/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The constant changing the the Bible with finding new scrolls and stuff suggests that the Bible is not the "inspired word of God" and that humans can pervert it; how can two different texts both be the one inspired word of God? I'll just stick with what worked in the past; the Douay-Rheims. If God has blessed it for 400 years it's still blessed now.

I just need to learn Old English, or Latin.

>>830899

this is literally the same argument for every other long-running version.

>>830899

95% of is similar and most of the differences are trivial, unlike what the autists here think. For example, traditional manuscripts have the angel's first greeting to Mary in Luke as "Hail favored one! The Lord is with you" While another manuscript has "Hail favored one!, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women."

Those who favor the traditional ending "blessed are you among women" think that some evil scribe wanted to arbitrarily remove it. But other scholars point out that that verse is from Elizabeth later on when she meets Mary, and the scribe got mixed up as he was copying and combined the angel's greeting with Elizabeth's. If a scribe really wanted to remove it, he'd also remove from Elizabeth's greeting.

Same could be said for many other differences. It isn't that much of anything is removed, but displaced or accidentally quoted in the wrong place. These scribes worked by hand for months at a time. It's just human nature to make an accident like this.

The actual bulky manuscript differences outside of these trivial ones can be counted on one hand. And there are plausible, mundane explanations why they emerged too.

>>830902

I mean the second, longer greeting to Mary is the traditional. The shorter one is from the NIV and such.

>>830900

I don't see anyone using it for any other long-running version though. There appears to be only one church that actually sincerely makes this argument. So that's a win for the one church that's consistent. And if someone did hypothetically argue for some other text, we could investigate the details i.e. does it match better with the Greek originals or not. There is an objective way to find the truth for us.

Long story short, there's a reason why everyone who follows false versions gave up that argument and only the one true version gets this defense today. Glad to see you agree that my point is valid. It seems like we won't need to resort to eliminating any serious contenders.

>>830899

>The constant changing the the Bible with finding new scrolls and stuff suggests that the Bible is not the "inspired word of God" and that humans can pervert it; how can two different texts both be the one inspired word of God?

Amen.

As you say and I agree, the Catholic church is undoubtedly being inconsistent since it uses multiple versions. Good to find someone who agrees at least that the Catholic church is being inconsistent.

>>830902

>95% of is similar and most of the differences are trivial, unlike what the autists here think.

Lets suppose you are right. What about the other 5% of changes that are serious? Shouldn't that concern you at all or do you just not care at this point? Clearly if you thought this was the word given by verbal inspiration from God the Most High, you would be concerned of finding out if someone was corrupting 5% of it. The difference might mean the difference between life and death.

You pretty much undermined your whole case in the first sentence here. If even one word is added, changed or removed, a whole sentence structure and meaning can be reversed. Given what God said about his word being incorruptible, we shouldn't be okay with any percent of nontrivial difference. So why do you seem to think this "5% of nontrivial changes" doesn't matter?

>>830911

There are even examples where all-out contradictions are created. For instance modern versions will often change Luke 2:33 to say "his father and mother were amazed" speaking of Jesus. But in the original version of Luke the narrator accurately says "Joseph and his mother" were amazed. So the false version creates a contradiction because it calls Joseph "his father" in Luke 2:33. It's no wonder people don't take the modern version seriously!

For instance the modern versions change Mark 1:2 to say it is "written in the prophet Isaiah" something that is only found in Malachi. It actually is not written in Isaiah, the whole quote that begins at Mark 1:2. The original version of Mark is truthful in that it says "it is written in the prophets" plural before giving the quote. It doesn't falsely attribute something in Malachi as being written in the prophet Isaiah.

Another example is in John 1:18 where some modern versions such as the ESV change it to reflect the gnostic version of the statement. Instead of saying "only begotten Son," the ESV makes it say "the only God". Yet nobody bats an eye at this and places the ESV on comparison charts with the other translations as if it was even using the same source. This is only explainable as people not even knowing, or utterly not caring what the Bible says. Even though it's the word of God.

Nice way to intentionally distort the history of textual research. The truth is no single manuscript reads like the Textus Receptus; Erasmus did not get the opportunity to see codex Vaticanus; back in his day there were about a dozen or so known manuscripts but today there are thousands; the Johannean comma was forged into Greek; and the KJV translators did not hold the views that KJOists do.

>>830892

>James White

You crypto-Turkic fundapaptists sure are seethed by having your shenanigans get continually disproven by the fellow.

>>830892

Excellent posts. Fantastic— I now know why I should use the KJV.

>>830920

Part 2. (Great thread so far)

I'm not sure why you think the discovery of new unheard-of variants amounts to any kind of argument if we are maintaining the doctrine of the preservation of the scripture.

In the Elzevir 2nd edition T.R., they wrote in the prolegomena that "the text which you hold, is now received by all: in which is nothing corrupt." So then since it was received by all ever since then, and there is no basis to suggest it was unknown before that time, it must be the received Testament spoken of in scripture. Sorry, but that argument was wrong on so many levels that I had to split off and focus on a few of the reasons why it was wrong individually.

>the Johannean comma was forged into Greek;

Johann Gerhard in Loci Theologici, (vol. 1, ch. 16, p. 152.) argues that the Arians left behind some manuscripts that were corrupted in that passage, but that they were not all corrupt. Johann Heinrich Heidegger (in Corpus theologiae Christianae, vol. 1, ch. 4, article 33, p. 118.) agrees, calling it the work of infidels who intentionally omitted the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit in their corrupted version. Just so we're clear on the record regarding the real history of this verse. Even in the 16th century they were aware of the removal in some copies by Arians.

Now with regards to it being forged, how would you go about prove this, except by conjecture? Do you realize that all of the different T.R. editors included it independently on the basis of their manuscript evidence? And is this your grand objection, by saying it was forged there so naturally we should all use modern genderqueer versions and there should be no problem with it? I just fail to see how this isn't contrived logic. Will you simply resort to authority?

>and the KJV translators did not hold the views that KJOists do.

False and nobody ever once claimed to be a "KJOist." I'm assuming you are straw-manning me as a ruckmanite again– I'm thrilled. And finally, even if this was true, it still wouldn't even prove your point. I'm arguing for the veracity of far more than the 1611 translators. The production of the T.R. didn't depend solely on any one group. But since you only have that straw-man in view you would never even see past this, you're only worried about defeating that straw-man which no one holds to.

So considering none of your arguments stands individually and none of them even partially supports the other, they just amount to a slapdash set of silly objections, have you got anything else to add?

Meh. Not a problem.

I use the Bible that the Church said in 1582 for English speakers to use.

Folks need to learn to be obedient to God and his Church

>>830945

>Imagine being the guy who thinks that a Bible translation from 400 years ago is the ultimate authority, the men who translated got it perfectly without error, had the best resources available, and that everyone who has translated the Bible since has gotten it wrong.

The old Latin Vulgate works. It produced the most advanced human society the world has ever seen, it's obviously blessed, and you were told by the church founded by Saint Peter to believe it.

And protestants have gone to hell, and the Church has gone to hell because they had a synod with Jews and Protestants and Protestant FreeMasons doing the work of Satan have infiltrated the Holy Mother Church.

Pretty obvious, really. The Latin Vulgate is the Bible blessed by God. Or do you think that God allowed His Word, Jesus Christ, to be corrupted? Then you're not Christian and no one cares for the Pagan opinion of The Christian Bible.

>>830945

I'm saying the Bible is the final authority on the things that it says. You can laugh at that if you want, but I don't care what people think on this issue when they're simply wrong. People's opinions are not the ultimate authority to me, apparently they are to you.

Thanks for stopping by.

The proud have had me greatly in derision: yet have I not declined from thy law.

Well, it looks like that's pretty much it. Closing the thread down. The lesson here is that no new arguments have been found against scriptural preservation. The only exception is the argument, "that's unpopular."

>>830961

>The old Latin Vulgate works

Sure, but most people don't speak Latin as it is a dead language, so we translate the Bible into English from a variety of sources such as the Vulgate itself and the Septuagint, so that we can spread the Word of God to as many people as possible.

>You were told by the church founded by Saint Peter to believe it

>And protestants have gone to hell, and the Church has gone to hell because they had a synod with Jews and Protestants and Protestant FreeMasons doing the work of Satan have infiltrated the Holy Mother Church.

This isn't the thread to get into pointless denomination versus denomination rhetoric, throw out accusations, or take pride in our man-made institutions.

>Or do you think that God allowed His Word, Jesus Christ, to be corrupted?

I'm just speaking in reality. You get can't get a 100% accurate translation. It's impossible. If you're someone who knows multiple languages, you know this. Words change meaning. Words have multiple meanings. Some languages have words that have no equivalent in the other language. Common phrases used by one culture do not have equivalents in the language you wish to translate to. These are just simple facts of translation. It's why we have so many different Bible translations. Even before the Latin Vulgate there were numerous other translations into Latin and Greek. Mistakes can be made. Most of the time it's not intentional; it's just the result of human error. We're not perfect like God. We do however try our best to prevent and correct errors made, especially when it comes to translating the Bible because it is sacred. Our translations into English, most of them anyways, keep true to the Word of God as best as possible.

>>830963

>I'm saying the Bible is the final authority on the things that it says

Absolutely. And nowhere in the Bible are you going to find a passage that says "the KJV is the best English translation. Only use the KJV."

I'm just saying that prescribing yourself to a the theory that only a specific translation should be used and nothing else is silly.

>>830981

>I'm just saying that prescribing yourself to a the theory that only a specific translation should be used and nothing else is silly.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from. I'm saying accurate translations only.

>Words have multiple meanings.

Yes, this isn't a problem.

>Some languages have words that have no equivalent in the other language.

This isn't a problem if you define your language as being equivalent. Example: The word passover was coined by Tyndale in 1530 in his Hebrew to English translation. Now it is an equivalent word in English. It is defined as that word which it was translated to represent in Hebrew.

>Common phrases used by one culture do not have equivalents in the language you wish to translate to.

If these are translated consistently then their contextual meaning is conserved.

>It's why we have so many different Bible translations.

No, it fundamentally is not. That is not why there are so many different translations. Before the year 1881, there was only one Bible in use in English language. The reason why that changed is because Westcott and Hort were opposed to the received text, they thought it was in error, and wanted to replace it. So they worked on the committee to produce the "Revised Version" in 1880 which became the predecessor of the ASV and then all modern versions. And I do not accept their source text because of all the deletions and removals such as in Mark 10:24.

>Mark 10:24 KJV: But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

>Mark 10:24 NASB: But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

So you see, they changed the source text. This has nothing to do with translation methodology, they are producing a translation of something they only discovered in the 1800's. The proof is that no Bible reads like that before the Revised Version in 1881.

>Our translations into English, most of them anyways, keep true to the Word of God as best as possible.

The modern ones introduce things from the minority text which was lately discovered in the 19th century. If they can introduce unknown readings in the Revised version and remove twelve verses from the end of Mark, then these people can in the same manner come out with more changes whenever they sense that they can get away with it. All they have to do is produce what they claim is an old manuscript that magically removes whatever they want. They can proceed stepwise toward that. It goes against the preservation of the word of God as we've already discussed. This has little or nothing to do with translation methodology, however their translation methodology also happens to be poor from what I've seen. Don't act like I'm not aware of this.

>I'm just speaking in reality. You get can't get an accurate translation. It's impossible.

Having said all that, now I come to this. If your dictionary defines words as being as what they occur in the Bible, then how is there any inaccuracy? The English language took its word definitions from the Authorized version in the earliest dictionaries, therefore the definers of the words in our dictionaries took the AV as an unchallenged authority in defining English words. It was also the only translation in use when those dictionaries were written.

If you're saying that our dictionaries are also wrong, then aren't you basically making an argument that language itself can never be accurate? If that's the case, I don't see how your argument applies in particular to the Bible as opposed to anything else. You're basically saying no language can be accurate.

I should also add that when we read an accurate translation we should combine it with the fact that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is necessary to "guide us into all truth" as mentioned in John 16:13-14, and again also in John 14:26. As likewise Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13, we must be receiving instruction from the Spirit, who teaches all things and brings all things to our remembrance, assuming we've been studying the Scriptures from an accurate Bible. That's obviously not true if you're reading something that was corrupted.

>>830991

>And the Latin Vulgate worked.

Which one? The Sixtine vulgate of 1590 or the Clementine of 1592? Maybe you meant the Gutenberg Vulgate? Perhaps you mean the original Bible du XIIIe siècle which he used and edited?

I'm much more comfortable going to a translation that represents the original Greek New Testament such as the KJV or in Latin we have the Vetus Latina which predates Hieronymus by several centuries. The Vetus Latina line of translations has the benefit of existing since at least 157 A.D. according to John Mill Novum testamentum græcum, proleg. section 377; Augustine of Hippo also praised it for its clearness. Most notably, this ancient Latin translation type doesn't corrupt John 3:5 by changing the word "natus" to "renatus" as exemplified in codex brixianus and others. An unknown editor is also known to have changed Matthew 6:11 from "daily bread" to "supersubstantial bread" somewhere in the line of Vulgates. I would say they are not trustworthy for these reasons. Furthermore the translation was not standardized to a single version until 1590 with the Sixtine edition, furthermore it has been changed or replaced by its authorizers since then. For instance, today both Catholic churches endorse many different translations, not just the Vulgate.

>>831012

I see. You pick which Bible you want to best fit your belief in what God should teach.

I'm kinda… wow. yes, that's Protestantism in a nutshell.

>>831022

That is exactly the opposite of what I said and that's what I'm arguing against. Do you "tradcaths" do anything but falsely accuse?

>>830945

>You just look unhinged and autistic when you do

I don't think they're necessarily unhinged, but it is some kind of autistic tick. I honestly wish I could help, but there is seemingly nothing you can say and no helpful word to break the spell. It's just better to avoid it.

>>831027

Hi friend, welcome back. I hope you're doing well today.

If you don't have anything to say about the above facts then I can only assume that that all made perfect sense or at least got you started on the right direction with my response.

Glad to see some fellow posters who are looking into the facts as I am as well.

>>831024

>Do you "tradcaths" do anything but falsely accuse?

Obviously not, because you would never lie and slander an entire group of people when you lose an argument.

That was sarcasm, because it's obvious to me that you can't form a rational argument. Even if I'm wrong, that doesn't mean that all Traditional Catholics are liars.

You're bearing false witness, anon.

Your rationalizing for different modern bibles by saying that the Latin Vulgate was not finalized until 1590 is sad. What changed in the last 430 years that made a plethora of Bibles correct? Are all who used the old versions going to hell?

>>831034

>if you give up with my irrational arguments, then you must be agreeing with me.

Oh my….

>>830991

>And as a dead language, it doesn't change, so people can't play word games and semantic fallacies with the Bible.

>Which is why I said the Latin Vulgate, words don't change meanings in dead languages and it is culture neutral.

I'm talking more about our languages: English, Spanish, French, and so forth. They change. They deviate further from their roots. Of course Latin doesn't change since it's dead. But even translating from Latin to our modern languages is going to cause some discrepancies. Not to mention, you're getting into the telephone game when you go from Hebrew/Greek -> Latin -> English. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with the Latin Vulgate. I just don't see any harm in references other texts, such as the Septuagint, when translating into English, just to make sure things are lining up as they should when comparing texts to ensure the accuracy of the translation into English. This is generally how Bible translation takes place anyways, pulling from numerous sources.

>>831011

>Before the year 1881, there was only one Bible in use in English language

Not exactly true. There were a handful of different translations available and in popular use before 1881. The DRB is a good example. It was the Catholic approved translation back in the 1500-1600s and was revised in the 1700s.

>Mark 10:24 KJV: But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

>Mark 10:24 NASB: But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

That little except is removed because of its redundancy. If you go back and read the chapter leading up to verse 24, even in the NASB or any other modern translation, it's abundantly clear to the reader that Jesus is talking about the rich. Because he's talking to a rich man. This is established in verse 22. In fact, you're actually cutting off half of Jesus' statement that continues on in Mark 10:25

>Mark 10:22 (NASB): At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

>Mark 10:25 (NASB): It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

There's no information being concealed. There's no deception. They're just removing pointless redundancy introduced in a previous translation. The context is already provided, so there's no need to state it yet again in verse 24. The meaning is the exact same between translations. This is, in and of itself, a difference in translation methodology.

>If your dictionary defines words as being as what they occur in the Bible, then how is there any inaccuracy?

Simple. Grammar is not the same between languages. Grammar combined with the fact that words can hold numerous meanings, even in the similar context, introduces errors and misunderstandings. You have high-context and low-context languages. I really implore you to learn a different language in full. You'll understand what I mean better. If translation were as simple as learning the words of a different language, we'd all be the masters of dozens of languages, but's never that simple.

>You're basically saying no language can be accurate.

No language can be 100% accurate except the language it was originally written in. Even then, people may take numerous meanings from the same exact text. Heck, this is pretty much what courts do when it comes to the law. Read laws and statements and interpret them a million different ways despite having the same context and resources available.

Language is a wondrous thing, anon.

A tool invented for easier communication that has caused just as many miscommunications.

>>831039

>That was sarcasm, because it's obvious to me that you can't form a rational argument.

It seems to me that you falsely accused me of the very thing I'm arguing against because you didn't have any other means of response.

>What changed in the last 430 years that made a plethora of Bibles correct?

Maybe you didn't read the rest of my post. The Greek original New Testament has always been correct, and it is from this that we derive our accurate translation.

I also mentioned the Vetus Latina in the second part of my post that you might want to read again. This is an actual accurate Latin translation that existed from at least 157 A.D. >>831012

It seems like maybe you read one or two sentences from my post and then stopped partway.

>Are all who used the old versions going to hell?

The Greek New Testament and the Vetus Latina translation were perfectly acceptable to use and they existed before the Catholic corruptions. This was my main point in my response before. The Catholic corruptions altered John 3:5 to say "born again" of water and of the Spirit instead of "born" of water and of the Spirit; they also altered Matthew 6:11 at some point to say "supersubstantial bread" instead of saying "daily bread." This was to support false doctrine and no Greek copies held this variation. Moreover, this was always known to be corrupt and the corruption has only become more obvious today which is why both Catholic churches are currently using numerous versions including the received, Vulgate and modern versions, as if they were all the same. There have always been corruptions and people corrupting Scripture according to Paul (2Cor. 2:17). We can find corruptions by gnostics and Arians before the Vulgate existed as well. Essentially much of the world is being dragged into the same "multiple version only" position with the new modern versions.

>Grammar combined with the fact that words can hold numerous meanings, even in the similar context, introduces errors and misunderstandings.

Sure, which is why you go with accurate translators. As far as word choice is concerned though, if you have defined your language to equate itself with the translation you will have no problems there. You have just defined your words as being the equivalents in the Hebrew or Greek languages, so you go back to Scripture to learn more about that word, similar to how we can define the meter in terms of how far light travels and by studying light we learn a more accurate meter since it is defined that way.

In no way am I simplifying the work of translation. I continue to maintain however that it is possible to do so accurately. I'm not some kind of noncognitivist that thinks language itself has no meaning. We see it was possible to speak the word of God accurately in the book of Acts and I believe that.

As I said before, if you translate phrases or such things consistently then their contextual meaning is preserved as well. It's not only applicable to individual words. You simply go back to the source in Scripture where the term is used to get its context. I am not trying to defeat the concept of an accurate translation, which is what it sort it seems like people are doing who use multiple versions.

>No language can be 100% accurate except the language it was originally written in.

We're talking about having a translation with no inaccuracies. Unless you can specifically point to and find me an inaccuracy with respect to the original language version, the burden of proof is not on me to continue treating what has been regarded as an accurate translation by the speakers of the language who define that language as being accurate. The reason you keep going back to that 100% accurate term is because it makes it seem like I have to justify every single thing, but the burden of proof is on you to find an inaccuracy or a reason why not to use it. I have brought many such reasons to the table. So far nobody has attempted to show a place where it's inaccurate, rather they have attempted to argue that accuracy is not even conceptually possible. The AV has been an unchallenged authority as far as translation methodology and for translating the T.R. until about the 1960's, so unless we all stopped speaking English, then you'll have to show where the inaccuracy lies. Or on the other hand, if you think the underlying T.R. is wrong, then that is a separate discussion and that is the real only reason why we have so many translations circulating now. Mainly due to the efforts of Westcott and Hort, and we know Hort had a visceral animus against the T.R.

>>831062

I'm not sure if this was meant to be serious, anon, but are the original language versions of those books preserved? This post raises many questions. Are the original languages of the apocrypha preserved? I am pretty sure the originals of the two books I mentioned are but the originals of the apocrypha are not. That's even why they call it "additions to" Esther, because it wasn't preserved in the original. It's missing that key concept of being preserved by God and clearly marked out all by itself as being added. Otherwise God would have preserved it. I believe that the Lord is willing and able to preserve his words to us, as he said, "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

>Now imagine that this actually happened 200 years after the King James was originally published. Only it was with different 7 books.

What are you talking about exactly? You apparently don't know history that well. The original King James contains a clearly marked apocrypha section. This is due to the fact that it is such. I also have a copy of the KJV printed in 1637 that has none, that's only 26 years after the original. It also doesn't have the maps, genealogies or calendar tables that the 1611 has either. None of those things stop it from being a complete Bible.

>it’s historically significant

Do you mean like how it defines how we translate words from Greek and Hebrew into English, and in so doing defines the English language? Then yes that is rather significant, I would at least agree with you.

>Septuagint

You mean Origen's version of it? Did you know he had access to the New Testament?

Why not just go with the pure originals? I don't see what the trouble would be with just taking the pure original word of God as originally inspired in Biblical times.

>>831069

Oh yes and before you even start, since I haven't mentioned this enough already, the Wessex Gospels were translated from Greek into Old English in 990 AD and they don't contain the Catholic corruptions, and the Vetus Latina line of manuscripts come from a complete Latin translation no later than 157 AD, and those ancient Latin translations don't contain the Catholic corruptions, or at least not all of them do.

There is a clear line of preserving the original words and being able to translate them reaching until today.

>>831069

I’m sorry, my other post had a mean spirited tone and I need to do better with that. Please forgive me. I’m sincerely regretful of my tone on this board and I appreciate you retorting those points in a respectful way.

>Apocrypha in Hebrew

- This I think is the strongest argument against the Apocryphal/Deuterocannonical books. However, there were in fact Hebrew writings of Baruch, Tobit, and Ben Sira found in the Dead Sea scrolls

>Septuagint

- It’s older than the Masoretic text, and it’s most the likely bible used by Jesus himself. All of the OT quotes in the NT epistles are from this translation. So I’d find it hard to argue against it as not being “God’s word” when this translation is preserved in the original New Testament texts themselves

>”God will preserve his word”

- I struggle greatly to understand the application of this to either a literal translation or collection of books. First of all, every single bible from 300 AD to the 1600s had the 7 apocrypha books. Second, there were some other books that were part of cannon that nobody (save some Orthodox) now thinks is inspired, such as 3-4 Esdras or the epistle of Barabas. Third, there are more Catholics than Protestants in the world, so the Bible with the apocrypha (and the 7 books) is the most used and therefore “most preserved” word.

- So to interpret “God’s preserved word” as a literal translation or the Prot cannon, you have to take the position that 1. God preserved a false word for 1300 years 2. God's word was inconsistent and 3. God preserves a false word for the majority of the world, and his true word to a minority.

- A more sound application is that “God’s word” is the actual message of the Gospel preserved regardless of translational perfection or cannonical limitations. It’s beyond canon and beyond man’s ability to perfectly encapture.

>KJV Versions

- My point was that the 1800s is were we saw almost every Prot bible obliterate the apocrypha section as well as any reference to these books in the cross references section. And thus, how can the KJV be a “perfect preservation” if there’s two varients of what the KJV actually is in its canon?

>Errors in the KJV

- It mistranslates God’s name, says he “creates evil.” By mistranslating “diviners” into “witch” it caused hubdreds to needlessly die in the witch trial hysteria

And look, I’ve read the King Janes cover to cover. It’s fine, it’s good even. But to call it “perfect” “flawless” or the “best preservation of God’s word” is seriously erroneous. We need to follow Jesus Christ and his Gospel and not man’s corruptible contributions of it.

>>831116

>” if there’s two varients of what the KJV actually is in its canon?

The apocrypha has never once been viewed as canon in a KJV Bible. It was translated and included with the label "apocrypha"

>>831116

>I’m sorry, my other post had a mean spirited tone and I need to do better with that.

That's fine, a lot of people are like that possibly even me so I understand.

>However, there were in fact Hebrew writings of Baruch, Tobit, and Ben Sira found in the Dead Sea scrolls

That may be, but the question stays on the same issue. It shouldn't be the case that things which God prophesied would exist "to every generation" would be lost until some guy in the 1940's unburied it.

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. - Isaiah 59:21

>It’s older than the Masoretic text, and it’s most the likely bible used by Jesus himself.

Is it older than the original Hebrew /Syriac-Aramaic that was inspired in Biblical times? Did the prophets Isaiah and so forth originally speak in Greek?

>All of the OT quotes in the NT epistles are from this translation. So I’d find it hard to argue against it as not being “God’s word” when this translation is preserved in the original New Testament texts themselves

Well all of the quotations in the New Testament can be pinpointed to a place in the Old Testament, whether it's a direct quote or paraphrased as the case may be. Now if it's true that Origen's rescension of the LXX took those quotes and back-translated them more directly, I don't think that proves that it was in use or even existed before the New Testament was written. If it's simply the case of a later translator taking Greek from the New Testament or including sections of apocrypha of their own volition, that would explain that. This is my main point here.

You have to understand that we don't have anywhere near a complete representation of the original Septuagint as it may have existed before Origen's Hexapla in the third century. He is known to have interpolated in his version and this is a currently acknowledged problem people are still trying to work around. The fragments found that predate him suggest a translation of the first five books existed and not much else (as the original account of it was that it was a translation of the pentateuch).

>I struggle greatly to understand the application of this to either a literal translation or collection of books.

Ok it's pretty simple, the original words are guaranteed to be preserved and people will never lose track of what it is. For practical applications for us this means we have every word of God found in scripture, for people in the book of Acts it meant more like every word of God was being spread abroad like it says in Acts 12:24 "But the word of God grew and multiplied."

The point being that God ensured that nothing of his inspiration was lost to us today. So it's all based on a trust of fulfillment of his word. Without that you will always be questioning because random people wouldn't be capable of it. And modern textual critics are like this, they believe it was corrupted over time and are trying to find older ""less corrupt"" versions in obscure piles of trash.

>>831148

You conveniently ducked out of the fact that God’s very name was not preserved.

Thus, most of these arguments about your interpretation of Isaiah and the “the word” are unraveled by the fact that we did not have a proper preservation of the divine name and don’t know how it’s pronounced. It’s not “Jehovah” as there was no “Jah” or “Vah” sound.

This interpretation is also refuted by 2 Kings 22. which shows that the writings of Moses were lost for hundreds of year.

Also, the text of 1 Samuel 13:1 was corrupted and not at all preserved.

And speaking of 2 Peter 1:20, nobody for at least 1500 years was interpreting any if those texts you just quoted in the way you’re interpreting them.

NIV FAKE Bible

https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=dS-tIgZ0PvI

"It's amazing how people complain about the old English in the KJV, but have praise for Shakespere when it is the same old English." -d— Graves

https://www.remnantofgod.org/B-BIBLES.htm

Keith Daniel has a good answer on why he uses the KJV as well, somewhere in this interview, don't remember the timestamp. He seems to be trying to be politically correct and not offend anyone who uses modern bogus translations though.

https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=w2lAC4slEsE

>>831240

>You conveniently ducked out of the fact that God’s very name was not preserved.

Is that like some kind of tenet of your faith? Wow, I guess you believe in a god that isn't even able to preserve his name then, I suppose.

Maybe you could just stop listening to Judaism as if it was legitimate.

>Also, the text of 1 Samuel 13:1 was corrupted and not at all preserved.

Is there something wrong with it? I realize that the ESV, DRB and YLT all translate it wrong, that isn't a valid argument however.

>And speaking of 2 Peter 1:20, nobody for at least 1500 years was interpreting any if those texts you just quoted in the way you’re interpreting them.

Peter did, Paul did. That is all that matters. That's why they wrote these things. All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

And obviously by the fact we're here reading the received text proves that it has been preserved since that time. As the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, it stands to reason that it was the church that safeguarded it until now. They knew what was up, they didn't allow Vulgate, Arian or other corruptions to get into their copies. And hence, we possess it today. You are reading the proof with your very eyes, my friend. And I must say it's quite convincing as it is indeed quite evidently the self-evident word of God. I'm also not sure how you could even come up with a better proof than simply reading it for yourself as to its validity as being preserved, the promised word that shall not pass away.

Nobody else even attempts to claim that for their corrupted versions, as they believe in a false god that cannot even preserve his own words.

The events of 2 Kings 22 does not prove that every single last person had forgotten his words. It just proves that some people did. That fact doesn't contradict any point which has been made, because it wasn't every single last person alive. You would have to prove somehow that every single last person had forgotten it. I'm not sure you can do it, for any time period, any time between then and now. And as before, thanks for stopping by.

As much as I love the KJV, I can't wrap my head around people saying it's perfect. That's the silliest stance to take, where you're put in a "all or nothing" position. You leave yourself open to being completely dismissed if the KJV even has one error. Why would you do that? The guy who is a staunch defender of the KJV, but says it's only 99% accurate actually has a decent chance of providing a good apologetic, and is being somewhat reasonable in comparison. The guy who says 100% is beyond hope.

My favorite error is that the KJV has "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Easter is a pagan goddess (Eostre). The actual Greek is pascha/pesach (Passover). I don't care what Easter means now. It's not a good translation, and I don't want some damned Saxon goddess for dirt worshippers included in my bible. Yet I see KJV Onlyists jump through hoops trying to defend it.

>>831253

On a related note, I hate "Easter" the same reason I hate all of our months and days of the week. Europeans and English in a particular are completely pozzed even on a linguistic level. They don't just ruin Pasch, they ruin every day of every month. "Thor's day", "Sunday" is from Mithraism, Saturn's Day, etc.. I was born in the month of Juno (June). Last month celebrated the god of war (Mars) and next month celebrates another stupid dirty godess (Maia). Funnily, only this month (April) might have escaped the pozzing. Aprilis apparently just means "opening" (opening of the year to mark the Spring). Although some say it's from Aprhrodite, so it may just as well be named after another pagan goddess itself.

The least the English could have done is not ruin the name of Pascha, but they had to screw with that too.

>>831253

>I can't wrap my head around people saying it's perfect. That's the silliest stance to take,

Are you still making up strawman positions right now? Have you decided to actually respond to what my actual position is? I said it's not that much to ask for an accurate translation. Is it that much to ask that people should only use accurate translations?

>The guy who is a staunch defender of the KJV, but says it's only 99% accurate actually has a decent chance of providing a good apologetic, and is being somewhat reasonable in comparison. The guy who says 100% is beyond hope.

Ok so we're back to translation methodology again. Why? You didn't actually respond to any point that was made showing that the key difference here is the bad sources the modern versions use. They are removing whole verses and doctrine is being altered because of that. You have simply rehashed a straw man argument here yet again that no one is even holding to. I have to ask why do this here? This is a place for actual discussion. It's not designed for arguing against imaginary positions on the bible that you came up with in your head. You need to actually respond to the other person.

>The least the English could have done is not ruin the name of Pascha, but they had to screw with that too.

Oh ok so basically you just don't like the language then, not that you think the translation is inaccurate there. That's perfectly fine, since we still agree it's accurate there.

Based on what you've said… I just think you're looking for any quibbling objection that would allow you to dismiss the Bible since, "oh, they're all inaccurate, I can make it say whatever I want." It's the same with the people that hone in on 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 16:5. They really want the Bible to be inaccurate just so they don't have to listen to it. The idea of the word being preserved through time must be defeated in their minds, because it means that God actually kept his word.

>>831332

>Are you still making up strawman positions right now? Have you decided to actually respond to what my actual position is? I said it's not that much to ask for an accurate translation. Is it that much to ask that people should only use accurate translations?

"Still"? I haven't said much in this thread and don't know who you are. The only thing I ever said much earlier is that KJV Onlyists are in a cult, and just make the KJV itself look bad. Which is a shame. It's a beautiful translation that I wish more would read, if it didn't have your taint spread all over it.

>>831250

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree at this point haha. I’m glad you’re well grounded in your convictions, but I hope you’ll keep your heart open and contemplate these concerns.

I’ve read the Bible 3 times, in both Catholic and Protestant translations, and all kept pointing me outside the Bible.

I wish I could believe all this stuff was super obvious in the text by itself. But unfortunately if that were the case, there wouldn’t be 2,000 denominations with 2,000 different interpretations. It’s even unlikely that you’ll find 2 Baptist churches with the same interpretation. So if it was as obvious as you say it is, Protestants or at the very least Baptists would believe the same thing in uniformity. But unfortunately every time there’s a disagreement on an interpretation, there’s another schism. Thus I don’t believe these things are as clear and plainly obvious as you say.

God bless you for your passion anon, may your pursuit of truth never cease.

>>831362

>I wish I could believe all this stuff was super obvious in the text by itself.

Well the fact that God preserved his word is pretty obvious. I would reference you to Deuteronomy 29:29, Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5-6, Isaiah 30:8, Isaiah 40:8, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Romans 10:17, 1 Peter 1:23-25, 2 Peter 1:19-21. I definitely know a lot of churches have agreement over this, are reasonably serious about this fact and not all bowed the knee to Baal on the issue of God's preservation and the unchanging nature of God's word.

I also see from 2 Corinthians 2:17 that there are "many" which corrupt the word of God so that's not surprisingly a good mark of a true church to see whether or not they are among "the many" that corrupt.

>It’s even unlikely that you’ll find 2 Baptist churches with the same interpretation.

I believe it is true that "through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father."

>>831362

>God bless you for your passion anon, may your pursuit of truth never cease.

You're far too kind. These people are clowns. It's not passion. It's a show.

>>831377

I never claimed to be a KJOist or KJV only. That represents a straw man position. Please stop calling me that. I have no problem with accurate translations or the originals.

It seems like this whole thread people have been responding to a straw man position and I have been repeatedly pointing it out.

In case any of you were thinking the NKJV was accurate, here are a few significant problems with it:

In Matthew 7:14 NKJV, the word "narrow" is changed to "difficult" likely signifying the possibility of a pelagian interpretation of soteriology.

In the NKJV John 5:39, the imperative command "Search the scriptures" is changed to an indicative "You search the scriptures, etc." which seems to indicate rather that they were searching them already and should have been doing otherwise, rather than a positive command that they should start diligently searching. Only modern bibles translate the sentence this way. Wessex Gospels, Tyndale, Geneva, etc. all translated it the way as the Authorized version does. This NKJV version therefore removes the positive command that Jesus gave to search the scripture.

In Acts 2:47, 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 2:15, the NKJV changes the tense "are saved" (passive) to "are being saved" (active) which seems to indicate in English that being saved is an ongoing process rather than a process which only has a passive, "completed" sense. For example some verbs have only a passive sense so that "the books are stored in the box" and "the books are being stored in the box" have the same meaning. Other verbs have both passive "complete" and active "ongoing" sense, so that "the books are transported" and "the books are being transported" have different meaning. The NKJV masks the fact that the underlying Greek word is a passive participle by painting it as active present participle in its translation into English, a needlessly wordy way of translating which may make it appear like salvation is an incomplete process. Moreover, the NKJV does not translate it like this consistently, as in Luke 13:23, 1 Corinthians 15:2 and Revelation 21:24 the word is translated the normal way. Thus creating an inconsistency in translational approach. The KJV translates all six places the same way. The alternate versions of Acts 2:47, 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 2:15 in the NKJV, suggest a different soteriology.

In Acts 3:13 and 3:26 the NKJV changes the words "his son Jesus" into the modern alternative reading "his servant Jesus," despite claiming to be based on the received New Testament. This is noteworthy because the NKJV claims to be based on the same source as the KJV but these two verses shows that it is not. See also Matthew 22:10 and Jude v.3 in similar comparison.

In 2 Corinthians 2:17, the NKJV changes the word "corrupt" to the word "peddle" thereby removing the warning against those which corrupt and adulterate the word of God. Instead it suggests that people are "peddling the word of God" which seems to indicate that the word of God is a "cheap ware" that it is peddled, and that corruption is not an issue.

Yet if we see Greenfield's Greek Lexicon (1829) we see clearly that the underlying word means to corrupt. Strong's is inaccurate here.

In Titus 3:10 NKJV, the word heretick is changed to the word "divisive," as in, "Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,"

Yet this modified version of Titus 3:10 would indicate rejection of Jesus as he said in Luke 12 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:"

The NKJV also changed Jude v. 19 in a similar way to Titus 3:10.

>>830920

There's evidence from the early church fathers that it had it. The idea that we need to have a physical manuscript "older than the rest" to validate given the ECF's mentioning of it as valid (Jerome, one example) is fallacious and dishonest.

>>832739

single better Bible in English*

>>832739

I'm not sure why you chose to bump my thread, but thanks I guess.

I'm just envisioning the future "drop-down menu" bibles they will make that give you all the options you want interactively for your custom experience. Like maybe they will let you choose your own variations of verses in the future modern versions, such as whether you want to include or exclude Acts 8:37; or maybe they will allow you to to go with what's currently voted most popular with the LGBT or modern translators' favorite choices in each place. Maybe those are the same?

>Anything Rome uses is also automatically garbage

I'm pretty sure they use the KJV among all the others. Just like most people. The problem is they just don't think there is a difference until you point it out, then they realize someone has been taking it more seriously than them, and have unpredictable reactions. Some people react positively; those are the ones who often still receive the word of the Lord, they still tremble at his word.

>>832739

there was a time when the sisters burned the KJB and this is true and just, but your argument that because this particular symbol on that particular KJV bible is a falacy, and the 666 thing.. just please don't do this.

>>832925

>>832739

I'll also say for clarity that I believe the traditional reformation text of scripture is authentic, and that the KJV is the best English Bible around. I just don't think the "666 triquetra" argument against the NKJV holds any water.

>Be some Dutch Humanist in the 16th century

>Decide to create a Greek manuscript of the Bible

>Limited on textual resources to pull from

>Things going fairly well for the most part

>Find out some Catholic Bishop doing the same thing you are

>He's literally done with it, just needs approval from the Pope to print it

>Decide to kick your efforts into overdrive

>You're not gonna let some Catholic beat you to it

>Make a few errors along the way but think it'll be worth it, I can just correct it later

>Can't stop thinkin' 'bout those sweet dollary doos you're gonna make off your version of the Greek manuscript

>Get to the Book of Revelation

>"$@#^! I don't have any texts of the Book of Revelation"

>Stroll on down the library to find a copy of the Book of Revelation

>It's not there

>Literally have to ask a friend for his commentary on the Book of Revelation so you can attempt to piece it together

>Do just that

>End up creating a version of Revelation that's so foreign to every other translation before and after yours was created

>Publish it anyway to get ahead of the curb of your competitor

>Call it the Textus Receptus

>Create more updated versions that keep all the errors

>"Not my problem LOL"

Fast forward 100 years

>People using your errant manuscripts for Bible translations

>End up deceiving numerous translation committees just so you could make a quick buck

Meanwhile in Britain

>Some King commissions the translation of the Bible in the way that conforms to the Church denomination he rules over

>Forbids them to use certain words in the translations

>Even the translators think he's full of $&%@

>Literally say in their preface to the reader that this new translation is pointless

>Largely pull from the Textus Receptus using previous English translations of the Bible (also translated from the Textus Receptus) as a basis

>Slap it together and call it finished

>King bans other translations of the Bible and makes his version the authorized version

>People forced to use only this translation for 100+ years

>People just go along with it because whatever

>Late 1700s roll around

>This version gets updated

>Some of the passages get corrupted because the revisionists think there were errors in the 1611 version

>People end up removing a few books they don't like because they don't agree with it

Now go to modern day

>People take pride in their corrupted, edited versions of a Bible translation whose basis for translation was faulty to begin with

>Create a whole movement around it

>Lash out at other Bible translations that have over 5000 manuscripts to pull from and compare for textual accuracy

>Ignore the fact that their version only pulls from 7 manuscripts dating 1400+ years after Christ

>Ignore the fact that many of these 5000+ manuscripts come from a wide rage of time, some even dating before Christ

>Think that the differences in translations are some Satanic conspiracy and that the hundreds of the other Bible translations are all corrupted and evil and that yours is 100% perfect

The truth is, people have been lashing out at new translations since the days of Saint Jerome.

>>832932

>>Find out some Catholic Bishop doing the same thing you are

>>He's literally done with it, just needs approval from the Pope to print it

Who is this referring to

>>832935

Excuse me, it was actually a Cardinal, Cardinal Jimenez. And it was a polyglot for the entire Bible which has the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

>>832926

I'd say the real reasons not to use it would be here: >>831520

>>831521

>>832932

>End up creating a version of Revelation that's so foreign to every other translation before and after yours was created

What passages in particular are you thinking of here if you don't mind me asking. Are you thinking of the places where later T.R. of Stephanus, (which was much more accurate), corrected Erasmus, or are you thinking of the correct parts?

>People using your errant manuscripts for Bible translations

Are you aware of Stephanus and Beza T.R. and the fact they independently derived the received text and corrected a few of his minor mistakes from his rush job in 1516-1523?

Do you realize no Bibles in use today are actually going from Erasmus' 1516 Novum Instrumentum omne?

>Some King commissions the translation of the Bible in the way that conforms to the Church denomination he rules over

>Forbids them to use certain words in the translations

>Even the translators think he's full of $&%@

>Literally say in their preface to the reader that this new translation is pointless

Source? Was it really as simple as you make it?

>King bans other translations of the Bible and makes his version the authorized version

Source on banning the translations? The Geneva Bible continued to be used through the English Civil war, afterward the puritans and independent nonconformists began to favor the Authorized version, in part because of Oliver Cromwell's endorsement, William Kilburne's exposure of the accuracy of Cambridge 1638 edition of the KJV, and the inability of the rump parliament to add the Geneva footnotes into it in 1648. Where is your source that other translations were banned?

>People just go along with it because whatever

Was it really as simple as this? Have you taken the above facts into consideration?

>>Some of the passages get corrupted because the revisionists think there were errors in the 1611 version

What passages? What passages are you referring to here?

>People end up removing a few books they don't like because they don't agree with it

You mean uninspired books? Why is there a problem with this? I don't have a problem if a bible doesn't include the translator's letter to the king or to the reader because those are uninspired. They are called Apocrypha for a reason, anon. Nobody mixes them with the inspired Scripture.

>People take pride in their corrupted, edited versions of a Bible translation

What passages are corrupted in the 1769/1900 format of the KJV from the original translation? Are you going to complain about typos?

>Lash out at other Bible translations that have over 5000 manuscripts to pull from and compare for textual accuracy

What if those extra manuscripts are corrupted? Why were they discovered in the mid 1800s? Isn't that considered new revelation of God's word? Why didn't God preserve those alternate manuscripts if they are so important.

You see there is a danger in modern enemies of the truth to try to corrupt the word of God. Of course, everyone recognizes this danger. So why would you let someone all by himself supposedly "discover" things that are supposed to make everyone else in the entire world drop their Bible and start using his? Before 1880, What Bible in the world had the NASB/NIV/ESV version of Mark 10:24? The answer is none.

>>832935

He's referring to the Complutensian Polyglot. Ultimately it was based on one of the sources for the KJV Old Testament Hebrew, along with the 1525 Bomberg Old Testament printed in Venice by Daniel Bomberg, with consultation from Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah (aka "Jacob Ben Chajim" as it's written); Also Hutter's 1596 Opus Quadripartitum.

>>832932

>The truth is, people have been lashing out at new translations since the days of Saint Jerome.

Ok, so your point is we should accept all new translations.

>>833452

Thanks anon.

You know something else I find funny that I just thought of. Modern version users are always complaining anytime you try to point out some verse they quoted is literally different than the received King James. They say it doesn't matter and why bring it up. But then without fail, anytime I quote 1 John 5:7 they are so eager to point out how they don't believe that is in the Bible. I find it interesting how they suddenly find an interest in exact Bible references at that time. Whereas any other time they're trying to tell me it doesn't matter at all and trying to deride me for pointing any difference out.

How wise is our Lord I suppose.

>>835498

That's not just a "modern" version user issue. In fact, they're not modern at all when they're based on older manuscripts. In order for the KJV Only cultists to be right, 99% of the Church's scriptures have to be wrong. 1 John 5:7 is not in the oldest or even majority Greek and was completely unknown to the Orthodox East until recently; it's not in the oldest Latin and only in later period 6th century and onward Vulgate manscripts (and not Western writers like Augustine or Leo the Great ever quoted it or alluded to it in commentaries); it's in none of the Syriac or Ethiopic; and none of secondary pre-1000AD translations like the old Slavic include either. And it wasn't even in Erasmus' first edition of the Textus Receptus he compiled, until some British Catholic monk conjured up a newfound manuscript that only dates to the his own time period. Therefore, Erasmus put it in later additions. But not even Luther used it, since he relied on the first edition of Erasmus' New Testament. The closest to an early account of the text is Cyprian, but he's only alluding to the Trinity by illustration, but just directly quotes the part about the "Spirit, the water, and the blood". If he knew the actual text, then he would have quoted it directly.. but instead, he only makes allusions to something like it through metaphor.

On to the heart of the matter - and I'll just say it once. I honestly suspect that the top pushers of KJV Onlyism are Freemasons. It might sound conspiratorial, but it's the only reason why someone would push so hard for a British, English centric translation even above the original languages or even other Protestant translations like Luther. Some go so far as to say there is a "Bible Code" (ala Kabbalah) embedded in the English text itself and carries "new revelation" that isn't even in the Hebrew or Greek (both Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman espouse such theories). Freemasons are the only ones that consider the King James Bible centric to their own faith as well (and the 1611 edition of KJV specifically had proto-Masonic symbolism decorating it), and I could see them setting out on a disinformation campaign to dissuade use of any other bible, since it's so central to their own faith. They need it's cultural strength to be relevant.

That isn't to say that I think the average adherent of KJV Onlyism is a mason. You're too ignorant for that. Only your leaders are Freemasons. The rest of you are just silly faggots. You're attracted to magisterial type teachings and confident strongmen, and get aroused by big swinging cocks in your face. Probably daddy issues. Especially you millenials and zoomers on this board, who were given a raw family deal from your birth.

>>835695

>Some go so far as to say there is a "Bible Code" (ala Kabbalah) embedded in the English text itself and carries "new revelation" that isn't even in the Hebrew or Greek

Yeah, they're dumb cultists.

>>835695

>I honestly suspect that the top pushers of KJV Onlyism are Freemasons.

And one other thing, do you really think your generation is so much smarter than all generations of Christian believers before Tischendorf in 1859? Are you saying the reason the Anglosphere as a whole used that translation from roughtly the English Civil War period until the Revised Version in 1880 is because there were "pushers" and not because it was an accurate translation?

It seems like after the whole issue between the Geneva Bible with its footnotes and the Bishop's Bible word usages we had finally found an accurate translation in 1611 based on the 1598 T.R. and 1599 Polyglot (not Erasmus) with every known manuscript including the Vaticanus available. We had arrived at an advantagous situation where we had a thoroughly proofread translation based on the best Greek and Hebrew/Syriack language sources. All speakers of the language agreed to the point that allowed the dictionaries of the English language in Britain and the USA to derive their word definitions from. It was thoroughly proofread for any fault by the flower of the best scholarship for centuries, leading to the 1900 format of Scripture where we are today. During all that time, it was only people who had some heretical doctrine that wanted to change it.

Now you're trying to tell us today it was some grand conspiracy by some freemasons that caused the anglosphere as a whole minus a handful of heretics who wanted to changed it to use that translation without any debate until Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort the peerless brilliant scholars who supposedly had no adverse motivations against the Bible came up with a new version in 1880? You think the conspiracy lasted that long? No my friend, Westcott and Hort had an animus against the word of God and wanted to change it, they used shoddy scholarship to get it across the press and other heretics latched on to the obvious idea of making a custom version of the Bible under the false pretenses of "updated language" from then on. Using these custom bibles finally went mainstream in the 1960s in the midst of the sexual revolution. The whole concept is bogus and its based on the desire to change God's word, that's all.

>>835701

>its based on the desire to change God's word, that's all.

I'll elaborate on this a bit further while I have the time. The reason why it's such a big deal to these people to hold to multiple versions of the Bible is because once you have shown that one place in Scripture could have multiple totally different meanings, then it becomes possible that any verse in Scripture might be the same way, and thus the modern version user can be reassured that, whatever passage of Scripture at all, could be altered to better suit their taste. That's why it's so important for them to prove 1 John 5:7 is changed, because that means any scripture can be changed.

>>835701

Is there a book that you're aware of which puts forward this opinion?

If I could summarize, are you arguing that there's enough cause for suspicion in T, W&H that any translations which follow from them should be discarded?

Do you limit what's acceptable to KJV?

>>835698

Of course not. But even old commentators made remarks about the faults of the KJV. Especially many did by the early 19th century (which still are in use today, like Easton's Dictionary, etc). Even very early commentators, who were conservative and evangelical, like Adam Clarke, made plenty of correctional commentary and pointed out a bit of textual criticism of their own. All you have to do is read it - he's readily available on the web today - and still a pretty good commentary. Then before him, the Puritans largely avoided the KJV and preferred the Geneva. It wasn't like everyone just swallowed every word of the King James Bible wholesale. And when they did have to use it, I think the Americans did it best by rebelling, printing it on their own without the king's authority (and also revising the book of Common Prayer as well), trashing nonsense like the Epistle Dedicatory (dedicating one's bible to a homo King as the height of virtue seems pretty out of line), and stripped it of other British trappings or blasphemous woodcuts from the original editions.