/lit/ - Literature

>>20897086
Da good an spesho book
Fbpb /thread

>>20897086
Jerusalem Bible

>>20897086
Can you guys recommend me some other good fiction stories? :3

>>20897185
Go away, tranny, stop poisoning every thread with your fedorafagging.

>>20897185
anything about gender theory

>>20897086
Read a good Jewish translation with easy access to Rashi's commentary so that you do not fall victim to the wicked teachings of the Yeshu worshipers. Preferably you should also make an effort to learn Hebrew and eventually read the Torah in the original language.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true#lt=primary

https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1?lang=en&aliyot=0

I'd recommend you get the RSV
>Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
>according to thy word;
>for mine eyes have seen thy salvation
>which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples,
>a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
>and for glory to thy people Israel

>>20897209
>uses thy etc
No.

>>20897380
I like it, it's tastefully done

don’t get one without the Deuterocanon, 1 & 2 Maccabees are incredibly kino books featuring Alexander the Great, Cleopatra and Ptolemy

>>20897380

>>20897086
They say when Americans relocated to the newly established western portion of the country on a long and laborious voyage, bringing only their most essential possessions, many would bring only two books: Complete Works of Shakespeare and the King James Bible.

For importance to Western culture and for impact on and its own value as a supreme work of literature, KJV is your answer.

>>20897192
>>20897197
seething harder

>Bible recommendations
None. I recommend none of them. Skip it.

>>20897192
Christianity tells you to forgive trannies dumb fuck

>>20897086
KJV is the only legitimate Bible translation.

>>20897202
If you want to learn biblical hebrew the best resource is Christian. It's a lot of fun for the whole family. https://www.youtube.com/c/AlephwithBeth/videos

>>20897473
dilate harder

>>20897086
Douay Rheims

>>20897538

I recommend the Weymouth New Testament which is a Victorian translation of NT. It definitely feels very nice, without being excessively archaic or vapidly modern.

>>20897086
The Scottish New Testament translation is probably the best New Testament translation ever made of it. The translator compared his writings against over a hundred other translations in 20 languages and worked on the revised edition of the Liddell Scot dictionary of Greek.
The main achievement of it apart from it being literally accurate is how he didn't write in a standard language style but according to the authors of the books he translated in different styles to reflect the fact that they never wrote in a Standard Greek but common Greek with different accents and dialects among them.
So in that sense it is the only true translation of the New Testament that has ever been made.

>>20897964
Typical bible thummping tranny chaser
Gigs of schizo torture porn and the ugliest images the site posts.

Anyone got any clear evidence for or more likely against this?

>>20897964
Seething christ-trannies

>>20897380
Thy and thee is singular, while you and ye is plural. This allows more accuracy in translation terms.

>>20898758
>no u
cringe

>>20897086
KJV is the only one that deserves that honor.

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

>>20897091
>>20897145
etc
Biscuit tin bible
https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcwdl.wdl_18411/?sp=1&r=-1.061,0,3.123,1.499,0

also
this fucking thread again

>>20897422
>every word of G*D is pure
>cannot be expressed in normal engrish
???

>>20897468
>illiterate peasants and cowboys
>most essential possession:
>Complete Works of Shakespeare
Holy fucking jesus

>>20898728
>or more likely against
Whatever you think you know early Christianity, it's wrong
Because the whole point is, early Christianity lacked a central religious head, was scattered around mediterranean, levant and horn of africa, and basically anybody could come up with visions or books, and if people followed him, well, it meant that people believed him. There wasn't any real "censorship" in the modern sense, more like different factions arising from different interpretations of different translations of different books in different times, etc etc.

>>20899176
>noooo you can't "remove" lines that weren't even in the oldest manuscripts!
Cope

>>20899262
We have the original words, God preserved them.

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

>>20899176
Almost all of these were later additions made to the original manuscripts lol

>>20899387
Yeah, they added those omissions to the originals which the received text represents.

>>20899392
Also I should say, they then tried to spread these false translations around without telling people what they removed. It was based on an era of general ignorance. People should be using the preserved text, which is best represented by the KJV in English.

>>20899398
Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja

I'm a Christian but why is contemporary Christian music so gay?
It's all mushy and emotional and feminine.
What happened to stuff like Bach?

>>20897380
>>20897422
English stopped using "thou" because it was offensive to rich people and Quakers didn't care and called them "thou" anyway, and nobody liked Quakers and they didn't want to be mistaken for them so everyone (except Quakers) started calling everyone "you" just in case
they stopped using "thou" literally because some people were getting mad at pronouns

>>20899427
>why is contemporary Christian music so gay?
It was made by judeo-secularists to subvert churches. I only go to Bible-believing New Testament Baptist churches where we sing from hymnals. Here is a useful index for finding us: https://militarygetsaved.tripod.com/findchurch.html

God bless, anon.

>>20899427
>I'm a Christian but why is contemporary Christian music so gay?
like sixpence none the richer or what do you have in mind?

>>20899474
Hillsong, Casting Crowns, etc. Or whatever that boring and soulless style of "praise music" that modern evangelical churches have is called.

NIV vs KJV?

People who insist you should cling to KJV do it purely out of sentimental motives because their particular Anglo Protestant denomination has been using it all these centuries. They feel more "mystical" and "esoteric" when reading archaic, antiquated English they don't even understand. Otherwise, it's best to stick to an accurate modern translation like NIV or NET, the latter being filled to the brim with annotations.

>>20899427
Listen to OM.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c92oGxbe6cU

>>20899652
Om is based

t. buddhist

>>20899176
>prots remove entire books from the bible
>These seven books excluded in the Protestant Bible (KJV) are Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel.

>>20899685
Those are called Apocrypha, along with lots of other crazy stuff like the book of Enoch and the gnostic gospels.

>>20899685
which bible does include them?

>>20899720
>apocrypha
They’re called the Deuterocanon and there’s nothing in them that’s “crazier” than anything else in the Bible.

>>20899747
>there’s nothing in them that’s “crazier” than anything else in the Bible.
They aren't inspired. This is self evident and it's why they are known as apocrypha because historically some false prophets have used them to argue against biblical truths. Since they aren't inspired, they can't be used to overrule the divine record of the Scriptures.

>>20899759
t. Martin Luther

>>20899784
I'm glad that you agree with me. I am not sure why you giving your name is necessary though.

>>20899759
>I'm going to listen to 15th century Jews who transcribed original Greek to Hebrew and made shit up instead of using texts from the literal time of Christ (Septuagint)

>>20899855
>I'm going to listen to 15th century Jews who transcribed original Greek to Hebrew
Wait a second there. Anon, Do you think the Old Testament prophets originally wrote in Greek? Let me just try to clarify whether that's what you think right now.

>>20899855
>>20899866
Old Test was written in Aramaic. New Test was written in Koine Greek.

>>20899874
>Aramaic
Most of it was Hebrew.

>>20899874
Actually, Ezra 4:8 - 6:18, Ezra 7:12 - 7:26, Daniel 2:4b - 7:28 and a few other isolated places are written in Syriac-Aramaic, while the rest is written in Hebrew.

According to God's word, this record of truth has been preserved until today in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. That's why it says in Luke, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." (Luke 16:17)

Why does the modern evangelical sphere have so many Judaizers and deniers of the Trinity

>>20899908
In large part because of subversion by modern Judaism. This can be at least partially attributed to the false dispensational theology of J.N. Darby and C.I. Scofield, as well as ultimately the zionist ideas it is built on, originally formulated by Moses Hess in the 19th century.

>>20899936
What exactly did they teach and how do you know if your pastor has these ideas

>>20897145
this

>>20899966
>What exactly did they teach
They taught what can be described as hyperdispensationalism. These false teachers took the regular concept of dispensations and tried to shoehorn in zionist ideology. In their day they were largely irrelevant, but their work was promoted way out of proportion by moneyed interests and people began to be indoctrinated in various levels of hyperdispensational thought. To some extent, the filth of this thought has affected most people and it requires a mind capable of critical thinking to eliminate many of these zionist predispositions that have been cooked into every school curriculum and the objectively false talmudic ideas that have seeped into the thought processes of individuals, even people who are part of churches, and even pastors.

You will know if someone has these ideas if they start talking about them in similar terms, obviously. Pastors aren't exempt.

>>20900011
Forgot pic

>>20900011
Ok thank you. Can you give me some examples of verses where zionists/hyperdispensationalists have a false interpretation, and how it differs from the real Christian understanding?

>>20900033
bump

>>20897091
Don't /thread your own post.

>>20897185
You live in God’s creation. You’re alive because he wants you to exist.

>>20897086
One month spent learning a single verse of the bible in its original languages, Hebrew or Ancient Greek, will be better for you than a thousand translations. Reading the Bible in translation is like kissing your bride through her veil. Take off the veil! Enjoy the kiss of your bride!

>>20897422
So a lot of Catholic Bibles and Literal Translations even made this decade.
Good point when it comes to discussing the trinity: Thou art Father, Son and Spirit.
Or:
Ye are Father, Son, and Spirit.
Alternatively, 'You all' could substitute this if used universally without exception in the translation to refer to Ye or the plural You.

>>20900974
I'm alive because my parents fucked, moving on Christcucks.

>>20900033
>Can you give me some examples of verses where zionists/hyperdispensationalists have a false interpretation
Sure. Look at Genesis 22:17. Here it says, (similar to how Genesis 3:15 is constructed): "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;" (Genesis 22:17)

This prophecy is clearly talking about the singular person of Christ, hence it says "the gate of HIS enemies" (emphasis added). You can see similar prophecies of the Messiah throughout. But in order to make this fit with hyper-dispensationalist tendencies, the translation of Genesis 22:17 had to be changed, (even though Paul quotes it in the above sense directly in Galatians 3:16!) and so we read in modern translations, like the NKJV and others, that the term "seed" is changed to "descendants" and the phrase "his enemies" (singular, KJV) is changed to "their enemies" (plural, modern translations). There are many such examples of this, in modern translations, as well as Scofield's footnotes to the KJV, which were very "popular," that was published back in 1917.

Many other such examples can be found, for instance in Nahum 2:2 the KJV says, "For the LORD hath turned away the excellency of Jacob," but in modern translations (including again the New King James Version) it says the opposide. NKJV text says: "For the LORD will restore the excellence of Jacob" - instead of "turning it away."

In the New Testament there are plenty of such changes, for instance in John 5:16, where the Bible says:
"And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day." (John 5:16)

The modern versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV these all remove the words "and sought to slay him" from John 5:16. They also remove the word "Good" from Matthew 19:16, "Lord" from Luke 23:42, and "Just" from Matthew 27:24, just to name a few. The word "Christ" is changed to "one of his descendants" in Acts 2:30. The list goes on and on. This is before we even get to their misinterpretations.

>>20901123
>opposide
Opposite. Sorry I should have turned on autocorrect here.

>>20899725
KJV translated apocrypha as well

>>20899176
Why doesn't it mention the Douay-Rheimms even though the KJV translators recognised their use thereof it in their notes?
>>20899398
>In 1526, Beringer's translation of the New Testament was published at Speyer. In 1527, Hieronymus Emser did a translation of the New Testament based on Luther's translation and the Vulgate. In 1534, Johann Dietenberger, OP, used Emser's New Testament and Leo Jud's translation of the deuterocanonical books in a complete Bible published at Mainz; both Emser's and Dietenberger's prose partly followed the style of the pre-Lutheran translations. The Dietenberger Bible was published in various revisions. Kaspar Ulenberg's revision was published at Mainz in 1617, and at Cologne in 1630. Ulenberg's revision was the basis for the "Catholic Bible," the revision by Jesuit theologians published at Mainz in 1661, 1662, and so on. Th. Erhard, OSB, did a revision published at Augsburg in 1722, which was in its sixth edition by 1748. G. Cartier's revision was published at Konstanz in 1751. The revision by Ignatius von Weitenauer, SJ, was published at Augsburg in twelve volumes from 1783 to 1789.[8]
Turns out Germans have their own Douay-Rheims
Now do a Spanish one. I presume Reina-Valera is... LE GOOD and all others are... LE BAD.

>>20901123
So do you reccommend sticking with KJV?
Also what denomimation are you? Do you consider this important to one's salvation? I go to a southern Baptist church with my parents. Is that good?

>>20899890
If Protestants denounce the 'Apocrypha' because it's in Greek and there are supposedly no Hebrew manuscripts thereof, why don't they do the same for the Aramaic? It's just that they were under Nebuchadnezzar rather than Alexander the Great.

The bible I received during confirmation is NRSV trash and I'm sick of reading it. Going to pick up an ESV

>>20901191
>Why doesn't it mention the Douay-Rheimms
The Douay-Reims came out in 1610. The KJV translation project took from 1604 to 1611, and they based their translation on the original Greek and Hebrew, while the DRB is based on the (Latin) Vulgate with significant differences.

>even though the KJV translators recognised their use thereof it in their notes?
What specific notes is this referring to? You're referring to one of the marginal apparatus in the 1611 Bible? I've never seen anything of the sort.

>>20901213
Yeah I think there is no reason to use anything else if you speak English. I'm not in a denomination, I just go to an independent Baptist church with no affiliations to other churches except in an informal capacity. Similar to those listed here: https://militarygetsaved.tripod.com/findchurch.html

>I go to a southern Baptist church with my parents. Is that good?
Do they use the CSB (2017 Christian Standard Bible) now? Last time I checked the SBC used this. If so, be warned that it is similar to the others that are based on Alexandrian texts. I don't really have much to say about any specific church except for my own.
>Do you consider this important to one's salvation?
Do I consider denomination important to one's salvation? No, I don't consider any church membership as being part of an individual person's salvation, since that's not what the Bible says. Being saved is based entirely on the beliefs of the individual. They need to have a saving knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But at the same time, the important thing is that there is one truth, so we can't miss that point. John 14:6.

>>20901231
No need for writing like a headline reporter.
Substantiate your claim, friend, because I haven't read the NRSV (only the KJV and portions of the ESV and NIV, and I'm Catholic) despite it being suggested and am interested in your story therewith.

>>20897135
Just looked this up. It's made by some faggot post-modernist who seethes at da bibel because of shit like le gays and le wuhmins rights.

I'll stay with my Nietzsche who can criticize christianity without inducing in cucked christian mentality.

>>20901258
The gender-neutral language, subtle blunting of violence, and intentional dejudenization reminds me of the church I grew up in and its "the bible is just an archaic collection of fables" mindset

>>20901324
What about the RSV?
I heard there was a similar issue with the Jérusalem Bible and the 'New edition'. Perhaps it is the nature of the Hebrew language to omit gender in reference to people as it is in Hungarian and many Asian languages, of which, there is scarcely any academic debate regarding such a nuance, but, as Paul said, we must strive to become everything to make an effort to save everyone even if that means sticking to the honourable English custom of the 'Generic He' which is unfortunately being seen as double-plus ungood today.
Translators are hyper-focused machines when it comes to their work, so I doubt they did it to appease Modernism, but is the result of inadvertent direct translations of grammar. In Spanish, "I hurt my foot" is "Me duele el pie", or "I hurt myself the foot": all though this is a possible construction in English, it just doesn't make sense for its usage as would "Duelo mi pie" be in Spanish as closer to the English - this is why it is important to realise the same meaning is expressed in different ways often with different words that have different meaning despite there being similar words that have fallen out of use or even grammatical sentence structures as well.
Keep reading it into the end. Perhaps you might become a translation scholar and play a part to fix this mess. Besides, once you finish it, the next translation will be be as a breath of fresh air.

Does anybody know a good edition of the Vulgate?

>>20901776
What we now call the Vetus Latina used to be called the Vulgate, before the 16th century or so. See paragraph 1.3 in this article: http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html

The Vetus Latina was originally a pretty good translation of the Greek and Hebrew into Latin sometime before 157 AD. It had characteristics of the African provincial parlance of the early 2nd century, although to my knowledge we only possess fragments of this ancient translation today unfortunately.

As for the "Vulgate" of the counter-reformation, which was put together in the Sixtine version of 1590 and the Clementine edition of 1592, it's not very accurate to the Greek New Testament. For instance, it places "born again" (renatus) instead of "born" in John 3:5. And it places "supersubstantial bread" instead of "daily bread" in Matthew 6:11. You can't find this anywhere in the original version of the Gospels. Before 1590, you just have various copies of copies with tons of variants, especially in the Psalms, and no standard form. Some people used Jerome's translations of the Hebrew in some places, but he also translated the Greek of many of those same passages as well, and this was used elsewhere. And many parts of the Sixtine/Clementine version as it finally appeared were drawn from translations made by (unidentified) people other than Jerome.

>>20901813
I mean I'm looking for an edition to buy

>>20897380
This is why I couldn't read St. Anselm

What's everyone's though on biblical or scripture analysis/criticism of the gospels and apocrypha?

Was the debate over the filioque caused by translation issues between Latin and Greek?

>>20897185
/thread

>>20902183
Who speaks like this?

>>20897086
For accuracy go with Orthodox New and Old Testament Bibles, they translate directly from the original Greek of both (aka the Septuagint).

>>20899966
If he isn't offering the Latin mass or Divine Liturgy, he's a heretic, and we are not at fault to slay them.

>>20898728
It would be pretty easy to just pick out some early church writings if that were the case.

>>20901249
>and they based their translation on the original Greek and Hebrew
The Masoretic texts are not 'the original Hebrew'. Also forensic justification is a lie.

>>20897086
Not one of them. You're better off learning Greek and reading with commentary from a Jewish historian (not necessarily a jew, but someone who studies and teacher Jewish history professionally).

>What's the translation that has both literary merit and accuracy?

>>20897086
Douay-Rheims, Douay-Confraternity, or (trades literalism for literature) Knox

>>20904626
>The Masoretic texts are not 'the original Hebrew'.
The KJV is based on the Bomberg 1525 edition and other sources for the Old Testament. It is the original words represented by various manuscripts and compiled via textual criticism into a single document. This text wasn't written or edited by the Masoretes. It's a lie to say otherwise.

The Septuagint was an ancient translation of the first five books of Moses into Greek, which we no longer have a complete source of. Later, other people translated various parts of the Old Testament, which Origen finally gathered and edited together in the 3rd century AD. To claim that Origen's work in the Hexapla comes from the 3rd century BC is a gross anachronism, one which is unfortunately repeated or implied incessantly, but which is no less true no matter how many times it's told. It actually comes from the 3rd century AD. Also, Origen's Septuagint was edited to match the New Testament - but people claim this is evidence of the NT quoting it. When by all accounts it's actually the other way around, as Origen was simply quoting the New Testament itself in his translation and editing rather than being more precise. And certain passages were clearly edited to match it, such as Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 which were changed to say 75 instead of 70, but the same editors forgot to change Deuteronomy 10:22 in the same way, so it still says 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22 as it does in all three places in the original Hebrew. They tried to change Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in order to make it match Acts 7:14, but they literally forgot to change Deuteronomy 10:22 while doing this. Also, they edited the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5, in such a way that Methuselah outlived Noah's flood by 14 years, and they removed multiple messianic prophecies of Christ, such as in Psalm 2:12, Isaiah 9:6 and Jeremiah 33:15. You can see that the messianic prophecies are removed in the Greek LXX translation of Origen in these places. Not only this, but the Septuagint of Origen also removed in total about one eighth of the entire book of Jeremiah. One can easily look any of this up for themselves, but clearly you people haven't, as you guys just come on here to be contrarian and don't actually read the BIble nor do you care - not even a little bit - about important information like this.

>>20897086
The King James is the only decent English translation. Avoid anything with notes or commentaries and the apocrypha since it's uninspired. You can read it to study why it's not inspired, but if you really study it and compare it against the "law and the testimoney" (Isa 8:20), you'll see it has no light.

>>20897185
>>20897473
>>20897545
>>20901116
>>20902183
>enter thread about the bible
>proceed to shit it up and spam it

>>20904672
Catholic bibles are absolute trash.

>>20901137
This painting makes no sense. If the sun is on the left, how is there light on the upper right of the moon?

>>20899197
The 1611 KJV is the infallible and unfalsified word of God in the English language.
Satan has been trying for 400 years to change the English language in order to confuse people's morals and cut them off from the Word of God. Transgender pronouns are the latest manifestation of this Satanic struggle.

>>20905344
It's probably a reference to the cloudy pillar. This is mentioned not only in the Exodus account but also the Psalms and some other books of Scripture. "Dost thou know when God disposed them, and caused the light of his cloud to shine?" (Job 37:15)

>>20899625
No, older translations for classics are always better

>>20900989
wrong

>>20905395
Yep. The amount of changes in these versions is drastic, and it is fundamentally dishonest to represent the removal of 7% of the New Testament as mere "updated language" full stop.

Just within the Gospels alone:

B (Codex Vaticanus) omits 2877 words, adds 536 words, substitutes 935 words, transposes 2098 words and modifies 1132 words (7578 total changes)
And Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) omits 3455 words, adds 839 words, substitutes 1114 words, transposes 2299 words and modifies 1265 words (8972 total changes)

Overall, the Westcott and Hort text omits words 1952 times, adds words 467 times, and substitutes/modifies words 3185 times. And 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.

Imagine if someone were to maliciously alter even 1% of the words of any book that was ever written. Do you think they could change it? What if it was satan that was coming up with the alterations? Because you know he's the one that is motivated to do it. The first thing the serpent said in the garden was "Yea, hath God said...?" It's the same thing with these versions.

By the way, the Westcott and Hort text (c. AD 1880) comes out to be 1952 words shorter than the received text. While the Nestle/Aland text which is used more today is 2886 words shorter than the received text. It's getting worse. They're adding even more changes, and there's no way to tell where they will ever stop. For example the NASB 2020 removes even more things than the 1995 did. The CSB of 2017 removes more than the older HCSB of 2004, etc.

If you’re reading in English the correct answer is the KJV. Obviously

>>20899966
>>20899936
>>20899908
here's a deep-dive into the history of the Scofield Bible and how Zionist Jews used it to subvert Christianity in America
https://therightstuff.biz/2020/12/03/ftn-362-tel-avivevangelism/

>>20905705
I remember that episode, it’s good stuff

>>20905395
>Not including verses not found in any of the earliest texts
Nothing wrong with this though

>>20907002
The earliest are the inspired originals, which we have. What the originals said is all that matters. Everything that deviates from that is a corruption, no matter how you slice it. And something that deviates by as much as 7%, can't be said to be a translation of the same thing. It is absolutely nothing like the real thing. See pic for more details.

>>20897086
>literary merit
KJV
>accuracy
NRSV (except that it uses gender neutral language, but that's usually indicated in the footnotes)
>both
I don't think any translation does both well. To be accurate it has to keep up with latest scholarship in work that's done by committee, which is just not very conductive to stylistically pleasing production. I would just buy the above two translations and read them through side by side, or read one and use the other for reference.

>>20905616
The KJV includes obvious interpolations like the Johannine comma, that was in none of the original Greek manuscripts until Erasmus put it in, in the 16th century.

Lectio brevior - the shorter reading is to be preferred - is a universal principle in all textual criticism. Because scribes were always much more likely to add new material to manuscripts than delete entire passages.

>>20907052
I agree, the textus receptus is indeed a corruption of the original text (Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

>>20907117
>that was in none of the original Greek manuscripts until Erasmus put it in, in the 16th century.
Nope, that's a myth and even Metzger admitted it, see the below quote. And 1 John 5:7 is original. The whole letter is written by John. It's quoted as such by many people, and the TR compilers, including Beza, Stephanus, Elzevir and others all found more than sufficient manuscript evidence for it in their day, according to John Mill, who put together a comprehensive version of the TR sometime later. While these men differed slightly in some limited places, they all agreed on 1 John 5:7 based on the existing mss.

"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.

>Because scribes were always much more likely to add new material to manuscripts than delete entire passages.
You think it's easier to accidentally insert something? Nope, it's definitely easier to remove it.

>>20907104
NRSV? The one that changes "holy men of God" with "men and woman" in 2 Peter 1:21? No thanks.

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)

Also it removes the words "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24, a removal of part of a verse that was found in no copy on earth until someone came up with it less than 150 years ago. If someone believes in that then they have to literally think God allowed His word to be lost for thousands of years, even though it clearly says in Matthew, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." And if someone is not a Bible-believer in the first place... then why even make recommendations?

>>20907104
>NRSV
ESV is better in the few occasions where it's different to the NRSV. Eg, 2 Peter 2:14.

>>20907166
>no explicit evidence
What do you want, a scribe to write "I wuz ere I interpolated this to trick Erasmus" in the manuscript?
The Johannine Comma appears in no Greek manuscript anywhere for almost 1500 years. The first Greek manuscript the Comma was found in dates from around 1500, copied from a manuscript that didn't have the Comma, and the Comma in it was translated from the Latin. So whatever proof you want about the Erasmus edition it is still a millennia and a half late and foreign to the original Greek textual tradition.
>You think it's easier to accidentally insert something?
People add marginal notes all the time: I do in my own books. It's then very easy for an absentminded copyist to add marginalia into the main body of the text. That's just one obvious way texts are expanded over time in transmission. Lectio brevior is a universal principle in all textual criticism. Your copies of Homer, Shakespeare, Plato and a hundred other authors depend on the same reasoning.

>>20907263
>The Johannine Comma appears in no Greek manuscript anywhere for almost 1500 years.
False, as the TR editors had access to many older manuscripts that had it.
>So whatever proof you want about the Erasmus edition
I'm not limiting this to Erasmus, I'm talking about the people who actually made a refined Greek text from the manuscripts. None of them had issues finding texts to support every verse of the TR. Sorry but what you say is wishful thinking at best to discredit the Bible, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that so badly as some seem to.

>>20907290
Forgot pic.

>>20907290
>False, as the TR editors had access to many older manuscripts that had it.
Care to show these manuscripts?

>>20907310
They apparently said that they did, and I believe in the perfect preservation of every word of Scripture according to the word of Jesus Christ. It's not surprising that between 500 years ago and now, we have fewer manuscripts still surviving. Here is another part of John Mill who notes this fact.

I also happen to have the Tertullian quote of 1 John 5:7 which is from 213 AD, much older than anything else we have mentioned here. See below:

Tertullian, "Adversus Praxean", ch. 25:
>He promises that when He has ascended to the Father, He will also request of the Father the Paraclete [i.e. Holy Spirit], and will send Him, <specifying> another. But we have already explained in what sense <he means> another.
>Moreover he says, "He will take of mine," as I myself have taken of the Father's.
>So the close series of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Paraclete [i.e. Holy Spirit] makes three who cohere, the one attached to the other. And these three are one, not one <person> in the sense in which it was said, "I and the Father are one," in respect of unity of substance, not of singularity of number.
>Take a further quick glance, and you will find that he whom you believe to be the Father is called the Father's vine, and the Father the husbandman, just as <you will find> that he who you think was on earth was by the Son acknowledged to be in heaven when He lifted up His eyes there and commended His disciples to the Father.
>But although in this gospel there is no revelation of "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" or of "Father, in thy hands I lay down my spirit," yet after the resurrection and the glory of the conquest of death, when He has put off from Him the necessity of any humility and now could show Himself as the Father to that faithful woman who attempted to touch Him (as a result of affection and not of curiousity nor of Thomas' unbelief), He says, "Touch me not, for I am not yet asscended to my Father, but go to my brethren" – and even in this He shows Himself to be the Son...

>>20907349
Just to clarify, Stephanus and others had manuscripts that we don't have today. Similar to how early copyists had the autographs and we rely on them to transmit to us the received text.

>>20907310
From Metzger's The Text of the New Testament:

"Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament examined since the time of Erasmus, only eight are known to contain this passage. In four of the eight, the Comma appears in the text; in the other four, it is a marginal addition serving as an alternative or variant reading. The eight are the following, listed according to the Gregory-Aland enumeration:
61: the Codex Montfortianus, an early sixteenth-century manuscript at Trinity College, Dublin. This codex was copied from a tenth-century manuscript at Lincoln College, Oxford, that did not have the Comma. Insertions elsewhere in the Montfortianus copy have been retroverted from the Latin.
88vr: a variant reading in a sixteenth-century hand, added to the twelfth-century Codex Regius at Naples.
22vr: variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429vr: a variant reading added to a fifteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbuttel.
629: the Codex Ottobonianus at the Vatican. It is of the fourteenth century and has a Ladn text alongside the Greek, which has been revised according to the Vulgate.
636vr: a variant reading added to a fifteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
The oldest known citation of the Comma is in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled Liber apologeticus (Chapter 4), attributed either to Priscillian or to his follower, Bishop Instantius of Spain. The Comma probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and may have been written as a marginal gloss in a Latin manuscript of 1 John, whence it was taken into the text of the Old Latin Bible during the fifth century. The passage does not appear in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate before about A.D. 800."

>>20907364
That's not quite accurate, as I just gave a quotation of the passage in question from the early 3rd century by Tertullian, which is much earlier than what you mentioned and he had access to the Greek New Testament. And I have three other 3rd century quotes of 1 John 5:7.

Also, forget the oldest Vetus Latina (a translation which predates the Vulgate), Codex Frisingensis and Codex Legionensis, both have 1 John 5:7, FWIW.

>>20907372
Strike the word forget. I was going to say "forget the Vulgate" because it's so irrelevant to anything, but decided against it at the last second.

>>20907364
>The Comma probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and may have been written as a marginal gloss in a Latin manuscript of 1 John, whence it was taken into the text of the Old Latin Bible
That seems to be based on an unjustified and overly complicated assumption. What happened here is simply that the verse comes from the Greek autographs, and, for whatever reason, while some defaced copies of the Greek were circulating, not all of them were defaced. That's a much more straightforward explanation that takes into account the evidence, as the text is cited twice word for word by Cyprian, once by Origen and once by Tertullian, all in the 3rd century AD and independently of each other. The reason why it wasn't cited even more is because the Sabellians, who were the heretics that Tertullian was arguing with, were already taking John 10:30 out of context and misinterpreting it, and John 10:30 says essentially the same thing, "I and my Father are one." The verse of John 10:30 is very similar to 1 John 5:7 already, so there's no point in bringing it into that debate. And multiple sources say that the Arians were responsible for spreading copies with this verse removed, which would help explain why it wasn't used as much as it might have later on, and again because John 10:30 existed.

>>20907372
We're talking about Greek manuscripts.
>Tertullian
Is a Latin writer. And it is not a quotation either. the Comma is "qui tres unum sunt" and Tertullian says "et hi tres unum sunt".
>Also, forget the oldest Vetus Latina (a translation which predates the Vulgate
Vetus Latina is not a single translation. It's a name for any of the multiple unstandardised Latin translations that were floating around before the Vulgate became the standard in the Latin church. They are not necessarily more ancient and certainly are not necessarily better textual witnesses than the earliest Vulgate or our early Greek manuscripts. Both of which where the Comma is missing. In fact Jerome translated the Vulgate because so many different Vetus Latina translations were floating around with crappy and corrupt readings.

>>20907423
>They are not necessarily more ancient
They're based on a translation made before 157 AD, according to Mill. It was written in the provincial dialect of Africa. See Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Vol. II, p. 43ff), as well as this page: http://www.bible-researcher.com/oldlatin.html

>And it is not a quotation either.
I'm not here to listen to your denials, I'm here to post facts. I'm talking about all evidence. I don't have a predetermined conclusion where I set the goalposts to get a predetermined answer and to just exclude what I don't like. That's what you seem to be doing by saying you will only look at certain types of evidence and only certain times. I'm sure if there was evidence of the kind you wanted, you, or the person you listen to, would just move the goalposts to demanding the autographs. You are listening to people who have a predetermined bias against the Bible no matter what, and this verse is one way they try to say to themselves that it has changed and can be changed. When clearly, the Bible is unchanging. It's God's word.

>>20907419
>What happened here is simply that the verse comes from the Greek autographs, and, for whatever reason, while some defaced copies of the Greek were circulating, not all of them were defaced.
So out of the thousands of Greek manuscripts we have, plus all of the translations from the Greek manuscripts into other languages such as Syriac, Armenian, Georgian etc. (that had no contact with the Latin textual tradition), the Comma was actively removed from *every single* manuscript, except barely half a dozen from more than a thousand years later which were revised according to the Latin text? The entire Greek Church, millions of Christians, were missing this Trinitarian doctrinal statement in their Bible for dozens of generations? And that somehow went missing from early Vulgate manuscripts too?

What's more likely: that, or it's an interpolation that got smuggled into the received text at some point in the Latin textual tradition?

>the text is cited twice word for word by Cyprian, once by Origen
Like your Tertullian claim, neither of these are true either. Show me where Cyprian, let alone Origen, cites the Comma *word for word*.
And it's strange how none of the Nicene Fathers quoted this killer NT verse in the bitterest of Trinitarian disputes with the Arians during the 4th century.

>>20907460
>They're based on a translation made before 157 AD, according to Mill. It was written in the provincial dialect of Africa. See Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Vol. II, p. 43ff), as well as this page: http://www.bible-researcher.com/oldlatin.html
Your own source repeats just what I said above:
>There existed by this time a multiplicity of translations differing from one another, and there was none possessed of commanding authority to which appeal might be made in case of necessity. It was the consideration of the chaotic condition of the existing translations, with their divergences and variations, which moved Damasus to commission Jerome to his task and Jerome to undertake it. We learn particulars from the letter of Jerome in 383 transmitting to his patron the first installment of his revision, the Gospels. "Thou compellest me," he writes, "to make a new work out of an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter, and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are in agreement with the original Greek." Anticipating attacks from critics, he says, further: "If they maintain that confidence is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there are almost as many copies of translations as manuscripts. But if the truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent translators, made worse rather than better by the presumption of unskillful correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes?"
"Vetus Latina" is just a name for a family of different translations that were so unreliable and wildly different to each other the Pope commissioned Jerome to make a standard translation himself.

> I'm talking about all evidence.
You said Tertullian quoted the Comma. I pointed out his wording is different, therefore it is not a quote. At best you can claim it is an allusion.

>>20907471
>So out of the thousands of Greek manuscripts we have
Stephanus and the others had excellent Greek manuscripts based on the autographs and the apographia. Just as the early church copyists did, we rely on them to bring the received text to us, and the word of God lives on now in the Textus Receptus. People who don't like this just neverendingly goalpost-set and strangely act like they are entitled to have their every whim met, they're not going to win in the end.

>The entire Greek Church, millions of Christians, were missing this Trinitarian doctrinal statement in their Bible for dozens of generations?
Of course not, have you been reading what I've been saying? The manuscripts made it to the 16th century when they were copied down into the Textus Receptus.

>What's more likely: that, or it's an interpolation that got smuggled into the received text at some point in the Latin textual tradition?
This presents a false dichotomy; and we're not dealing with "likelihoods" either, so it's a false premise. When talking about God's word, I know for a fact that it has been preserved to every generation. This is a sure knowledge, that comes from a saving knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

That's what it says in Proverbs 30:5-6,
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

That's why it says in Psalm 12, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Ps. 12:6-7).

>>20907533
>Of course not, have you been reading what I've been saying? The manuscripts made it to the 16th century when they were copied down into the Textus Receptus.
Have you not been reading what I've been saying? Which "manuscripts made it to the 16th century"? We have no Greek manuscripts with the Comma at all, except ones corrected against the Latin tradition from around the 16th century or just before. >>20907364 Out of thousands of them. Your logic is that the Comma, this crucial proof text of Trinitarian doctrine, just disappeared from the Bibles of generations upon generations of Christians and their Church: Greek, Syriac, Georgian, Armenian etc.. That it somehow disappeared from the earliest Vulgates too. It contradicts exactly what you are holding as faith.

>>20905044
Anyone who needs this many words to get their point across rather than citing a single source is only saying "I'm a sophist."
Cite sources or fuck off.

How am I meant to take the bible seriously when it literally implemented literal capeshit to stay relevant in the 12th century

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

>>20897086
Douay-Rheims Study Bible anything else is just fluff

>>20908052
>12th century
>barely even into the reinassance
Come on man

>>20905705
I just found out about that the other day. Fucking vile.

>>20905705
Just listened to a bit of that. It all makes sense now

>>20898157
Is there a translation of this quality in English?

>>20899197
More like
>every word of God is pure
>let me translate it rather than show you the original

>>20908041
Do you not know how to look things up? Anyone can look up what the Daniel Bomberg 1525 text is and see that the KJV is based on it. Anyone can look up these differences in any source of the "Septuagint" and compare it to the KJV and see the differences. Did you ever get taught how to do critical thinking?

King James = Holy Bible
Anything else = "bible"

>>20910507
This but ironically

>>20910507
There are some good foreign language Bibles too, ones that match the KJV and the original languages, of course.

>>20897086
NASB or ESV or NET for good solid translations or the Geneva Bible.if you want something more literary.
The Geneva Bible was the English bible until the KJV was enforced by law and the Geneva is what Shakespeare actually quotes. It does not contain the forced archaicisms of the KJV because it was a real "peoples translation" made for common use. It's archaicisms are actually genuine to how people of the time spoke and wrote.

>>20911661
>The Geneva Bible was the English bible until the KJV was enforced by law
Geneva Bible is good, but the 1611 translation wasn't forced by law, people just chose it willingly. There was actually a transition period until roughly the 1640s where people used either, because the early prints made by Robert Barker were unpopular and ridden with typos in the printing plates. When I say the people used it, I mean as their household bible (the Pulpit bibles were mandated, with the XL tome sized ones literally chained to it so it couldn't be taken out).

Basically, the unofficial (good) translations were the Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew and Geneva Bible (1560, revised 1599), and the official ones were the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible (1568) and lastly the 1611 "Authorized Version."

On average, The Geneva Bible and Bishop's Bible are both very similar to the Authorized King James, but they had marginal notes that either side (royalist, puritan) didn't like. The 1611 translation text is sort of like a cross of these two, with updates where needed due to Beza's latest Greek TR (of 1598) and some other improved sources. But although it is a new translation, it's still very similar in no small part due to the existence of these earlier translations. The Geneva and the 1611 both had some pretty interesting footnotes.

The only problem with the Geneva Bible for practical purposes is that it uses slightly earlier form of English, and it never received any kind of update after English was standardized in the 18th century. The KJV was overhauled in its spelling format in the 1769 revision, which is much closer to what we use today than the 1611. For instance, the word "be" was alternatively spelled "bee" 1347 times in the 1611 edition. While in the 1769 edition, the word "bee" only occurs in reference to the animal. So, the KJV is much less difficult to read than the Geneva Bible, which was last updated in 1599.

Also just as a piece of trivia, the Geneva Bible actually was mandated by law at one point. Since John Knox had worked on it, there was a law passed in Scotland in the year 1579 requiring every household with the means, to own one.

The NASB, ESV and NET in their various editions remove or modify about 7% of the New Testament because they're from the modern critical text. So not a good source of what the text originally says. This is unlike the above discussed translations.

>>20911712
ESV draws from earlier texts than the ones the KJV is based off of that differed significantly from it. I think you're being disingenuous when you say it is
>not a good source of what the text originally says

>>20911712
Also just to add to this, the big cause of differences where they exist between the Geneva and KJV Bibles are largely the product of the much larger translation team that was built for the 1604-1611 translation (at least 47 scholars), which had access to basically unlimited manuscript resources. So, more resources, more time, and just more iterations of cross-reading between translators.

Tyndale's translations of the New Testament and part of the Old in the 1520s and 30s were pretty good, but they were cut short because he was killed by anti-Bible forces. I like to imagine that if he had enough time he would have made something pretty close to the KJV.

>>20911751
>I think you're being disingenuous when you say it is
Nope, that's exactly what I mean and it's true. We can't get earlier than the originals themselves, which is what we have in the received text. Anything that's different from that, while it is interesting in its own right, is just a later corruption.

>>20911762
Codex Vaticanus is older and more accurate IMO. I definitely don't believe textus receptus could be called the original in any case.

>>20911828
See >>20907052

>Codex Vaticanus is older and more accurate IMO.
This doesn't have the Pastoral Epistles or Revelation, and is missing huge chunks of other books as well.

I believe we have the originals because of what Christ said in many places in the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament. For instance in Luke 16 it says, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." (Luke 16:17). And in Matthew 4, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matt. 4:4)

Since every word of God is important, and since we know faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17), and that every jot and tittle will be preserved (Matt. 5:18) and the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), what that tells me is that God will never fail to preserve His word that He inspired. Now for people who don't believe in the inspiration of the word of God, they might disagree with that, but then why are they arguing which Bible that believers should use? It seems a little backwards, don't you think? Or perhaps malicious?

>>20911849
I never said that we don't have the originals, I just don't find the evidence shown of the receptus (and therefore KJV) being the original very convincing. As another anon said there are verses included that don't appear in Greek manuscripts until over a millennium later.

>>20911909
>I never said that we don't have the originals
So, if you do believe they exist, then where, and what do they say according to you? And if you don't believe this, or doubt it, why not say so? Why stay so ambiguous on this point? I say this because according to the Bible, God would keep the words to every generation. So that would necessarily exclude things like Tischendorf's 19th century discoveries from a trash bin, or things only published then. It makes no sense that the inspired word of God was hidden from all mankind until one guy conveniently found it about 150 years ago. That makes absolutely no sense, for a believer in the Bible to claim this is what happened. However, it does make perfect sense for someone who wants to undermine Christianity to propose such a theory. Maybe they just want to profit by making up their own version, as most modern translations aren't even based on a single source or coherent text tradition. They are based on composites, like Nestle-Aland, which are partially received and partially from Alexandrian uncials. Each modern translation has a custom-selected mix of "eclectic" readings that it likes, which when combined with things like gender-neutral language and the relativist, globohomo redefining of words into new English words, creates a neverending pool of copyrightable works. This seems to be quite a degenerate motivation, and that's not even to factor in satan's influence, and the effects of the spirit of antichrist that wants to deny Christ - but of course the "scholars" don't claim to believe in any of that stuff.

They have a bias though, that is for sure.

>As another anon said there are verses included that don't appear in Greek manuscripts until over a millennium later.
How do you know that? Do you have every copy of every manuscript that ever existed? If not then how do you know this?

Your statement seems to claim knowledge of things you can't possibly know without claiming omniscience. There have always been manuscripts representing every verse, and after we got the TR, that has carried us forward to today. The editors themselves say that they got everything they wrote from manuscipts, some of which, like the autographs, may not be with us anymore: or you're just not aware of them. Regardless, since the textus receptus has existed since then, that matters because we've always had the New Testament unchanged since it was written, and no part of it has once been forgotten. To this end I don't appreciate people who don't even believe in inspiration, who therefore say it's been lost and that, therefore, need to constantly "correct" our manuscripts with new things all the time.

>I just don't find the evidence shown of the receptus being the original very convincing.
So seem to have avoided (outwardly) denying the existence of the inspired word, so then where is it I ask. You seem not to want to say that it doesn't exist, but that must mean you think it does exist somewhere, but where then.

The Bible verse for this thread:

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

>>20905395

Why should I become a Christian? What proof is there of an existence of a god?

>>20912267
People already know the truth of our Creator's existence and we know that we didn't create ourselves nor anything else. There has to be a first cause to all of this, of course. Still some people choose to deny this, that is their conscious choice. See pic.

As for accepting Christ, this again is just obvious. There's no reason to deny the only-begotten Son of God, as it says. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. He will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4).

>>20912327
>People already know the truth

Saying shit like this really just makes me despise you and want nothing to do with your religion.

>>20912267
Not a question that can be easily answered on 4chan. Here's a good link for beginners though:
https://inspiringphilosophy.org/explaining-god-and-refuting-objections-to-theism/

>>20897086
Read Mauro Biglino

>>20912327
>There has to be a first cause to all of this
Literal retard argument for like 250 years by this point. There does not need to be a prime mover for anything.

>>20897086
Robert Alter

>>20899427
The point isn't the musical quality itself, but that it connects you to God. The music actually makes your faith stronger if you listen regularly.

>>20911992
>So, if you do believe they exist, then where, and what do they say according to you?
I believe they exist in the form of the Septuagint for the old testament. For the new testament, I believe the new testament is spread across the multiple early codices that were written in the third century.
>according to the Bible, God would keep the words to every generation. So that would necessarily exclude things like Tischendorf's 19th century discoveries from a trash bin, or things only published then.
If you're going down that route, the same could be said of the receptus, could it not? It was made in the 16th century, therefore it couldn't be the original texts. Same with the King James Version. We should be using the Geneva or Great bibles since one of those came first.
>Each modern translation has a custom-selected mix of "eclectic" readings that it likes, which when combined with things like gender-neutral language and the relativist, globohomo redefining of words into new English words, creates a neverending pool of copyrightable works.
I agree with this for the most part. I find attempts to copyright sacred texts draconian. I don't know enough about the gender topic to weigh in on that so I'll take your word for it for the time being. I'm not sure what you mean by the globohomo redefining though. I'm not interested in any hypothetical motivation of someone who wants to subvert Christianity, since that's unproven ground we're starting to tread on.
>How do you know that? Do you have every copy of every manuscript that ever existed? If not then how do you know this?
This is such a weak argument. Of course I don't know what's in every single manuscript ever created. But of the ones we have exclude verses like the johannine comma and Acts 8:37 are notably absent for multiple centuries. Sure, maybe there's a text from around the same time that includes both of these verses but until we find it you can't definitively say whether or not they were part of the original texts.
>So seem to have avoided (outwardly) denying the existence of the inspired word, so then where is it I ask. You seem not to want to say that it doesn't exist, but that must mean you think it does exist somewhere, but where then.
If I'm being honest, I don't know. I think it's likely one of the fourth century manuscripts (most likely Codex Alexandrinus). I generally lean more Alexandrian than Byzantine when it comes to textual criticisms though.

>>20913146
>If you're going down that route, the same could be said of the receptus, could it not?
Well no, because it is based on manuscripts that said the same thing all the way back. It didn't just appear from nowhere like Tischendorf's discovery. For instance, before 1880, no Bible on earth removed the phrase "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24. So to believe that is the correct rendering is to say that God allowed all knowledge of the truth to be lost until one guy rediscovered it in the late 19th century. Contradiction with what the Bible says. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35).

>It was made in the 16th century
Right, and it's based on manuscripts that go all the way back. Also, there are translations of the Greek text that predate this. For instance the Vetus Latina, and the Wessex Gospels, an Anglo-Saxon translation of the Gospels that is based on the Greek, containing the same readings as the TR (not Vulgate). This along with the original language mss. and other people's quotations of it shows a continuity. Examples in the attached related pic shows one single example of this.

>Same with the King James Version. We should be using the Geneva or Great bibles since one of those came first.
With translations, we want to be using the highest quality TR translation there is for the language in question. The Great Bible isn't based entirely on the original languages, so it isn't ideal. The Geneva Bible, which was the first full English translation that was based entirely on the Greek and Hebrew originals, is close to 100% the same to the 1611 version, although its language is slightly archaic compared to the KJV. It's a good resource though, like many other works; maybe there's a handful of places where it doesn't completely match the TR, and I would chalk that up to the fact that it wasn't as big of a project as the 1604-1611 project was. They just didn't have quite as much time to review things as thoroughly. There's no 7% of the New Testament missing though.

>I don't know enough about the gender topic to weigh in on that so I'll take your word for it for the time being.
Check out the NRSV version of 2 Peter 1:21 as an example, where they imply based on their translation that women were inspired to write parts of Scripture. Due to the variants, they remove the phrase "holy men of God" and instead just say "men," but the NRSV takes it a step further and says "men and women" were inspired to write scripture.

>But of the ones we have exclude verses like the johannine comma and Acts 8:37 are notably absent for multiple centuries.
So if we are missing the autographs today and that's not seen as a problem, isn't it inevitable that, if you simply go far back enough, there is eventually going to be some verse that isn't represented by the small amount of manuscripts still left today? 1 John relatively speaking has very few mss in general. Why limit the evidence to just that though?

>>20908052
that was never part of the bible.

>>20913293
Also, for Acts 8:37 here is an early quotation:

>In the Acts of the Apostles: "Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If you believe with all your heart, you may."
(The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise 12, Book 3.43)

And a quotation for Revelation 22:19 (emphasis added below):
>Nor does the Scripture in this place alone bear witness to the θεότης, that is, the Godhead of the Holy Spirit; but also the Lord Himself said in the Gospel: "The Spirit is God." Which passage you, Arians, so expressly testify to be said concerning the Spirit, that you remove it from your copies, and would that it were from yours and not also from those of the Church! For at the time when Auxentius had seized the Church of Milan with the arms and forces of impious unbelief, the Church of Sirmium was attacked by Valens and Ursatius, when their priests failed in faith; this falsehood and sacrilege of yours was found in the ecclesiastical books. And it may chance that you did the same in the past.
>And you have indeed been able to blot out the letters, but could not remove the faith. That erasure betrayed you more, that erasure condemned you more; and you were not able to obliterate the truth, but THAT ERASURE BLOTTED OUT YOUR NAMES FROM THE BOOK OF LIFE.
(Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, Book 3.10)

Note: the last part of the above quote refers to Revelation 22:19, where it says "book of life," not "tree of life" as some versions have it. As the KJV has it:

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev. 22:19)

>>20912327
>didn’t actually provide any proof

For me, it's Ecclesiastes.

>>20907117
Jumping in on the comma,
What if we agreed to keep it in the text, but put it in italics, like the rest of the disputed parts of the original KJV?
What if we did this for all of the criticized segments? And merged the Apocrypha in as well, but also in italics?
I wouldn't mind an edition of the KJV that acknowledges the parts which are contested as such. Wouldn't this be good for all english-speaking Christians at least to have a more broadly appealing standard text? Just an idea.

>>20901310
>I'll stay with my Nietzsche
you're still getting cucked

>>20911712
>On average, The Geneva Bible and Bishop's Bible are both very similar to the Authorized King James, but they had marginal notes that either side (royalist, puritan) didn't like. The 1611 translation text is sort of like a cross of these two, with updates where needed due to Beza's latest Greek TR (of 1598) and some other improved sources. But although it is a new translation, it's still very similar in no small part due to the existence of these earlier translations. The Geneva and the 1611 both had some pretty interesting footnotes.

We need a conciliatory, ecumenical English bible like how the KJV was in the past, so as to get us all onto the same page. KJV seems to be the only viable candidate for a standard text, but the excuses of athiestic scholars for not using it and instead shilling for copywrighted translations (note: KJV is still owned by the british monarchs in the UK, who to this day claim apostolic succession, which is a legitimate strike against the candidacy of the KJV as a perfect text). All we need to do is follow this advice >>20915101 and we might just create an authoritative critical edition of the same standard text we KJAV-preferrers (English-biblical purists) need in order to advance our common cause.

Truly the veracity of the incidental lines most often brought up in criticism is no essential matter, when the core message of Jesus is more or less preserved in all translations. We just need to ensure that it is not corrupted in the way of splitting the body of readers into separate sects based on separate texts.

>>20897086
Burn them all!

>>20915124
Christ cucks you every night.

>>20897086
I am partial towards the HCSB myself. You really are better off having two or even three versions. A verse that is unclear in one version may be easier to understand in another. www.biblehub.com is an amazing resource for comparing versions. You can look up any verse and see literally dozens of translations of it.
Example: https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-21.htm
Scroll to the bottom and click "additional translations"

I would appreciate a good recommendation for both Orthodox and Catholic deuterocanonical books.

>>20897086
stop reading translations, pick up the original greek version

>>20900901
Yeah /threading your own post is like saying your cool. Cool people don't say they're cool.

>>20915518
It's good for showing all of the verses that are missing in the modern versions compared to KJV.

Also, not sure why you'd put these translations on a single chart like this. How is leaving out 5% or 7% of the text being more, or less, literal? It's more like they're translations of different things at that point, and not that they are more or less literal translations.