpress.com/2017/09/30/online-ebook-haydocks-catholic-bible-commentary-1859-edition/

Enjoy :)

>>806425

>other parts of NT to be corrupted and impossible to accurately translate

Never happened.

>So God’s word didn’t exist until 1611?

Who claimed this? The King James Bible is a perfectly accurate translation into English, that's why you should get it. It doesn't contain any new revelations. It's based on the textus receptus which is the actual received text that people always had and not on corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts dug up in garbage heaps in the 19th century that no-one had ever seen for at least a thousand years.

>It wasn’t preserved when The Apocalypse of Peter and Epistle of Barnabas was part of New Testament cannon

Why would someone thinking extra books belong in the New Testament have any bearing on the preservation of God's word?

>Preservation of God’s word doesn’t mean “every literal word of one particular translation.” It means God’s message, which doesn’t change by a few words with slightly different translations.

Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit or not? If it's the perfect, inerrant word of God then two translations that say different things can't both be right. How do you tell? Hint: God would not allow the right version to be lost. The very fact that a manuscript was ever lost and dug up again hundreds of years later proves that it's corrupt. Also, the translations aren't "slightly different," they literally remove entire verses and affect doctrine in major ways.

>I’m glad you guys love your KJV, but watch out for idolatry and people convincing you that an English Bible translation is part of the trinity

Again, putting words in our mouths. No-one claimed the KJV offers any new revelation. We just say stick to the KJV because it is already a perfectly accurate translation. Yes theoretically you could create another one that it is just as good, but why risk it and why go through all the trouble of verifying that it isn't corrupted like other modern versions when you already have the KJV?

>>806425

>I’m glad you guys love your KJV, but watch out for idolatry and people convincing you that an English Bible translation is part of the trinity. That’s really how you guys sound sometimes.

I'm not KJV Only. I'm just pro-Tradition. I'm for anything that reflects the majority of Greek texts, and Syriac, Latin, etc..

We live in a different paradigm in the modern world where science (supposedly), reason (supposedly), and discovery (ahem.. supposedly) rule what determines epistemological truth. I dismiss all of that when it comes to Christianity. The Spirit of Christ and the Church determines it. And the Church has both explicitly and implicitly promoted the same collection/pattern of scripture readings through the centuries. I don't care to reinvent the wheel here and start promoting some narrative that the Holy Spirit went AWOL and the "true" scriptures got tucked away in some cave inhabited by heretics all of this time. And I don't view the Church to be some nefarious force that's been hiding the truth from everyone.

It's ironic that I would promote the KJV seeing that it's a Protestant translation (since they were the ones who kickstarted this trend of individualism and self-discovery), but that's only because it came from a time where none of the above dominated scholarship. The Translators admit themselves how indebted they were and that they stood on the shoulders of giants. It's part of something bigger than them - and they saw themselves as merely stewards delivering what was passed down. This is the correct mindset. People still respected tradition then - and I think even the Reformers would blush at the trends that started in the 19th century and onwards. Especially now where even Jews and atheists (think Bart Ehrman) have a role on translation committees.

If someone updated the scriptures to simply reflect modern vernacular, I'd be all for it. But that actually hasn't been done well yet. It's gotten close a couple of times, but there are some snags even with those (NKJV).

>>806378

This thread is useless without side by side comparisons

>>806455

There are two reasons to retranslate

* you think the KJV is wrong

* you want to make money selling it or get prestige from leading it

so, new translations are done by a combination of merceneries and dissenters, with the obvious results.

The reason to prefer KJV is it's the only translation we can rally around. If the KJV has a problem somewhere we can directly compare it with the Greek. The only countercultural answer we can give to why X instead of Y is because KJV is the oldest and most popular, translated without the errors of today.

>>806538

This. Why don't we post significant verses, and not any of those with differences due to source texts to remain objective and not devolve into mindless bickering about it right now, and analyze it thoroughly with biblehub or some other similar tools like a SWORD program.

Better than flinging dung at eachother over ad hominems and other stupidity of the sort.

>Ctrl+f

>Not a single mention of The Message

What happened to this board?

>>806547

>There are two reasons to retranslate

>* you think the KJV is wrong

>* you want to make money selling it or get prestige from leading it

Third reason:

*the KJV is missing books from the OT

>>806675

>The first real dictionary of the English language (Johnson's) took its definitions from citing the Authorized version. That was in Britain in 1755. Then Webster's dictionary in America did the same thing in 1828– The original publication took all of its definitions straight from the KJV. So in lexicographical terms, by definition it can't be wrong.

Sure it can. Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. Dictionaries don't define what words mean, they describe how people use them. If how people use English words changes (spoiler: they have), then it absolutely can be wrong.

>>806676

Not proper English though. The most important point from this being you can't sit there and say that the translation is wrong, you have to admit you are simply trying to change the language. And the agenda is clear. These are reprobates.

They've tried to change the record that God gave us of his only begotten Son.

>>806212

>nkjv

this, but only if you're actually gonna pay attention to the translation notes

otherwise, NASB all day

>>806677

>Not proper English though.

What even is "proper" English? Who decides what is "proper" and what is not? Why do they have such authority instead of some other group? Where does this authority come from? Is it James Joyce? Is it Shakespeare and the KJV? What about Chaucer? What about Beowolf? The reality is there is no such thing as "proper" English. This is linguistics and lexicography 101. English has no governing body, unlike French, for example.

>The most important point from this being you can't sit there and say that the translation is wrong, you have to admit you are simply trying to change the language.

Language changes naturally on its own. You speak differently than your parents and grandparents, who spoke differently than their parents and grandparents. It's normal, natural, and expected. There is no secret, worldwide diabolical scheme that all English speakers except you are in on that aims to destroy English so people won't be Christian. That's nonsensical.

>They've tried to change the record that God gave us of his only begotten Son.

No.

>>806678

https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/what-correct-language

>>806676

I should add that the RSV and its variants conduct many of the same corruptions as the NASB, ESV and the rest of them.

For instance, like the NKJV, ESV and NLT, it changes Matthew 7:14 to say "difficult."

The RSV removes the scripture "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" from both Matthew 18:11 (entire verse) and from Luke 9:55-56.

The RSV turns "for them that trust in riches" in Mark 10:24 into a footnote, while the NRSV removes it entirely.

The RSV meanwhile changes John 9:4 to say "''we must work" instead of "I must work" and doesn't leave a footnote, while the NRSV does leave a footnote where they changed it.

The same pattern happens again in Romans 11:6. Only the NRSV even leaves a trace that something has been changed. Regardless, all RSV versions still delete the second half of the verse.

Meanwhile, the RSV alone changes Philippians 2:6 to imply Jesus wasn't equal with God.

Both versions remove "through his blood" from Colossians 1:14.

Both versions remove "Christ is come in the flesh" from 1 John 4:3.

Both versions remove mention of "Jesus Christ" from 1 Corinthians 16:22. A similar verse to 1 John 4:3. Apparently, all they have to do is love the "Lord" without being specific.

Both RSV versions remove "of our Lord Jesus Christ" from Ephesians 3:14. So no Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; just the Father.

Both versions change Galatians 4:7 to say "through God" instead of "through Christ."

Both versions remove the phrase "God was manifest in the flesh" from 1 Timothy 3:16.

Both versions remove "Christ" from Acts 2:30… they just say "a descendant" without specifying.

Are you starting to see a pattern here? All of the clear passages dealing with Christ's personal deity are gradually being altered. It's not random changes; they are very strategic and deeply coordinated and intertwined changes. They all obscure who Jesus really is. By the way I didn't have time to mention John 4:42 or John 16:16, or Ephesians 3:9 or some others as well. But of course, you never know what they're gonna change next in the next release. So… pretty soon… there may indeed be no mention of the Trinity or of Christ's divinity in some future versions of scripture, just as many drones are out there saying already. And it will all be thanks to the shills for modern versions.

>>806685

>muhh removed verses

Bro, the KJV added them.

>>806695

>>806695

For instance, Mark 10:24 and 1 John 5:7. You won't find any edition by anyone Bible without these until the Westcott and Hort timeperiod.

So how is it exactly that one translation added all of these things if all the other translations and original language sources that existed up until that point had them? You can't just pull a "subjectivism bro" card here, seriously. And not to mention that's the exact mindset that is wrecking the state of this world right now.

>>806698

Sure you can, Erasmus didn't want to include the Johannine comma but did it only because he was sent a manuscript with it which he suspected of having been forged but included it anyway to make good on his promise to include it if a Greek manuscript with it could be found and probably to avoid accusations of heresy at the time. He would have used Codex Vaticanus if he could have seen it personally instead of being duped as well with a phony list of "365" readings from it.

The rest of the Alexandrian texts have existed for all of Christian history. That a printed book with them wasn't made until more recent centuries doesn't make them new.

No single manuscript reads like the Textus Receptus compilation and some Antiochean manuscripts have Alexandrian readings and some Alexandrian manuscripts contain the earliest evidence for Antiochean readings. The Textus Receptus was an endeavor in the compilation of various manuscripts as much as later compilations were. It was also an effort to challenge the established Vulgate standard at the time. Same spirit, same effort.

You textual traditionalists would be defending Vulgate exclusivism if you lived back then on the account of its prevalence.

>>806702

If there was the Vulgate and a million rando translations that are probably all heretical in ways that are probably popular now, I would say Vulgate only. As it is, I say KJV only. Why even have a Bible if you can change the words around randomly so "Father" becomes "Parent" or whatever?

>>806687

>Source: My a**

Use the KJV and the ESV only. Avoid NIV entirely

>>807154

Why even be concerned with biblical study when you're this much of a misconstruing buffoon?

>>806702

>He would have used Codex Vaticanus if he could have seen it personally instead of being duped as well with a phony list of "365" readings from it.

Why does this guy matter exactly, just because he rushed out an early TR that was later corrected by Stephanus and Beza in their TR's before the KJV translators went back to the original sources?

If these people were able to correct Erasmus, why exactly does Erasmus decision even matter? Also that story is fake as well.

>That a printed book with them wasn't made until more recent centuries doesn't make them new.

Psalm 119:160

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

Matthew 24:35

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

Psalm 12:6-7

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

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Isaiah 59:21

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

>The Textus Receptus was an endeavor in the compilation of various manuscripts as much as later compilations were.

By "later compilations" do you mean the work of Westcott and Hort? Because they used materials that were never before seen, unlike Stephanus, Beza or the KJV translators. Everyone was very aware and familiar with the true NT and all of its words long before these individuals came on the scene.

So then, Westcott and Hort don't meet the same qualification at all since nobody in the world knew about, used, printed, or made a bible with their changes such as in 1 John 5:7 and Mark 10:24, or such as Ephesians 3:14 where the modern versions started to remove the phrase "of our Lord Jesus Christ." Nobody has seen that before Tischendorf and the Sinaiticus. There was no precedent in the whole world but one thing Tischendorf supposedly discovered.

Also another thing, the KJV translators independently had access to everything, including the vaticanus, and they knew it was corrupted and didn't use it despite having access to it.

>You textual traditionalists would be defending Vulgate exclusivism if you lived back then on the account of its prevalence.

No because the Vulgate isn't based on the original language sources. For instance, and I would say the same thing at any time, the Vulgate changed John 3:5 to say "born again" where it says "born." And it also changed Matthew 6:11 to say "supersubstantial bread" instead of "daily bread." These are corruptions are stemming from the fact it isn't based on the original Greek. You should always use the original language source as references.

Also, the Vulgate had multiple versions of its own, such as the sixtine and clementine edition. Also, it wasn't in universal use in the first place, as nobody was forced to use it until the Tridentine era, so before then there were multitudes of versions of it predating the Sixtine and Clementine vulgata. People rarely mention this since it undermines the whole idea of a common translation. The Vetus Latina meanwhile represents a set of early Latin translations probably starting around 175 AD in extreme northern Italy, predating the significantly corrupted Vulgate. For instance Codex Brixianus does not have the John 3:5 corruption, it matches the Greek. Same for the Codex Usserianus Primus and others. Interestingly enough, this "old italic" bible was also available to the translators of the english Geneva Bible which was produced in Switzerland in 1557. But again, everyone already knew the vulgate had intentional corruptions in it by comparison with the widely available Greek New Testament, which is what all legitimate Bibles reflect.

That's how you spot corruptions like the John 3:5 and Matthew 6:11 change.