/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

fat/lain/: Serial Experiments Lain stream party starts Wed, Sep 22 at 3:59am UTC

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

Open file (29.38 KB 300x473 HolyBible.jpg)
Bible Discussion General Anonymous 02/24/2021 (Wed) 22:17:22 No.455
this can be a thread we discuss the bible and deepen our collective knowledge about our faith. the bible is the foundational book for our faith so we need to be quite familiar with what it has to say https://www.e-sword.net/index.html here is some software which you can use to compare various translations
Greatest book on the face of the earth.
>>545 The Lord of the Rings was better.
>>455 I'm planning on getting a commentary. Do you have a good reccomendation for a Commentary Bible?
>>557 Silence, troll.
I use the KJV 1900. I have studied this topic in depth and come to the realization that most of the modern translations are using a different source text that removes an amount of words equivalent to the books of 1 and 2 Peter, but spread out over every page. Some of these changes, especially when looked at collectively, including both textual variant choices as well as translational choices, (where words are now being treated differently than they have historically been defined in English to represent), have raised my awareness as to the issues that modernist "theology" is trying to saturate into the churches of today. I do not exclusively use the KJV 1900, but I believe it is the best, most accurate translation available. Every other translation I have ever personally investigated has many of these very serious issues or is archaic; like the 1599 Geneva Bible, which uses slightly older English (for an example of the latter). But I am not fundamentally opposed to all new translations, with the condition that it be accurate to the received text. I personally have met people who have worked on doing what we have in English for other languages as well. So I am not what is commonly derided as a KJVO. However the mistakes and inaccuracies in most other translations (i.e. all of the ones I have seen) leaves me with little choice. And it's not a difficult one to make, because the KJV is a nice version. A lot of effort was put into it from a textual level in 1611, as well as the patient effort spent on proofreading the translation quality itself and subsequent efforts to keep the language spelling/format and orthography up to date, mainly the 1769 update, have kept it from falling into disuse. I know many people in my church agree with me on this view as well. It is also a nice translation to read aloud, which is by design, because in its original mandate, it was designated "Authorized to be read in churches." But I mainly like it for its accuracy to the original text in both authentic Hebrew and a few Syriac-Aramaic portions (mainly in Ezra and Daniel), as well as Greek.
What is the best translation of The Bible?
>>1383 Many would say the KJV but I have recently heard of the Textus Receptus and have only just started to look into it. For now I will cast my vote for the KJV as it has been the Bible used by my ancestors.
>>1389 The KJV uses the Textus Receptus as its source for the New Testament in the original Greek language. It is a fine translation for English speakers, and quite fitting, simply because we literally framed our language around the original 1611 translation. A lot of word definitions in our dictionaries, which were written after 1611, are originally defined as they appear in the KJV Bible. The reason people got away from it is simply because they don't like what the Bible says, and want to change it for whatever reason, whatever sin is behind that desire. That's why you have people since around the 1960s widely using modern versions, which come out again and again every few years, and can be molded like putty to say whatever the most recent trends dictate. The modern translations have gone systematically through the passages of scripture to try to tweak wording or change it to say that sodomy is a good thing, for instance. They also like to include arbitrary changes just for the sake of change, in order to try to dispel the idea that God's word is eternal and unchanging, which it actually is. They do this rather than staying true to the source of the received text that has always been used. That's some of the reasons why I would say use the KJV if you read English, or else look for another good translation of the Textus Receptus - which is the original language of the Bible which we still have.
>>1397 The Textus Receptus is terrible. It's full of additions that are not present in any text outside the west as well as just plain errors. Sure Greek is the "the original language of the Bible", but there are better Greek manuscripts out there that are much more accurate to what the originals would have been; such as the majority text. >>1383 There isn't one. The KJV reads nicely, despite the extra errors the translation process added, and is great if you wish to study anglic christianity. Otherwise, I would recommend Brenton's Septuagint for the Old Testament and the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible for the New (it's based on the Patriarchal text instead of the Majority Text, but it's still better than the Textus Receptus)
Open file (21.03 KB 480x360 kjv_1.jpg)
>>1416 The majority text is almost exactly the same as the Textus Receptus. Also, just to be clear, I'm talking about the most accurate Textus Receptus as compiled by Stephanus c. 1550 and Beza in 1598, which is the exact version actually used by the KJV translators; not the one by Erasmus. It was also the same text as that compiled by Elzevir separately in 1624 and 1633. These are more accurate to the actual manuscripts than the rushed work of Erasmus, (although his was still relatively close barring a few exceptions.) The editions of the Greek that I mention represent the true Greek text, unaltered from the original which was handed down from scribe to copyist since time immemorial, and used by the church in all that time. We see that God has provided for us today His word, in addition to being the source for its initial inspiration. The word of God is incorruptible, as Peter stated in 1 Peter 1:23. According to this verse, it is that by which we are born again. And as it says in Proverbs, "every word of God is pure," and likewise in Psalms and Isaiah it says that the word of the Lord endures to every generation. Jesus said in the Gospels that heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall never pass away. He also said that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4. So then, it's important that people don't cut out, add to, or change that eternal, unchangable word that we have always used. >>1416 >It's full of additions that are not present in any text outside the west as well as just plain errors. I'm glad to see you have no examples, which proves that this is just an empty claim. >I would recommend Brenton's Septuagint for the Old Testament This translation contains significant errors, for instance it places the age of Methuselah relative to Noah such that Methuselah (the ancestor of Noah) outlives the flood by 14 years. This Septuagint is also missing 1/8 of the book of Jeremiah, including for instance the entire second half of Jeremiah 33 which contains the messianic prophecy that says, >"In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel" - Jeremiah 33:15-17. The Brenton Septuagint also removes the messianic prophecy about the Son in Psalm 2:12. See the KJV text below: >Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. This is noteworthy, for thirty-nine other Psalms mention a blessing for placing trust in God and the Lord, but Psalm 2:12 is the only place where the same is said for trusting in the Son. However, the Brenton Septuagint removes this prophecy by inaccurately altering it. I can provide additional examples, or you can just read an in-depth article covering the other changes and errors of this version right here: https://avblog.org/the-greek-old-testament-or-the-septuagint/
(cont'd) >and the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible The Eastern Orthodox Bible or EOB contains numerous footnotes that tell you to follow the modern critical text. For instance, in Colossians 1:14 the words "through his blood" are removed from the EOB, which is in line with the modern so-called critical text. Another example is 1 John 5:13, where the EOB has a footnote stating that the following entire text should be removed according to the same critical text: "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." The Eastern Orthodox Bible, as an English text, also flat-out removes the words in Revelation 1:11 that says, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and" This is in line with the critical text. It also changes the word "God" to "the throne" in Revelation 20:12, in line with the modern critical text versions. It also removes the words "in the name of the Lord Jesus" from Acts 9:29, again without even a footnote to indicate where it is missing words which are present in both the received and majority text. The EOB also removes the word "Lord" from Mark 9:24 in the same manner. It also removes the word "Amen" from John 21:25 likewise. The EOB as a modern translation changes the important phrase "only begotten" to "unique" in John 1:18. It also has bad footnotes. For instance, in its footnote on John 20:22, the EOB says "The Greek actually uses the indefinite, which means that the most literal and accurate translation would be 'receive a h/Holy s/Spirit' " In its footnote on Luke 3:36 the EOB claims that there is a copyist error in its own text. It also mistranslates Colossians 2:2 to say, "of God the Father, and of Christ," when the original Greek contains two words for "and" (καὶ), thus being properly translated as "Of God, and of the Father, and of Christ." Thus, the Eastern Orthodox Bible removes a clear reference to the mystery of the Holy Trinity from Colossians 2:2. Not only does it do that, but also the Eastern Orthodox Bible has another error in Philippians 2:6, where it implies that Christ was not equal with God. In the accurate translation, the verse from Paul tells us that He did not consider it robbery to be equal to God. In other words, Jesus Christ was not trying to show off that fact when He made Himself of no reputation. But the EOB (and many modern versions like the NASB and ESV) change Philippians 2:6 in a malicious way to imply that Jesus did not consider himself equal to God in the first place! Any single one of these changes should be enough to convince you to stay far away from the EOB as anything close to an accurate translation. I would continue to recommend you use the KJV as as far as I know there is no example of an error, whether logical, theological, translational, or otherwise. I've never seen anyone show me a legitimate example of an error with the KJV. Peace be with you all.
>>1383 the one that isn't copyrighted by corporate cucks who think they own the word of God.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

no cookies?