/lit/ - Literature

>>23512402
>It's still the Tyndale tradition of the KJV, in a sense.
Well, it's not based on the received text, so that's a major departure.

It's also the reason why some people stopped using the KJV originally. Not because the KJV needed a language update, but because they had constructed a different Greek text of the New Testament in the late 19th century, and they thought the Received text was wrong and had to be rejected.

The different Greek text that modern versions like the RSV, NRSV and ESV use is about 7% shorter in the New Testament, and it is missing several entire verses. That's kind of a big deal and I would consider it a rather definitive and resounding break from the Received text tradition.

The Westcott and Hort text, for example, has been compared to the Received text that was in use before it. Their text omits words 1952 times, adds words 467 times, and substitutes/modifies words 3185 times. Overall, 9970 individual Greek words have been either removed, modified, or added in that edition. This is about 7% of the words, and an average of 15.4 words on every page of the Greek New Testament. These changes affect the majority of verses in the New Testament in some way. I would say that's very significant, whether you want to argue they were right or not to do so.

>>23499546
You are supporting postmodern relativism in this response. This is also the exact reason why they made 900 different translations to suit every person's taste in recent times.

>For the most part though, Bible versions are made in good faith.
Until around 1880, there was only one version in use. That's when people began really making bad-faith translations en masse, beginning with the English Revised version. What they did was act in bad faith, trying to get people away from God's word by corrupting it, pretending like the differences they've introduced don't make a difference. If you are a believer, they absolutely do. That is also why we've had a moral decline since then, because they have been working feverishly to reduce respect toward the Bible. People who push this postmodern relativism and who pretend like these things don't really matter, because they want to show off how smart they think they are, are directly contributing to moral decline today. It is directly the fault of people who push those very ideas, and it is a big reason why many people don't have respect for the Bible, whereas before (i.e. before Westcott and Hort, when the translation everyone used was high quality and accurate) many people did.

The problem is, modern translations like the NIV and ESV are corrupted. That is literally the entire problem, and has literally caused generations to disregard the Bible because they are terrible, corrupted and trash-like counterfeits. Often I've found they make these modern versions deliberately trashy, and they put things in there that are meant to make the reader question the Lord, and to question the very translation/version they are reading. Despite hiding behind the thin pretense of scholarship, the reason they do these things is because they just hate everything about the Bible and there is a kind of demonic animus against God's uncorrupted word. That is the honest to God truth. Everyone needs to get back to using the KJV. That was and is an accurate translation for English.

It basically provides a revised text of the KJV with better apocrypha than it and the Douay–Rheims. For the NT it follows the Alexandrian text which may or may not be to your liking depending on which school of thought you adhere to. Posting the retarded "removed" verses chart before some fundietard does.

https://ebible.org/eng-rv/

>>23354567
>the Douay, which was finalized in 1609,
According to what I read, volume 2 which contained Psalms through Apocrypha wasn't published until 1610.
>However I remain personally skeptical to that claim that the Douay had any influence to the KJV since at the time, Anglican England had had completely divorced it self from the Catholic world).
This was already true in 1582, which was during Elizabeth's reign. Also in Scotland, in 1579 they even passed a law that every household of means had to own a copy of the 1560 Geneva Bible, and this translation remained in print for about 80 years since 1560, to include a minor revision of its own in 1599. The puritans switched to the KJV after Cambridge university started printing it in 1629 and corrected all the typos and other weird choices made by the royal printers of the earliest KJV editions (for instance, the 1611 first edition had no apostrophes, did not use the letters U and V normally and had no letter J, all of which the Geneva Bible already had in 1560).

I don't think the Rheims of 1582 had any influence on this at all, and the authorized translators clearly denounced their critics coming from Roman Catholicism in their prologue, "Epistle to the reader" which you can still read today.

>>23354599
I'd be careful that you take note of all the places where modern English translations vary. For example, many of them are outright missing verses such as Acts 8:37 or Matthew 18:11. And the number of places where phrases smaller than an entire verse are omitted or significantly different in their base text is in the thousands. It doesn't make much sense to compare two translations of something that are of a completely different source. Even if that weren't the case, I would be wary of the modern tendency to redefine things, since nowadays the barrier is very low to creating a new edition.

For example, in Philippians 2:6, many modern translations have twisted the translation to mean the exact opposite of what it really means.

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
(Philippians 2:6 KJV)

Here we see that Jesus did not act like His equality with God was something to be flaunted. "Robbery" here would be something obtained by theft or through some artifice. For Jesus, equality with God has always been His possession naturally since He is God the Son. But look at what modern versions do to this verse:

"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
(Philippians 2:6 ESV)

Here, the ESV makes it sound like Jesus never even attempted to grasp being God. In my life, I have seen people (for instance, Jehovah Witnesses) use this bizarro version of Philippians 2:6 to try to argue Jesus didn't claim to be God. That obviously goes against everything else in the Bible, and it's an abysmal translation of Philippians 2:6 which says the exact opposite of what Paul was actually saying here. So, I'd be careful.

>>23336939
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
- John 5:30 ("Father" removed)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
- John 6:47 ("on me" removed)

"And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."
- John 6:69 ("Christ, the Son of the living God" changed to "the Holy One of God")

"Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come."
- John 7:8 (the first word "yet" = "οὔπω" is removed in modern versions, but Jesus later goes to the feast on His own, creating a contradiction in modern versions)

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."
- John 10:26 ("as I said unto you" removed)

"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me."
- John 14:30
("this world" changed to "the world"; the demonstrative pronoun "τούτου" is omitted in the modern critical text in this verse)

"If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."
- John 15:7 ("ye shall ask" future indicative verb is changed to "ask" aorist imperative verb)

"A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16 ("because I go to the Father" is removed in modern versions)

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;"
- John 17:20 ("which shall believe" future tense verb is changed to present tense verb)

"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee."
- John 21:15 ("son of Jonas" is changed to "son of John" in this verse and the next two verses, which contradicts what it says in Matthew 16:17 where he is called "Simon Barjona")

Because of all this, I find it hard to believe that people who know about this are going around saying that the differences with modern versions and translations are minor or can be ignored, but apparently that's what they are telling people. Maybe because these differences don't mean anything to them since they're not believers in the first place, idk.

>>23105782
Problems with the Revised Version (or English Revised Version):
It removes about 5% of the New Testament since it is based on the critical text. However, it doesn't make as many removals or changes as later translations do.

For example, the ERV (or RV for short),
– In Luke 10:1 and Luke 10:17, it doesn't change the number 70 to the number 72 like all modern versions (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc) do.
– In John 3:13, doesn't remove the words "which is in heaven," found at the end of the verse, like all modern versions do.
– In John 4:16, doesn't remove the word "Jesus" like all moderns versions do.
– In John 9:35, the RV does not change "Son of God" to "Son of man" like all etc.
– In 1 Corinthians 1:14, does not change "I thank God" to "I am thankful" like the RSV (1952) or the NASB 2020 edition does, or the NAB/NABRE which puts "God" in brackets.
– In 1 Corinthians 13:3, the RV does not change "to be burned" to the phrase "that I may glory" like the NIV, NASB (2020 edition only), NLT, CSB, HCSB, and NET do.
– In Hebrews 3:6, the ERV does not remove the words "firm unto the end" as all modern versions do, other than the pre-2020 NASB editions.
– In 1 John 2:20, the ERV does not change "ye know all things" to the phrase "all of you have knowledge", or "all of you know the truth" as all modern versions do.
– In Matthew 21:12, it does not remove the words "of God" as all modern versions do.
– In Mark 7:24, the RV does not remove or omit the words "and Sidon" as all modern versions do.

However, it does omit things that most modern versions do not. For instance:

– In John 19:16, the RV omits the phrase "And they took Jesus, and led him away" along with only the ASV, RSV (1952) and NASB, but all other versions including even the NIV include this phrase.
– In Acts 3:6, the RV omits the words "rise up and," instead saying only one word: "walk." This removal is only found in NIV, NASB, RV, ASV, RSV, and the words are in brackets in the NAB or NABRE. Other modern versions like the ESV, NRSV and CSB of 2017 however still include the words without brackets.
– In Revelation 15:3, the RV, ASV of 1901 and RSV of 1952 say "king of ages," while the Received text says "king of saints." But the modern versions like NIV and others instead say "king of nations." The reading should be "king of saints," which is the reading that's always been used.

The above changes in the RV, or other translations that are not based on the Received text, all significantly alter the meaning of the Bible. This is before we get into the entire verses removed by the RV and others, such as Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24, or Mark 11:26 and Mark 15:28 (both verses in Mark, by the way, have no parallel in the other Gospels).

And this is before we get into any particular inaccurate translation choices of the Revised Version as well, which is a whole different discussion unto itself.

>>22873864

>>22867421
It has a bunch of removals and alterations, some of which are from the modern critical text and others are the ESV translators' whim.

A small selection from among the inaccurate translations that are specific in the ESV would include the following verses:
Matthew 1:7-8 "Asa" changed to "Asaph" (name of David's psalmist rather than the king Asa; a mistranslation in ESV only)
Matthew 1:10 "Amon" changed to "Amos" (name of the prophet Amos rather than the king Amon, also in ESV only)
Matthew 15:6 "or his mother" removed (ESV and NET only)
Mark 9:44,46 verses removed (in ESV, NIV, NLT, and NASB 2020 edition)
Luke 3:33 "son of Aram" changed to "son of Admin, son of Arni" (increases the number of names by one: ESV, NLT, NET only)
John 1:18 "only begotten Son" replaced with "only God" (ESV, NET only)
2 Corinthians 5:21 "in him" removed (ESV, NIV, NET only)

There are many more besides these, but this gives you some examples of some horrible translations by the ESV editors. This is above and beyond the ones that appear in most non-received text translations.

Biblical accuracy is important, so I would recommend using the KJV as always. This is to avoid missing these important details, which are factual statements that often clarify things that modern Bibles leave out.

>>22798756
Translations vary a great deal in nuanced but critical ways from the True Word of God, fundamentally changing their meaning.

For example, link & pic related...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

>>22749598
If voodoo priests endorsed a Bible, I wouldn't think much of that.

>>22749737
India is already mentioned in the Bible, see the description of Persia in the book of Esther, people knew about it even before Alexander the Great.

>>22751087
The DR Challoner version says king Saul was one year old when he began to reign. So does the original 1609/10 version which nobody reads.

>>22754106
It follows the Hebrew text in several places, such as Genesis 5:25-26, where the OSB for some reason switches to the original Hebrew text ages (187, 782) instead of the Septuagint's own numerical values (167, 802). Most Septuagint translations say 167 and 802 years in Genesis 5:25-26, even though this means Methuselah lived 14 years past the year of the Flood. The OSB seems to avoid doing this by switching to the Hebrew numbers but only in Genesis 5:25-26 despite being a "Septuagint" translation.

OP will want the King James, preferably Cambridge edition which is the standard.

>>22454188
The RSV translation of 1952 removes a lot of those verses like Matthew 18:11 as well.

The problem with most English translations made after 1611 is that they use a different source text - a 19th or 20th century reconstruction - rather than the one used historically and represented in the original Greek manuscripts and Hebrew manuscripts.

On top of that, there are also weird translation choices as well, but this came somewhat later, particularly in the late 20th century. There was an in-between phase where you had translations similar in style to the KJV, but in substance they were the same as most of the modern ones, in the fact that they are not based on the received text. Unfortunately, people who promote the modern versions tend to gloss over the major differences between the received text and the modern critical text. But it results in a New Testament that is missing about 7% of the words that are found in the Greek Received Text (and hence reflected in the KJV), with about 5% of the words deleted and another 2% replaced with a substantially different word.

The whole verses missing are just the tip of the iceberg, as thousands of other changes involve changing just a single word here or there, or deleting a phrase of a few words. For instance, the word "yet" is removed in John 7:8 of the modern versions, essentially making Jesus lie about the fact that he was not going to go to the feast. In the original unaltered version, Jesus told them "I go not up yet unto this feast," which is a correct statement and does not make a liar out of Jesus when he later goes to the feast.

There are countless more examples of this throughout the entire Bible. It's not a matter of different translation methodology, but rather, as in the case of John 7:8, one Greek text has the word "yet" and the other (which the modern versions use) doesn't have it. Same for longer passages like the entire verse of Matthew 18:11 or Romans 16:24.

>>22287327
Doesn't matter. The same "scholars" also want to remove about 7% of the New Testament, which is where you find modern corrupted translations such as NIV comes from. They are clearly deluded and biased against Christianity.

>>22067836

There truly is only one Holy Bible; all others are errant if not heretical.

KJV > all others

>>21875599
These aren't translations of the same thing. Most of the other translations are missing around 7% of the New Testament as compared to the KJV. See chart.

>>21876013
>There are a few notorious mistranslations, some deliberate.
This is mostly or entirely people who want to make some money by selling a modern, copyrighted version of the Bible. But if you have something specific on your mind, feel free to bring it up here. I've seen a lot of objections, none of them are solid.

>>21876165
The OSB (2008) is based loosely on the Septuagint in the Old Testament and the NKJV for the New Testament. Its translation of the Septuagint has issues, for instance the OSB follows the numbers from the Hebrew in Genesis 5:25-26 even though the Greek Septuagint says something different there. While the Hebrew numbers are correct, giving the last year of Methuselah as the year in which the flood occurred, the Septuagint numbers have a serious problem because they imply that Methuselah, the grandfather of Noah, outlived the flood by 14 years. Apparently the OSB decided to use the Hebrew numbers in Genesis 5:25-26 to avoid this issue with the Septuagint. The OSB also has a highly questionable translation where most Bibles said "sodomites" in the Old Testament in condemning the act of sodomy, the OSB instead says "male temple prostitutes," (c.f. Deuteronomy 23:18, 2/4 Kings 23:7). The Septuagint base text itself, from which most of the Orthodox Study Bible has been translation, has issues as well, such as missing more than 30 entire verses from the book of Proverbs and the book of Jeremiah being about 1/8 shorter, among other fairly drastic changes. Messianic prophecies such as Psalm 2:12 and Isaiah 9:6 are not found in the Septuagint as they are in the Hebrew, proclaiming the divinity of Christ clearly in the Hebrew Old Testament (and KJV) but not in the Septuagint (or OSB) - and other times, such as in Jeremiah 33:15, the prophecies are entirely missing from the LXX altogether.

>>21859076
>So yeah, your only good options are archaic 17th century English
It's not quite that. The translation was made deliberately archaic even for the standards of the year it was published, 1611. This can be seen in the fact that they originally did not include the letter J, switched the usage of U and V around from the normal way these letters are used, and used blackletter font, whereas the 1560 Geneva Bible (also in English) used letters normally and had a more readable roman font already by that point.
However, despite these issues, the KJV was updated in 1762 and 1769 by two different scholars, Paris and Blayney respectively, based on the English standards of that time, and our KJV Bibles today descend from the final revision of these editors. However, the underlying translation is essentially the same, just with more standardized spelling and formatting and a few very minor word changes implemented here and there (such as abandoning the word "sith" for the more known word "since" in all except one place, for instance). The KJV post-1769 is much easier to read than earlier English editions of the Bible.

>with a questionable translation accuracy
No, the KJV is regarded as very accurate to the base text. The only reason people were motivated to move away from it was because they didn't want to use the base text anymore. Ironically however the Greek (and Hebrew) texts now used are inferior to that used by the 16th and early 17th century translators. In the New Testament, for instance, about 7% of the Greek words are removed or missing from the modern translations, including about twelve single verses being missing, not to mention some that remove the last twelve verses of Mark and have thousands of other, smaller (substantive) changes.

>>21572873
>They definitely differ from each other,
Not by anything that matters. I have actually researched this subject so allow me to say a couple of things.

The differences between the editions of the TR amounts to little more than background noise. Almost every variant within that family is of the nature of a spelling change, as multiple words in Greek have more than one spelling. It would translate the same regardless. Less frequently, it will be some other kind of change, such as an untranslateable (if present) definite particle being present or absent, or a grammatically equivalent difference in word order, but one that always results in a well constructed sentence either way.

Now compare that to the difference between the TR itself and something like the Alexandrian manuscripts, which is what many modern versions like the NIV are based on. The text that has been made is unnatural, as it is an agglomeration of several different deficient and non-agreeing texts, but it results in removing about 7% total of the words of the Greek New Testament. About 5% omitted, and another 2% substantially changed. That is equivalent to the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter, approximately, with effects that spread out to virtually every page.

In Aleph (Cod. Sinaiticus) and B (Cod. Vaticanus) - two of the main manuscripts on which post-KJV translations are based - it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two manuscripts differ from each other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree. Furthermore, B does not consider Revelation, Philemon, I and II Timothy, Titus, or Hebrews 9:14-13:25 as part of the Bible. In their place, it adds apocryphal books such as Epistle of Barnabus.

On one passage (Luke 8:35-44) we notice the following among these minority manuscripts:
Aleph omits three readings while inserting two which are found nowhere else
B omits 12 words and inserts six readings found nowhere else
C omits 4 words and inserts 15
D omits 7 words and inserts 5

Now, a conglomerate text from these, that removes ~15.4 words (in Greek) from every page, stands in stark contrast to the received text, which exhibits remarkable agreement. Yes, there are the occasional obvious typographical variants (which result in an invalid sentence), and some orthographical differences that make no change to the translation within the TR. Almost none affect translation. (I know the few that do). That is nothing next to what has been done by modern translations like the ASV or NIV.

>Erasmus famously didn't have a complete Greek manuscript of Revelation
Yes, I know people are bandying this factoid about, but I think it is irresponsible for the following reason. The KJV wasn't based on Erasmus' (rushed) TR edition, it was based on much more carefully constructed TR editions such as of Stephanus in 1550, Beza in 1598 and the Nuremberg Polyglot of 1599. These editions used the whole set of manuscripts and corrected Erasmus, in all the relevant places.

I absolutely recommend the KJV if English if your language. It serves as the basis of much of the English language, as our early dictionary writers (Samuel Johnson, Noah Webster, etc) cited this translation to an incredible degree as authoritative throughout their word definitions, and it's based on the work of 47 or more biblical scholars who used the received text of the Bible and came to a consensus (based on earlier English translations) for the best possible English representative original Greek and Hebrew texts. Modern translations are cheap dime a dozen projects that get revised every 10 or so years to renew their copyrights and are based on a badly mutilated New Testament Greek text that has about 7% of the original text missing (approximately the amount of content as the books of 1 and 2 Peter). And with actual contradictions created in several places based on the mutilated and altered text of these editions. This is also why woke and secular universities insist on using such translations for their studies instead of the real thing. Pic also related.

>>21370437
>What is the anti-Bible?
You mean false bible? I can tell you the answer to this: It is the modern translations that are based on the critical, "Alexandrian" greek text instead of the received text. This would be your typical NIV or NASB or ESV translation that says "Bible" on the cover but has all of the removals and alterations of the critical text. The first such translation that was made was the English Revised Version in 1881, which was followed by the American Standard Version (ASV) in 1901. These are the first translations based on these newly discovered manuscripts.

The differences between these translations and the received text versions, such as the King James Version of 1611 in English, and equivalent translations in other languages, is a vast difference. Although those who sell these modern translations always downplay the differences to the masses, pretending it's just a matter of updated language. Just to quantify it, though, the modern versions are based on a modified Greek text that is missing about 7% of the words that the traditional Received Text of the New Testament contains. This amounts to thousands of individual differences in every passage and every book of the New Testament.

Being even more particular, the Westcott and Hort text of 1880 omits words 1952 times, adds words 467 times, and substitutes/modifies words 3185 times as compared to the traditionally used text of the New Testament. And overall, 9970 individual Greek words have been either removed, modified, or added. This is about 7% of the words, and makes an average of 15.4 words on every page of the Greek New Testament. Included in this are places where entire verses are removed, including those listed in the attached graphic.

So, the NIV, ESV or some other modern translation would be the anti-Bible because it removes all kinds of important doctrines and alters others. I have researched the changes and have many examples where the words removed or changed completely alter the meaning of a sentence. As one example, the words, "for them that trust in riches" are removed from this sentence in Mark 10:24 in the modern versions:

"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 KJV)

>>21057547
NIV, NRSV, etc. are all based on a corrupt text, one that was not held by the church for all generations and has changed or removed about 7% of the entire New Testament text. They aren't really "Bibles" anymore - see attached.

Some statistical background on the source for much of the modern translations:

–The Westcott and Hort text omits words 1952 times, adds words 467 times, and substitutes/modifies words 3185 times. Overall, 9970 individual Greek words have been either removed, modified, or added. This is about 7% of the words, and an average of 15.4 words on every page of the Greek New Testament.

–The Westcott and Hort text is 1952 words shorter than the received text.
–The Nestle/Aland text meanwhile is 2886 words shorter than the received text.

–The Westcott and Hort text deviates from the received text in 9970 individual Greek words
–The Codex Vaticanus (B) on which it is largely based, meanwhile deviates from the received text in around 11,000 individual Greek words (not counting word transpositions)
–The Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) deviates from the received text in around 14,000 individual Greek words (not counting transpositions)

–In Aleph and B, it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two manuscripts differ from each other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.
––B does not consider Revelation, Philemon, I and II Timothy, Titus, Hebrews 9:14-13:25 as part of the Bible. In their place, it adds apocryphal books such as Epistle of Barnabus and Bel & the Dragon.

>>20897086
Definitely KJV. The other ones are based on ignorance and should never have been made or spread.

>>20835518
It's like the modern translations in that it has some source/translation issues. For instance, in Luke 23:42, the place where the thief on the cross says to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." The NASB removes the word "Lord" and instead makes him say "Jesus, remember me," etc. And yes, this is the only place he has this line in any Gospel. So he doesn't recognize Christ as Lord in that edition. There are many such subtle changes due to the NASB through using the Alexandrian text as part of its basis (but not all of it, because this is not really possible, so each such translation is a little bit different, also the NASB has gone through three editions, the latest coming out in 2020 and removing additional stuff). Another example is where Acts 2:30 says, "Knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;" In the NASB, the word "Christ" is changed to "one of his descendants." But what is so noteworthy about "one of his descendants" being raised to sit on the throne of David? That could have been anyone that followed David, like Solomon for instance.

There are lots of such problems with the NASB/NASV, not as much because of the translators (though this is part of it) but because of the different sources it uses which say different things. This is why there are churches that won't go beyond the KJV.

>>20652523
Humble yourself before God, study the scriptures (all of it, not just the NT, the bible starts "in the beginning" so read from there).
https://www.openbible.info/topics/humble
https://www.openbible.info/topics/seeking_God

>>20587201

For me, it's KJV only